upon the present question. There were some circumstances which, in his opinion, would militate against the adoption of the proposed clause; for if the Bill, or any material part of it, was to be temporary, it would be objectionable to introduce a new principle of rating. There was another objection to altering the mode of rating, because the boards of guardians, which were now based on the representation of the ratepayers, would, under this Bill, be altered to a board of nomination, and not of representation. He was grateful to the noble Lords who were landlords in England for advocating an union system of rating, and showing that they would not put upon others what they were not ready to bear themselves. The occupiers of land, however, were too small and too unenlightened to see the real consequences of the noble Lord's legislation; they would think that advantage had been taken of them; and he urged their Lordships not to aggravate any circumstances which tended to compromise the peace of the country. It was with great reluctance that he withheld his support from the noble Lord; but he would not anticipate the decision to which their Lordships might come on his own Amend ment. clusion to refuse his assent to a principle in which he entirely concurred. And my surprise is the greater, when I recollect the very strong speech made by the most rev. Prelate in the course of last year, in which he strongly exhorted your Lordships against being actuated or influenced by public clamour or popular excitement, but declared his determination to be solely guided by the dictates of experience; and when moreover I remember that even in the course of the present Session the most rev. Prelate has placed his veto upon the principle of out-door relief being applied to Ireland in any shape whatever. The noble Marquess who followed me (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not controvert the soundness of my views; and my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Clancarty) admitted that my arguments in favour of the Bill were convincing, but declined voting for the Amendment, on grounds which seem to me to be of rather a remarkable character, for the noble Earl says that, supposing the Bill to remain as it is, and without further alteration, he conceives my Amendment would be not only wise and desirable, but actually essential indispensable to the working of the Bill; but yet he declines to LORD STANLEY: Although there has support it, upon what seems to me to be a been much irrelevant matter introduced very vague and unfounded expectation, into this discussion, and much in which I namely, that Parliament will hereafter asdo not concur, yet it would be affectation sent to a modification of the principle of in me to deny that there has been much at the measure. My Lords, although, from which, as a public man, I must feel grati- the kindness with which you heard my fied-much at which I must feel satisfied statement at the commencement of this as an individual; for although several noble discussion, I am now unwilling to intrude Lords have intimated a determination of long upon you, yet there are one or two recording their votes against the Amend-points to which I wish briefly to allude. It ment which I have taken the liberty of has been objected by some noble Lords suggesting, yet not one of your Lordships that the principle of the Irish Poor Law has in the course of this discussion spoken remains, in respect of rating, as it has done a single sentence questioning the sound- for the last five or six years, and therefore ness of the principles on which these I am not justified in dissenting now from clauses are framed-not one who has taken that in which I have heretofore concurred. up the challenge which I respectfully threw Now, my Lords, I need hardly remind out-not one has, in short, attempted to your Lordships, that this is, in point of fact, answer the arguments which I adduced in overlooking the very basis on which my support of my Amendment. The most argument rests. The Irish Poor Law, rev. Prelate whom I see opposite (the noble Lords say, has worked well hitherto. Archbishop of Dublin) has borne the Granted, my Lords; but what has been strongest testimony to the soundness of the Irish Poor Law hitherto ? Yes, I remy principles and the accuracy of my peat, what has been the Irish Poor Law views; and after that admission, I confess hitherto, and what do you now propose to the declaration of the most rev. Prelate make it? There is just this difference. came upon me by surprise, that in conse- Hitherto the administration of relief has quence of the impression which would be been strictly within the workhouse, and has produced in Ireland if this Amendment been mainly limited to the destitute poor; were sanctioned, he must come to the con- now it is proposed to extend it to the able bodied. That makes all the difference, my Lords. Do you think, my Lords, that had the operation of the present Bill been confined to the aged, the infirm, and the diseased, I would have brought forward these clauses? No, my Lords, I would have rested satisfied had the relief been confined to the existing distribution, although unjust; but my whole argument is, that under the distribution of the rate as proposed by this Bill, the occupier in Ireland, as the occupier in England, has not an interest in keeping down the rates by the employment of the labouring population; and it is by the employment of the labouring population alone that the rates can be kept down. But I will not dwell further on what must be so obvious. You are now, my Lords, called upon, for the first time, to grant relief to the able-bodied-out-door relief—in Ireland in a most extensive form; and therefore it is that I ask you to apply that which will be essential in the new state of the law, but which was not so requisite in the old. But not a word has been said, not an answer has been given to the question, How can you apply that principle to Ireland, which you could not with safety apply to England? How can that be safe in Ireland, which you will not venture to affirm will be safe in England? Now, these are the true points on which I rested