Sitting of 2 May 1854

Preamble
The House met; and Forty Members not being present at Four o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow.

MINUTES.
Reported.—Ministers' Money (Ireland).
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Income Tax.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SCOTLAND) BILL—PETITION.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhaving
1174
presented a petition from the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, against the Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Scotland) Bill, and stating that a large portion of the mercantile community of that country viewed the measure with disapprobation and alarm,
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he believed that it would very much astonish the mercantile men of Scotland to hear that the Convention of the Royal Burghs—a very respectable body in its own sphere, without doubt—was in any sense of the word to be taken as representing the mercantile community of that country. These petitioners stated that in Scotland the bankruptcy laws had always proceeded on the principle of allowing the creditors, as alone interested in the matter, to have the whole management and conduct of each bankruptcy. So it was in England, also, till the Act was passed to which he (Lord Brougham) had the good fortune to obtain the assent of their Lordships in 1831. Up to that time the whole management of bankruptcies was in the hands of the creditors, subject, however (and the exception was most material), to the control of the Court; but for which control no lawyer, and, he ventured to say, no trader, in the country, could entertain the slightest doubt that the greatest abuses possible must have occurred, to the injury of the creditor much more than of the bankrupt. By the old system the creditors had the choice of the trade assignee under the Commission, and through the assignee they had the entire control of the funds, and, to a certain degree, the control also of the procedure before the Judge. He would state, for the information of the Convention of Royal Burghs, and not of the merchants of Scotland, because the latter were fully aware of it already, what was the state of things when the bankrupt's affairs were under the management of the creditors, and notwithstanding the wholesome check from the Court. Why, no sooner was the system of appointing an official assignee to co-operate with the trade assignee put in force, than a sum of between 2,000,000 l. and upwards was, within a very short space of time, collected and distributed among the creditors, which money had lain, from the supineness of the trade assignees—that was to say, from the supineness of the creditors themselves in the management of their own affairs—in the hands of different bankers to the benefit of the bankers, but

1175
to the loss of the creditors. A member of a great London banking firm had stated in his place in Parliament that his house alone would lose a profit of between 6,000 l. and 7,000 l. a year by the Bill of 1831 then under discussion in that House because the funds of bankrupts, which, by the negligence of the assignees, used to be allowed to lie in the hands of the banker, fructifying to his advantage, would, under the improved system, be speedily distributed among those who were entitled to them. In fact, in consequence of the new procedure, many bankruptcies were altogether superseded, it being found that 20 s. in the pound could be obtained out of the effects for the creditors. When the facts of the case came to be thoroughly known by those who had petitioned that day and yesterday, as they were known by the various mercantile bodies whose petitions he (Lord Brougham) had presented last Session, and this Session also, he hoped that they would open their minds to a more favourable reception of the measure; the object of which had, he must say, been loosely and inaccurately stated by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, yesterday, to be to abolish at once the bankruptcy law now existing in Scotland, and to substitute for it the law of England, whereas it preserved the Scotch law, and only introduced those improvements in procedure which had been found so beneficial in England.
Petition Ordered to lie on the table.

