1

MR. CRIPPS observed, that the hon. Member for Stroud had taken the opportunity afforded him by this Bill of speaking in favour of a clause of his own which stood on the Paper for this day. His hon. Friend said, that this Bill had caused a ferment in all the towns in England. Now, he could only say that he had himself presented twenty petitions in favour of the Bill, and he had not heard one single objection out of doors against this measure. He believed that the measure would not have the effect of raising the rent of cottages. The rates were, in point of fact, now paid by the landlords. Whether the machinery of the Bill was perfect or not, was another matter; but he thought that the Bill was capable of being reduced into a very tangible and practical shape. No system was more liable to abuse, and was more capable of being abused, than the system of excusing persons from the payment of rates on the score of poverty. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee; and he felt confident that, sooner or later, the identical principle of this Bill would become the law of the land.

would at once perceive the important cha- 6s. or 7s. in collecting a rate of 9d. or 10d. racter of this measure. The persons who Now, he proposed to carry out in his Bill built houses for the accommodation of la- the principle of drawing a distinct line bebourers were generally industrious trades- tween the class of cottages which were to men, who had laid up 100l. or 2001., and be rated, and those which were to be exwho having sufficient time to spare, were cluded, so that both might distinctly apenabled to collect their own rents, and were pear on the face of the rate-book. He thus induced to invest their money in would suggest the exemption of all houses building in their own neighbourhood. Now, under 5l. value in the rural districts, and if this measure were passed into a law, it under 81. value in towns. He begged parwas quite clear that it was not the owner don of the House for detaining them so but the occupier who would have vir- long; but he thought it better to give his tually to pay the rates imposed under reasons for the views which he enterit. Those who took a comprehensive tained. view of the subject were aware that the speculation in the building of those cottages for the labouring classes conferred a great advantage upon the poor; but if this measure were passed, it would impose a penalty upon the speculations of men who were so useful to society, and would throw an impediment in the way of building houses for labourers. If they agreed to the measure, they would reduce the cottage accommodation for the poor in a very great degree; they would oblige many who now dwelt in single cottages to reside in lodgings; and would cause many families who now occupied two rooms, to reduce their accommodation to one. The men who built those rows of houses for the labouring classes, calculated on a certain interest for their money; but the imposition of this rate would reduce that interest, and consequently have a great tendency to lessen the amount of speculation in such buildings. Thus the effect of the measure would be, to deprive the poor of cottage accommodation, whilst it would defeat its own object by increasing the poor rates. He had a measure before the House which would draw a line distinctly between those cottages which were to be rated, and those which were to be excluded, and which would, in his opinion, be a great improvement on the present system. Under the existing law, persons requiring to be excluded were obliged to go to the parish officer and make an application for the purpose. He then went to a magistrate; an inquiry took place into the capacity of the man to pay 2s., perhaps, for his cottage; and this led to so much practical difficulty in many cases, that the law was not carried out. One consequence of the present system was, that the overseers were often put to very great expense in collecting small sums, so that the expense frequently exceeded the rate; indeed it had happened that the overseers were obliged to expend

MR. V. SMITH thought that exemptions, whenever they were allowed, were exercised in favour of the owner, and not in favour of the occupier; and he had himself known cases in which the owner of a cottage attended a vestry meeting, and obtained exemption for it, and then returned home and charged his tenant an increased rent in consequence of the exemption. He believed, farther, that exemption tended to encourage cottages of an inferior class, unfit for the poor to live in; and he hoped that if this Bill were to pass, it would encourage the building of cottages of a superior class. He wished the principle contained in this Bill-that of charging the owner instead of the occupier-was carried farther than it was, as he believed that

much of the unpopularity of the poor law | the cottage was situate in another. He arose from the rates being levied on the further thought that this Bill would not tenant, though, in fact, the owner, it was well relieve the poor, as they were still liaknown, paid in the end. The only objec- ble to have their rents distrained for the tion he had heard to the Bill was, that a rates. He gave the hon. Member every Committee was now sitting up stairs, which credit for his intentions, but he could not must consider the question of rating, and support the Bill. that it would be injudicious to proceed with this Bill pending their decision.

MR. BUCK supported the Bill, and insisted that the exemption from rate at present was unduly in favour of the manufacturing interest, and of those who lived in the towns. The Government seemed to consider in all things, not the landed interest, but only the towns.

MR. GRIMSDITCH reminded the House, that in times of great public distress and pressure upon the working classes it was next to impossible to get rent from them; the owners of the species of pro

occupiers to remain there at such periods; but it was now proposed to make those owners not only allow that, but pay the rates. If this Bill were to become a law, it would operate most injuriously upon the poor.

COLONEL THOMAS WOOD said, that a Committee had sat upon this question, and the evidence of all classes-magistrates, clergymen, and others—was in favour of the principle. His hon. Friend was about to propose a clause exempting towns from the operation of the Bill; not that he thought such an exemption was just, but they must take only such measures as they could carry. As to the encouragement of pauperism, he read an ex-perty in question often permitted the poor tract from the report of the Commissioners of Local Taxation, setting forth that one of the most active causes of pauperism was the practice of exempting small cottages from taxation. The case of Liverpool had been referred to; and certainly that was a case of grievous hardship. By exempting from rates all houses under 201. a year rent, the burden of the poor rate was thrown upon 6,000 houses, to the manifest oppression of the owners of that property. This Bill would remedy that inconvenience, as Liverpool was not under a local Act, and, therefore, would be subjected to the operation of this Bill. He hoped the Government would think better of their opposition to this Act, and that, in consideration, at least, of the report of the Commissioners of Local Taxation, they would allow it to go into Committee.