the whole case. These are the true points upon which I have demanded an answer. But from the first to the last of this debate, I will not say that my arguments on these heads have been unanswered; but they have been altogether untouched, and an answer has not been attempted. But I am told that in the course of proceeding which I now oppose, I have acquiesced in the enactment of the Irish Poor Law. On the first introduction of that law, I thought it equitable to divide the rate between the proprietors and the tenants; and if now, as on the proposal of the Irish Poor Law, you were introducing a new law, imposing a burden irrespective of all existing contracts, I should think it fair to throw the burden on all classes. It has been said that the principle was applicable to the present state of Ireland. I deny that proposition. This I said, I repeat it, and I feel most deeply, that now you are about to apply, as a piece of permanent legislation, a dangerous and mischievous principle; I think that, in justice, you should lay down what all admit to be the sound principle. Let its application be as prospective as you please; but when you lay down the law, you should say at the same time what the sound principle is, and when it should be practically adopted. The Poor Law of Scotland has been referred to, and a noble Earl has alluded to the part I took on that Bill. Now, in the early part of my speech, in opening my statement, I distinctly declared that if there were any place in which the principle of a division could be applied with safety, it was in Scotland. It is true that I was a member of the Cabinet when the Scotch Bill passed, but I took no active part in it; and there was nothing in the support I gave that measure inconsistent with the course I have taken to-night. But even if I were answerable for every word in the Scotch Poor Law, there is nothing in that which in the least invalidates my arguments. In the Scotch Poor Law, legally I believe, practically I know, outdoor relief is not given to the able-bodied. By the Scotch law, there is nothing whatever to prevent the landlord and tenant from entering into an agreement whereby one or other may bear the whole weight of the poor rate. In Ireland, upon the other hand, the enactment not only does not admit of such an arrangement, but actually renders it illegal to enter into a covenant whereby the tenant is answerable for the whole of the poor rates without a corresponding reduction from the rent. My Lords, I will not much longer trespass on your time. I feel that a great majority of your Lordships will withhold your assent from my Amendment, although I fear your decision will be a most unhappy one for the prosperity and welfare of Ireland. My Lords, I deeply regret this, because the arguments which were used by those who have taken part in this debate in opposition to the course which I have suggested, show that you perceive this measure will be fatal to the improvement of the condition of Ireland-that you acquiesce in her continued humiliation and degradation, and bar the way which is now open to the fairest and best prospects of her continued and advancing prosperity. But, my Lords, if I feel this, I still more deeply feel the language and the tone on which the opposition to this measure is founded. I think that this measure, which you have decided to be sound in principle, just, and equitable-[The Marquess of CLANRICARDE: "No, no!" Why, my Lords, who at the commencement of the debate disputed this principle? It is easy now for noble Lords at the close of an argument to say "No. no;" but I should have been better pleased this Amendment which I have placed in your Lordships' hands. At the same time, so strongly do I feel as to the soundness of my views-so firmly am I persuaded of the evil consequences which will result from the rejection of this Amendment, that as the present proceedings will not appear on your Lordships' Journals, I beg to state that I shall feel it my duty for the sake of form, and only for the sake of form, to move this Amendment again on the bringup of the report, though I shall not give your Lordships the trouble either of a division or of discussion; but I wish it to appear on your Lordships' Journals that such an Amendment has been proposed, as I fear that, in future, its soundness will be more and more apparent. of that which he had advanced. So far from being the advocate of political expediency, or of having come forward as the champion of it, he had always considered that nothing could be expedient but what was founded in reason and in justice; and he had to the utmost of his power, and according to his judgment, been the advocate of what he considered to be expedient for the general good. if, in the course of the debate, the noble Lord had ventured to say that the principle was unsound, and had proved his position by argument, which would have enabled me to meet him by counter arguments. My Lords, I have heard none. Not one of your Lordships has contended that this principle is not sound and wise. I deeply regret that to this at least generally admitted sound principle, the opposition should be vested on grounds so low-pardon me if I call it so cowardly-as the difficulty and the risk of introducing it into Ireland. I think it is a most fatal declaration of the most rev. Prelate, that we ought on this occasion to be guided, not by what is felt to be the dictates of reason and justice, but that we ought to be guided by the prejudices, nay, the most rev. Prelate went so The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLIN claimed far as to say that he admitted that they the indulgence of their Lordships while he were the unfounded prejudices, of the Irish corrected a mistake into which the noble people. I regret to see what I feel is the Lord had fallen. The noble Lord had asdetermination of a majority of your Lord-cribed to him a sentiment the very reverse ships to reject this clause. I regret it the more deeply because I see from those who have addressed your Lordships, that every Peer who is connected personally with Ireland acquiesces in the view which is taken by what I feel is the majority of your