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that he was not about to enter at that stage of the Bill into a consideration of the whole of the points involved in the measure; but there were one or two matters connected with it, in regard to which he had heard no satisfactory statement in the course of the debate last night, and upon which he thought their Lordships were entitled to have some further information—he meant particularly the effect upon the financial policy and the government of the country which the financial arrangements of the Ministry and the present Bill were calculated to produce. Her Majesty's Government appeared to make up their minds upon their financial policy, not from year to year, nor even from month to
1176
month, but almost from week to week; and he thought their Lordships ought to have some notification as to what would be the last of their financial proposals for the present Session. Last year it became necessary to consider the system on which the permanent taxation of the country should be conducted; and the whole question of direct and indirect taxation was revived and discussed at great length. The evils and inequalities of the income tax were then reiterated, and were admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in the very able speech in which he demonstrated the difficulty of changing the incidence of that tax without creating greater anomalies and inequalities than those they wished to correct. After deliberate consideration, Parliament was induced to continue the system of direct taxation, and to repeal a large amount of indirect taxation, on the understanding that the scheme of the Government would lead to the gradual diminution and ultimate extinction within a certain fixed period of the income tax. If, however, on the commencement of a war, we were to be called upon at once to double the income tax, and to renew the doubled tax from half-year to half-year, according to the necessities of the country, what would be the result? He was quite free to admit that the Bill now before their Lordships would not affect the general question; because when the half-year was over, we should fall back again, in the natural course of things, upon the income tax of last year. But, if upon the first note of war, before any formal declaration of war was made, Parliament was at once called upon to double this income tax, then he should say we were apparently relying for the main strength of our financial resources upon direct taxation, and the whole scheme for the gradual reduction and proximate repeal of the income tax must fall to the ground. At the very same time at which the present Bill was brought forward, a strong opinion was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the system of loans to meet the expenditure of the war; yet, while the measure was in the course of its progress through Parliament, a loan was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and tenders were being sent in for it to the Bank at this moment. This loan was to be repaid in three instalments, falling due in 1858, 1859, and 1860, respectively. Now, see how this arrangement must affect the

1177
scheme for gradually reducing the income tax, the tax would reach its minimum in the year 1857. Therefore, whilst it appeared that the Government was unable to foresee, for more than from week to week, the exigencies it had to meet, it was imposing on the country prospectively in the years 1858, 1859, and 1860, additional burdens for the repayment of this loan; having previously provided that their revenue from the income tax should fall to its lowest point just when the instalments of the loan would become due. Without some explanation, this seemed to him to be hardly keeping good faith with the public creditor, because either the income tax was to be at once permanently doubled, and the whole scheme for its cessation to fall to the ground, or else the Government were pressing upon the years he had mentioned in a manner quite unprecedented—selecting the very years in which they had determined to have a minimum of direct taxation to meet these increased burdens, and diminished resources with which to keep faith with the public creditor. He thought, under these circumstances, that their Lordships ought to receive some explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to whether they intended to have recourse again to loans, or whether the direct taxation of the country was to be relied upon for defraying the war expenditure; or whether the scheme of last year was no longer to be adhered to, and the whole question of direct and indirect taxation was to be left entirely open as before. If they were to have another addition to the income tax this Session, and their sittings were to close at any early day, Parliament ought to be apprised of the proposal without delay. Undoubtedly, when the present Bill was introduced, it was intimated that a further addition to the tax might be necessary; because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, when the Government should want more money, they would come to Parliament, and ask for it; indeed, to suppose that they were to go to war with an empire like Russia, with no other provision for the contest but an extra half-year's income tax, was perfectly ridiculous and puerile. But it was held out by the Government that though further supplies might be necessary, certainly recourse should not be had to a loan. This was stated on the 15th of March, and was re-stated on the 11th of April; but on the 21st of last month tenders for raising a loan were
1178
advertised for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, therefore, thought the Government ought distinctly to declare their intentions; and if they meant to proceed upon something like a system in paying the expenses of the war, their Lordships were entitled to be informed of it. In the last European war the income tax was continued until the restoration of peace; and if that course was again to be pursued, let it be distinctly stated, so that the country might not be deluded with false hopes of the termination of this tax at the date fixed by the Budget of last year. His opinion was, that the outbreak of the present war might have been foreseen, if not as certain to occur, at least as most probable, long before the Government decided upon their financial propositions; but he was convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then determined, and he thought that the First Lord of the Treasury was also determined, that there should be no war with Russia. At the same time, he thought it injurious to the public credit of the country that an attempt should have been made by the Government, even when such an event as war was possible, to perform so difficult, delicate, and dangerous an operation, as to undertake to pay off a large portion of the public debt in order to reduce the rate of interest. Every circumstance which had since occurred had been foretold in Parliament, and the scheme of conversion had proved abortive. He would not trespass further on the attention of their Lordships, but he believed he had said enough to show that an explanation of their policy was demanded from the Government in the present aspect of affairs.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, with regard to what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he had stated last night his opinion that the finances of the country, as well as every other subject of public interest, should be fully debated in that House, and that he thought the noble Lords who took part in the discussion rendered the public a service in going into the matter. There was a portion of the observations which fell from noble Lords on the previous evening as to which he had observed then, and repeated now, that he could not be forced into premature discussion, namely, with regard to the future financial measures of the Government, in reference to the conduct of the war. It was clear that neither he nor any other member of the