CAPTAIN PECHELL objected to the Bill, on the ground that it would deprive parties rated under 61. from attending vestries. He could not see that the Bill, in its present state, was for any other object than the disfranchisement of the class of ratepayers alluded to. The hon. Member for Cirencester said, there was no objection to the Bill out of doors; but he (Captain Pechell) found that several petitions had been presented against it, and more would be presented before the Bill was allowed to pass into a law.

COLONEL SIBTHORP had always been a friend of the poor, but, at the same time, he had a right to consider all parties; and when they talked of assessing owners, the House ought to remember there was often a difficulty of finding the owner, as the owner might live in one county, while

MR. HENLEY opposed the Bill. At present the poor rate was not upon property, but upon the occupier in respect of property; it was now proposed to alter that principle with respect to the poor man. The poor man had now a complete exemption from rating at all if he could prove his poverty; this Bill would virtually repeal that exemption. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Buck) complained that people in towns were exempt to a greater extent than those in the country; but how were people driven into the towns, but by the gentlemen in the country refusing to build cottages on their estates? The great difficulty of the poor in this country was to get houses to hide their heads in at all.

MR. ALLIX thought it was hardly fair to call upon the poor man, who was receiving relief one week perhaps, to pay poor rate the next week.

MR. CAREW was certain that if those hon. Members who intended to oppose the measure had seen the scenes of distress which he had witnessed, arising from the attempts made to levy rates where the persons were unable to pay them, they would vote with him for the second reading of the Bill.

SIR J. PAKINGTON did not think that the poor tenant would derive any benefit from the transference of the payment to the landlord, as the landlord would be sure to

cure to the Improving Tenant a sufficient Permanency of 'Tenure of the Land in Ireland, and a right to Compensation for Permanent Improvements.

IRISH IMMIGRATION-MONETARY

AFFAIRS.

LORD BROUGHAM said, he had to present a most important petition which had been entrusted to him by a highly respectable body of gentlemen in Liverpool. The petition was from the select vestry of that town; it was signed by one of the

cautioned English Gentlemen to beware lest the same rules they were now laying down for Ireland should come to be pretty strictly enforced on this side of the water also. He was unwilling to take upon himself the invidious distinction of opposing this Bill on its second reading; but he should feel obliged to do so, unless he got a distinct assurance from some Member of Government present who took an interest in Irish matters, that they would not consent to its passing in the shape in which it then stood. If they gave him that assur-rectors, as chairman of that body, and by ance, he should content himself with protesting against it at present, and try to pull it to pieces as much as he could in Committee. [Cries of "Move."] Well, then, he begged at once to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six

months.

the vestry clerk, and was sealed with the seal of the vestry; it represented the grievous infliction sustained from the number of Irish paupers who were coming over still more rapidly than formerly. The petitioners stated, that 150,000 had arrived since the 1st of December last, according to official returns; but they had reason to know, and they believed, that very nearly 30,000-between 27,000 and 28,000—had arrived, exclusive of those shown by the official returns. The total number, therefore, consisted, within a trifle, of 180,000. The petitioners further stated, that 105,000 out of this number remained in Liverpool, and were there now in a state of perfect destitution; that many cases of grievous diseases prevailed among them, the effect of which must be a wide-spread contagion. He begged their Lordships to consider what must be the effect of thus adding between one-third and one-half to the whole population in four months. The petitioners reminded the House that this increase was not one of the people of all classes, but of the poor— that, whereas the Irish Catholic poor in Liverpool amounted usually to between. 70,000 and 80,000, they were now no less than 180,000. They then added a hope that their Lordships would pass an Irish poor law with all possible expedition, and in that law restrict the passing of Irish paupers from Ireland into England, and facilitate the passage from England into Ireland of Irish casual poor, which would be the means of relieving them of vast expense. The petitioners, however, were of opinion that the Irish poor law recently passed by the House of Commons would not materially relieve the parish of Liverpool, because the facilities of gaining relief in England, and the amount of relief given, would so greatly exceed that in Ireland, that the paupers would continue to flock over into England as numerously as -From Coleraine, for the Adoption of a Measure to se- before. In corroboration of that opinion,

MR. MONAHAN (the Solicitor General for Ireland) regretted very much the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Labouchere). Several other. Members of Government were also necessarily absent; and, as the present measure was one of considerable importance, and required the best attention of the House, he would respectfully put it to the hon. Member for Rochdale to allow the debate to be adjourned for the present. If the hon. Member declined to accede to that request, he begged to say, that so far as he was personally concerned, he would not take upon himself, in the absence of the other Members of Government, to oppose the Bill; but neither would he be understood by his silence as pledging himself, or those with whom he acted, to the details.

MR. CRAWFORD felt unwilling to object to the adjournment of the debate, if another day could be fixed for resuming it. Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at Five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, April 29, 1847.

MINUTES.]

PUBLIC BILLS. 2a Poor Relief (Ireland) Landed Property (Ireland).

Reported-Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Prisons (Ireland).

3 and passed: -Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Shef

field, in favour of the Proposed Government Plan of Education; and from Howden, and a great number of other places, against the same measure. - From York, in on the same footing with the Poor in England.-From Cloyne, and Ross, for the Adoption of the Proposed Government Measure for ensuring the People of Ireland a sufficient Supply of Food to save them from Starvation.

favour of an Irish Poor Law, placing the Poor in Ireland