Lordships' House. I remember the time when, with deep regret, I was compelled to differ on some questions from those with whom I had formerly great satisfaction in acting; and even now, if I could hope by any arguments or any inducements in my power to persuade your Lordships to adopt a bolder, and because a bolder, therefore a safer course—no personal considerations, no suggestions, would induce me now to withdraw my opposition. But when I cannot doubt that the majority of your Lordships intend to requiesce in this Bill as it stands--when I see you consider it not expedient to adopt this Amendment, then, my Lords, I bow to the opinion which I cannot doubt to be general. I will not, for the mere purpose of recording votes, give your Lordships the trouble of dividing; and I trust that those of your Lordships who would have done me the honour of supporting me on this occasion-whose sentiments accord with mine with regard to the principle and policy of this measure-I trust you will not think that I am exercising an unwise discretion in declining to give the House the trouble of an unnecessary division, if your Lordships would permit me, with all espect, but, at the same time, with a full and entire conviction of the truth and the soundness of the principle, to withdraw LORD STANLEY said, that if he had misunderstood the most rev. Prelate, he was quite ready to acknowledge his error. At all events, he hoped he had not misrepresented or misunderstood that which had fallen from almost every noble Lord tonight. The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE was desirous of expressing his dissent from the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), that his arguments had not been controverted, nor the principle of his Amendment objected to. Most certainly he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) considered that those arguments had been controverted in the course of the debate; and if he had availed himself of an opportunity of addressing their Lordships earlier, he should have directed his arguments against the principles which the noble Lord had laid down. He maintained that those principles were not in any degree sound as applied to Ireland; and he could quote the noble Lord's own eloquent words to show upon what different grounds and principles their Lordships ought to legislate for that country, owing to the difference of the law between landlord and tenant in Ireland and in England. The only sound argument advanced in support of the Amendment, was advanced entirely upon a wrong principle. It was contended, that this was a measure for giving employment to the poor of Ireland. He denied that proposition. It was a Poor Law Bill, and that was the whole principle involved in it. Dissenting as he did from the principle laid down by the noble Lord, he had not sought an opportunity to enter into the many points which had been touched upon by the noble Lord, because he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) foresaw, at an earlier period than the noble Lord did, that a great majority of their Lordships were against the Amend ment. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Clause 29, respecting accounts of expenditure, was agreed to. LORD MONTEAGLE then proposed a Clause enacting that certain clauses (four in number) in the Bill should be in operation for a time thereinafter limited. The noble Lord was understood to suggest that the clause should be inserted in the Bill, and be considered on the bringing up of the report. LORD CAMPBELL had never, since he had had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House, been more astonished than at the course just taken by his noble Friend. His noble Friend proposed the insertion of a clause, declaring that certain portions of the Bill should be enacted for a time thereinafter limited, without stating what that limitation should be. Neither in an English nor in an Irish Parliament was there any precedent for such a proceeding. Considering the Parliamentary experience of his noble Friend, this proposal would certainly not redound to his reputation as a Parliamentary leader. He was a little surprised at his noble Friend having introduced his first clause at the beginning of the Bill, declaring that the Bill should be in operation for a time therein to be limited; but now his noble Friend came forward with a second clause at the end of the Bill, enacting that certain foregoing clauses should be permanent, and others temporary. It reminded him of Sir Walter Scott's description of Melrose Abbey-that it was all buttress, and buttress of ebon and ivory." Were the Committee to send up such a report, it would stultify itself; he must therefore most earnestly implore his noble Friend to reconsider the course he had adopted. His 66 noble Friend appeared to have been much at a loss to fix upon any particular period. At one time he had proposed a year; but that would have been just one year short of the period fixed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) for the commencement of the operation of his own Amendment. The noble Lord's Amendment was to begin in 1850, while his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) proposed that the Bill should expire on the 1st of January, 1849. Such were the proceedings of those who were opposing this Bill! However, it was indispensably necessary that some period should be fixed by his noble Friend. LORD MONTEAGLE said, that what he originally proposed was, that the chairman should report progress, which he thought would have been a convenient course for all parties; but he would now move that the clause be added to the Bill. The EARL of SHAFTESBURY (Chairman of the Committee) read the clause, which provided that certain clauses in the Bill should be in operation till the 1st of September, 1850, and no longer. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE wished everything to be done regularly. He would not say anything either as assenting or dissenting from the Amendment; but merely assented to its being introduced into the Bill for the information of their Lordships, that it might be discussed on a future occasion. EARL FITZWILLIAM was of opinion that any attempt to limit to a definite period certain clauses of the Bill, while they left the remaining clauses unlimited, could only be attended with the most mischievous effects. EARL GREY was surprised to hear that declaration from his noble Friend; for on a former evening the vote of his noble Friend had been given in favour of a proposition, the inevitable tendency of which would be to bring about those results now described by his noble Friend as mischievous. Having gone through Committee, and having made some clauses permanent, while others were to cease to operate within a certain period, it would be contrary to common sense if they did not now name the period when these latter clauses should terminate. He would leave it to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) and his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) to fight the battle between them, whether the period should be one, two, or three years; no one could suppose that when they had once intro LORD MONTEAGLE had no objection to this proposal, and accordingly withdrew the clause for the present. House resumed. Bill reported. House adjourned. duced the principle of out-door relief in I Ireland, they would ever succeed, even if they dared to make the attempt, in putting an end to the system. He trusted, however, they would have the opportunity, before this measure became law, of reconsidering this most important question. EARL FITZWILLIAM protested that his only object was, to make the Bill work in a manner as beneficial as possible to the country. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 10, 1847. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. 1o Vexatious Actions; Turn- Lands. The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLIN thought that it was a wise policy to limit the operation of the new principle, that of outdoor relief, which they were about to apply to Ireland; and he did not see anything 3 and passed:- Naval Service of Boys; Drainage of inconsistent in making permanent those parts of the measure not necessarily connected with this new principle. There could be no objection to their legislating permanently on principles already recognised; while there was the greatest possible objection to adopting, unless they had previously made an experiment, principles but imperfectly understood, and, when carried out, confessedly attended with danger. The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH considered that the limitation of the Bill was due to the feelings of the people and the fears of the landlords. The EARL of WICKLOW stated, that the principal object he had in view in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, to limit the operation of the whole Bill to three years, was, to insure the attention of Parliament being early called to the effect of such a comprehensive measure on the condition of the people. He had no wish at all to injure the Bill. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE suggested that the Motion should be deferred until the report was brought up. The EARL of WICKLOW acquiesced in the proposal. Amendments postponed. LORD MONTEAGLE then moved the Amendment which had been the subject of conversation on a former evening, and which he had delayed introducing at the request of the noble Marquess, the object of which was to provide an effectual preventive against rates being made auxiliary to the payment of rents or wages. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE suggested that the noble Lord should allow his clause to be printed, and take the discussion upon it on the bringing up of the report. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. East, from Winchester, for Alteration of the Law of Marriage.-By Mr. Baine, from Westminster, and Captain Boldero, from Chippenham, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.- By Mr. Brotherton, from several places, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries.-By Mr. Forbes, from Commissioners of Supply of the County of Stirling, for Repeal of the Bank of England Charter Act. By Mr. B. Denison and other hon. Members, from several places, for Regulating the Qualifications of Chemists and Druggists. By Mr. Dugdale, from Solihull, and Lord John Russell, from Pattishall, in favour of the proposed Plan of Education. By several hon. Members, from a great many places, for and against the Health of Towns Bill.By Sir W. Clay, from the Parish of Saint Mary, Whitechapel, London, and Earl Jermyn, from Bury St. Edmund's, for Alteration of the Health of Towns Bill. By Mr. Smollett, from Commissioners of Supply of the County of Dumbarton, in favour of the Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Transference of Land (Scotland); Service of Heirs (Scotland); and Crown Charters (Scotland) Bills.-By Mr. Stansfield, from Huddersfield, against the Highways Bill. -By several hon. Members, from a great many places, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.-By Mr. Liddell, from South Shields, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.-By Colonel Austen, from Officers connected with the Administration of the Poor Law in England and Wales, for a Superannuation Fund.-By Mr. Mr. J. O'Connell, from Dunamaggin, for Alteration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. -By Admiral Gordon, from several places, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland); and Marriage (Scotland) Bills.-By Sir W. Clay, from Mile End, for referring National Disputes to Arbitration. SUSPENSION OF THE CORN LAWS. MR. BAILLIE said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had the other night stated, that it was not his intention to take any steps for prohibiting the exportation of corn from this country; but since the noble Lord made that statement corn had risen in price nearly 30s. per quarter, and there was all probability of a further rise taking place. He now wished to ask, whether the Government had any intention of prohibiting the use of grain in distilleries for a limited period? LORD J. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to answer the hon. Member's question with regard to the use of grain in dis |