1179
Government in that House could consistently enter at present into that subject, when it had been announced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in the other House, at the beginning of next week, make a financial statement, in which full explanations of the Government's intentions would be given to the public, and after that had been done it would be the proper time for their Lordships' House to discuss any parts of the Government's proposals which they might think open to criticism. As to the alleged prospect of going to war at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his first Budget, he (Earl Granville) thought Her Majesty's Government were not to be blamed because the Emperor of Russia departed from the promises he had made in the secret correspondence. It was impossible for the Government to have foreseen the position in which the Emperor had since placed himself, and looking at the position he occupied eighteen months ago, it was not unreasonable to have supposed that he would have consulted his own interests, and made the just concessions that were demanded of him. For these reasons he (Earl Granville) thought the Government were justified at the time in hoping that peace would have been maintained, although those hopes had unfortunately been disappointed; and he said that to assert that a Chancellor of the Exchequer was to refrain from effecting any change in the finances of the country, under favourable circumstances for such an operation, was to lay down a very unsound and also very dangerous doctrine. And he repeated that one great justification for the scheme of conversion of stock was, that the whole force of the objections which were stated to it when it was proposed, went to show not that the offers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were likely to be rejected, but that he was holding out extravagantly favourable terms to the public creditor.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that in reference to the speech of the noble Earl, and his allusion to the extraordinary confidence that had been entertained by Her Majesty's Government in the maintenance of peace with Russia, he must again remind the House of the dates to which he alluded yesterday. The Budget was presented to the House of Commons on the 18th of April. On the 15th of that month Colonel Rose, our Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople, informed the Secretary
1180
for Foreign Affairs that all the information he could collect indicated that the Emperor of Russia was intent upon hostile acts. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been told by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that on the same day that this despatch was received, by a strange coincidence Baron Brunnow had called at the Foreign Office, and made the most solemn declaration that all the reports which Lord Clarendon had heard were false. That such was the case did not appear from the blue book; but at all events this was no excuse at all for Her Majesty's Government. They ought not to have placed confidence in the Russian Minister rather than in our own diplomatic agent in Constantinople. Colonel Rose told Lord Clarendon distinctly that Prince Menchikoff had been guilty of a gross act of treachery, and had proposed a secret treaty to the Porte so detrimental to this country that he threatened that if it was disclosed to this country he would leave Constantinople; and yet, in the face of this alarming information, Her Majesty's Government preferred believing the Russian Minister, in direct contradiction to the statements and warning of their own diplomatic agent, Colonel Rose, sent subsequently to the warnings of Sir Hamilton Seymour. If our own diplomatic agents were not to be believed, there was little use of maintaining them abroad. Their particular duty was to discover what foreign agents were about, and whether foreign courts were deceiving this country or not; and if it was not upon them, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not know upon whom it was that the Minister of England must rely for his information upon foreign politics. Any justification of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that might be attempted, on the ground that the Government placed confidence in the statements of the Russian Minister, in preference to those of our own diplomatic agents, was futile.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must remind their Lordships that this discussion was entirely irrelevant to the question at issue. The noble Earl must be aware that the Budget of April, 1853, was drawn up under circumstances that could not have any reference to the complications in the East. The noble Earl must be aware that the whole structure of a Budget must depend upon the financial position of the country at the time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to meet the difficulties

1181
in which he was placed by what he considered, and what he (the Duke of Argyll) considered, the most dangerous proposal of the late Government, to reconstruct the income tax. The whole key of the Budget was with reference to that proposal. The conversion of stock was proposed long before war could have been anticipated, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that it failed, from circumstances which he could not foresee. That scheme was introduced on the 8th of April, and the Budget was brought forward on the 18th of April. Such a scheme could not have been decided upon in a moment, but its details, which were necessarily of a complicated nature, had to be matured before being submitted to the House of Commons. The Budget was eminently successful; it left the country with a surplus of 3,500,000 l., and he did not know how any Budget could be more satisfactory with regard to the means for carrying on the war. The conversion of stock was an entirely different question. If war had been foreseen, no doubt it would not have been proposed. It was avowedly an experiment, and even without the war it might possibly have failed. He was not at all sure, however, that even if the war could have been foreseen, it would have altered the Budget. He utterly repudiated the insinuation of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), on the part both of his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) or any other Member of Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly true that the Government were determined that, as far as they were concerned, there should be no war if, consistently with the honour and the interests of England, it could have been prevented. But it was not true that any one Member of Her Majesty's Government wished war to be avoided by any measure that would sacrifice that honour or those interests.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that with the knowledge he must have had of what was contained in the blue books, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must, unless he were the blindest man in England, have been aware at the time he introduced his Budget that war was impending. Though it was the duty of the Government to avoid war as long as possible, yet it was also the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to hazard financial operations without regard to its imminency.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that so far from the Secret Correspondence leading the Government to expect war, if the Emperor of Russia had adhered to the principles of that correspondence there would never have been a war. The particular dispute concerning which that correspondence took place was actually settled by negotiations.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped that the observations he was about to make would not be objected to by any noble Lord, as irrelevant to the matter. My revered friend the late Mr. Wilberforce, when he supported me in the House of Commons, when we successfully objected to the continuance of the income tax after the peace, said, and justly and wisely said, that it was well to keep that tax wedded to war. The principal objection he (Lord Brougham) had taken to the renewal of the tax ten years ago, and again four years ago, was that it was not required by necessities entailed upon us by war. But now, unhappily, that "pernicious spouse," to use the words of the Greek poet, of that pernicious tax, had been inflicted upon us. Let us hope and trust, not that the union between them would last long enough to give us time to alter our system of finance—if that should require much time—but that pains should be taken so to amend it, that this tax should not survive the war.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly; and passed.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL—

  QUESTION.
  LORD BERNERS,in presenting a petition of the guardians of the Poor Law Union of Cosford, in the county of Suffolk, complaining of the operation of the present laws of settlement and relief, and praying that the laws of settlement and removal might be repealed; that an Act might be passed whereby the poor might be entitled to receive relief in the place of their residence, and that rateable property throughout the kingdom might be made chargeable in an equal degree towards the expenses thereby incurred—said, he did so because he considered that it was due to their Lordships that some explanation should be given as to the cause, and some information as to the occurrences which had taken place from the 10th of February to the 13th of April, and which had led to the abandonment of the measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government

  1183
  upon this subject (the Settlement and Removal Bill). The present was not a party question, and he would for a few moments refer to the history of the Bill in the other House of Parliament. It was well known to their Lordships that the injurious oppression resulting from the laws of removal and settlement was no new subject; for so long ago as the year 1735 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the question. Various changes had taken place in the law since that period; and in the years 1844, 1845, and 1846 the law formed the subject of various discussions in the other House; in 1847 a Committee was again appointed, and considered the matter; and in 1848 Mr. Buller, the then President of the Poor Law Board, sent out a Commission, consisting of eight gentlemen, well qualified to investigate the subject. That Commission went into the rural districts, making full reports as to the injurious effect of those laws, and the right hon. Gentleman who now so ably filled that office (Mr. Baines) followed up those inquiries in 1850 by collecting the reports of all the Poor Law Inspectors; and the general opinion with respect to those laws was found to be that contained in the petition he now presented to their Lordships' House; that they were unequal and unjust, oppressive to the ratepayers, while at the same time they were most detrimental to the interests of the poor, in many instances confining them to their own parishes, preventing them from obtaining work out of their own district, and depriving them in consequence of many comforts. Indeed, that petition was but the echo of about 105 which had been previously presented to the House. He need not refer alone to the evidence taken before the Committees of the House of Commons, but to the able Report of Mr. Coode, and to their Lordships' Committee, for recommendations in favour of the repeal of those laws, as being injurious to the ratepayer and employer and unjust to the labourers. They recommended that the area of rating should be extended, and stated that one of the greatest difficulties connected with the subject was that which had reference to the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers, and to the question whether they could be included in a general measure. It had been stated both in that and the other House that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with them; and the matter which required explanation was, how it happened
  1184
  that after the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board had brought in his measure, another distinguished Member of the Government had introduced an element which, as was well known, led to the abandonment or defeat of that measure. Last year a Bill which he had the honour of introducing was not pressed, in consequence of a pledge given that Her Majesty's Government would themselves bring forward a measure on this subject. He could not help thinking that after that measure was brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, and after an allusion had been made to it in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, at least their Lordships should, when they found it had been abandoned by the Government, have some explanation as to what had led to its abandonment. The latter part of the question which he had put upon the notice he trusted that the noble Earl would also condescend to answer. The discussions which had recently taken place upon the income tax rendered it more necessary that some explanation should be given as to the views of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. He would not trouble their Lordships with any figures, but begged to recall to their recollection that the burdens occasioned by these laws were recognised not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in the Resolutions of the Committee of their Lordships' House, as being very heavy. The land tax, which could only be called another property tax, also bore very heavily all over the country; that tax was made perpetual by the 38th of George III. on the failure of the Government of the day to carry the succession duty; and he could very well remember that when the noble Earl was pressing on that measure in the House last year he pointed out that it was necessary to carry it in order that the income tax might be gradually abolished. Thinking that some explanation was necessary, he wished to ask the noble Earl at the head of the Government what steps they were prepared to take to remedy the evils complained of in the petition, and whether the Scotch and Irish poor would be included in any measures they introduce; also, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to relieve real estate from any portion of the burden at present levied upon such property exclusively under the head of poor rates?
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, it is unnecessary for me to say, as

  1185
  the noble Lord is aware of it already, that Her Majesty's Government entirely agree in the prayer of the petition presented by him; that it was their intention to give effect to the abolition of the law respecting the settlement and removal of the poor; and that an Act was introduced into the other House of Parliament to accomplish that object. My answer to the question put to me with respect to the Irish and Scotch poor being included in that measure is, that there must be an extensive inquiry as to the effect of including the Scotch and Irish paupers in any such measure before they could be so included. Circumstances have occurred which have led to the suspension, but not to the abandonment, of the measure in the other House of Parliament, and a Select Committee, to inquire into the state of the law affecting the removal of the Scotch and Irish poor, has been appointed, I believe, or is to be appointed this very day. Your Lordships will then see, by the Report of that Committee, whether it is possible to ingraft into the same law a measure affecting the removal of the Scotch and Irish poor, or whether a separate measure will be necessary. I fear, from the nature of the inquiry which must take place before legislation on this subject, there is no prospect of any measure being introduced in the course of the present Session, and I think it is impossible, until the result of that inquiry is known, that any measure should be proceeded with which should be applicable to the English poor alone. In answer to the latter part of the question, I may say that provisions have been already before the House to extend the area of charge-ability of rates, but we do not contemplate a national rate, neither is it our intention to make any change in the charge of real property to the poor rate. All I can add is, that it is highly important that the Committee should make their Report as speedily as possible, in order that legislation should take place early next Session.
  LORD BERNERSsaid, it was quite true that by one of the clauses of the Government Bill the area of rating was extended, but it did not go far enough, and in some cases that extension would prove a positive injury to country parishes, as in the instances where they were situated near towns. He thought that if a large class of property now exempt paid its quota much of the opposition to the Bill would be done away with.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the noble Earl had said nothing as to the present intentions of the Government, which he thought was what his noble Friend wanted to know. He warned the House of the danger of a Union rating. The establishment of a poor law at all was opposed to all the principles of political economy; and unless the funds raised by a poor law were administered under small local boards, the effect would be to swamp the whole property of the country. He believed that the mode of administering the poor law adopted in Ireland was the best and safest that could be carried out. There a pauper was relieved by the electoral division, if he had resided in it for twelve months out of three years before he became chargeable; if he was not a resident for twelve months in any one electoral division, he was chargeable on the Union. Again, there was but a sparing administration of out-door relief in Ireland. He believed that if the English Poor Law was administered as the Irish Poor Law was in Ireland, English ratepayers need have no fear of being swamped by Irish paupers. By the last return of the Poor-Law Board the Poor Law expenditure in England for the year ending Lady-day, 1852, was 6,800,000 l. Of this sum 4,800,000 l. was expended in actual relief; and of this sum 3,000,000 l., or three-fifths of the whole, was expended in out-door relief. Let him contrast that with Ireland. The total expenditure in Ireland for the year, up to the 29th of September, 1852, was 833,000 l., out of which but 4,917 l. was expended on out-door relief. In England the cost was 5s. 5d. per head of population; in Ireland it was only 2s. 7d. He trusted, therefore, the Government would endeavour to engraft upon their Bill, if not the whole, at least the leading principles of the Irish Poor Law Act. But, whatever they did, he would oppose any measure which did not do full justice to Ireland in respect to removals. The noble Earl and his Colleagues in the other House had admitted that the case made out for Ireland was a triumphant one, and there was no principle of justice or equity which entitled a pauper from Northumberland to relief in one of the London parishes without removal to the place of his settlement, while if he were born on the other side of the Channel, he should be sent back to his native country. He knew cases in which English paupers had been relieved in Ireland. There were not many such cases, he

  1187
  admitted; but, whether many or few, did not affect the principle of reciprocity.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that the Government were only waiting in respect to their determination relative to the removal of Irish paupers until they knew the result of the inquiry about to take place.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYtrusted that the questions included in the discussion having been now fairly raised that they would not be allowed to rest until the difficulties connected with them were satisfactorily solved. Their Lordships might rest assured that the affections of the Irish peasantry would never be wholly secured for this country as long as they saw the Irish labourer in England who might happen to be struck down by want or sickness denied the relief to which the English labourer was entitled under similarly distressed circumstances in Ireland. Instances of distress affecting English residents in Ireland were not altogether unknown, as he could testify from his own experience; and although the English peasantry did not resort in great numbers to Ireland, yet English soldiers were very commonly stationed there, who not only were sometimes reduced to the condition of paupers themselves, but likewise not unfrequently begot paupers as well.
  LORD BEAUMONTsaid, there was one point which was always entirely overlooked in these discussions, and that was that the area of taxation ought to depend upon the nature of the settlement. If there was a parish settlement, it was just that the parish should be the area of taxation; if there was a union settlement, there should be a union rating; and if there was no settlement at all, as some recommended, the rate should be national. He admitted that considerable advantages would be derived from the abolition of the law of settlement altogether; but, on the other hand, when they reflected that a parish settlement had the effect of making those who paid the rate interested in keeping down pauperism; and that a national rate would leave to those persons only a slight interest in watching over the expenditure of their district, they would see that the subject was one of no ordinary difficulty. He was satisfied with the answer given by the Government on the present occasion, because he was glad that the Bill introduced into the other House by the President of the Poor Law Board had been referred to a Select Committee with the view of un-
  1188
  dergoing mature and deliberate consideration. There could be no doubt that the law, as it present stood, was extremely bard upon the Irish poor; but the noble Earl opposite should remember that it was only when they became permanent paupers that boards of guardians in England ever thought of removing them to their own country. At the same time he should be glad to see the law altered.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

  THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved the following Resolution—
  "That this House will not read any Bill a Second Time after Tuesday, the 25th of July, except Bills of Aid or Supply, or any Bill in relation to which the House shall have resolved, before the Second Reading is moved, that the Circumstances which render Legislation on the Subject Matter of the same expedient are either of such recent Occurrence or Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the said Bill necessary."
  The noble said he believed, that if their Lordships would adopt the Resolution, that it would have the effect of enabling them to draw their deliberations to a close at an earlier period of the year than had hitherto been the case. A restrictive principle of a similar nature had been already adopted in reference to private business, and with the best effect, because the parties interested were thereby induced to prepare and press forward their Bills, and the Committees exerted themselves to expedite them; and he could see no reason why they should not extend the rule to public business as well. And to show how necessary it was to adopt some rule of the kind—if their Lordships wished to give a due consideration to the measures that came before them—he would refer to the experience of the last Session of Parliament, which commenced in the month of November. During the last Session there were no less than 136 public Bills passed; but of these only forty had been passed up to the end of July; so that in the month of August no less than ninety-six Bills received the Royal assent, sixty-two of which were read a second time after the 25th of July. Now, it must be evident at the first glance that sufficient time was not allowed for the consideration of the many subjects involved in these Bills. It had been said sometimes that their Lordships' House was merely for the purpose of registering the deeds of the other House of Parliament—that, in fact, they were almost useless for the purposes of legislation. But really

  1189
  the experience of last Session would seem to justify such a conclusion, and give the charge some weight, when it was considered how numerous were the measures that had been so quickly disposed of. He would only say, in conclusion, that he believed the Speaker of the House of Commons and several of the most influential Members were in favour of the proposal which was embodied in his Resolution.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he remembered ever since he entered Parliament, now nearly fifty years, the complaints now made by the noble Lord having been made in that House over and over again, and there must, he thought, be some very great difficulty in remedying the evil; since, notwithstanding the multitude of complaints which had been made, it still continued unabated. The attempt now made by his noble Friend might produce some effect; but he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was not very sanguine as to the result. Their Lordships might, however, adopt it, at least as an experiment, and they would then see what effect it would have during the present Session. He believed the tendency of the Resolution would be to expedite the progress of Bills in the House of Commons, and enable them to be laid before their Lordships at an earlier day than at present. The qualifications contained in the Resolution were necessary ones, for it would be impossible to bind the House not to read a Bill a second time after the 25th of July. It was absolutely necessary for Bills of aid or supply, and other measures described by the noble Lord, to be taken from the strict application of the rule, or otherwise he was not sure how far it would be right for the House to name arbitrarily a day after which their Lordships would not hear or proceed with public measures. However, without being sanguine as to the effect of the Resolution, he thought the object was a good one; and as he understood that several influential Members of the House of Commons took the same view as the noble Lord did, he would not throw any obstacle in the way of a fair trial of the experiment in the present Session.
  LORD BEAUMONThoped their Lordships would not agree to the Motion. That they should say beforehand that after the 25th of July they should then and there stop the whole Parliamentary business of the country, appeared to him to be almost unconstitutional. Parliament was supposed to be sitting continually, and if the House
  1190
  of Commons sent up a Bill to their Lordships after the 25th of July, they were bound to take it into consideration, though of course they were at perfect liberty to postpone it, to pass it, or to reject it, just as they thought proper. Why should not their Lordships be in that House attending to their duty after the 25th of July as much as before that date? As Peers of Parliament it was their duty to attend, and he was unwilling to announce to the world that they were passing a Resolution to enable them to evade their duty in order to enjoy the summer months in the country. He protested against the Resolution, as being an attempt arbitrarily to limit the duration of Parliament, to prevent their Lordships from discharging their duty, and to violate the principles of the Constitution.
  LORD REDESDALEbelieved that, so far from the Resolution enabling their Lordships to shrink from their duty, it would be found practically of great usefulness, and would induce them to proceed with public business with due despatch, unless a particular reason existed for deferring it. As to the Resolution being unconstitutional, it was only carrying out an old standing order of the House. In 1668, an order was passed in reference to a Bill which came up from the House of Commons, requiring that no discussion should take place upon Bills introduced after a certain date in the Session.
  In reply to a question from Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
  LORD REDESDALEstated, that if his Motion were agreed to, it would become a sessional, and not a standing order.
  On Question, agreed to.
  House adjourned to Thursday next.