wished to call the attention of the House to a petition which had been put into his hands from Henry Edwards, who had been committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms under Mr. Speaker's warrant. The petitioner stated that he was now in custody; that he had never, to his knowledge, committed a Breach of the Privileges of that House; and submitted that he ought not to be condemned unheard, nor punished by imprisonment, without having an opportunity of making his defence. He further stated that he was ready to go before the Committee and answer every question they might desire; and prayed that he might be set at liberty on undertaking to obey the directions of the House. He begged to move that the petition of Henry Edwards he printed with the Votes, and taken into consideration to-morrow.

wished to ask if the petitioner had not voluntarily surrendered himself?

replied that he had done so.

said, he could have no possible objection to the Motion, but he could throw no more light on the subject than he did yesterday, unless the House should order the shorthand writer's notes to be printed. This person, Henry Edwards, was committed by the House, not as an absent witness, but for having concealed others, and by corruption. It was on that ground this man had been declared guilty of a Breach of Privilege, and that he was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that he should be committed, and he was quite sure the Committee would be unanimously of opinion that he should not be discharged.

wished to know if the matter was to come on at twelve tomorrow?

said, the Motion was not that it come on at twelve to-morrow, but that it come on to-morrow.

said, then, as there were several other matters which would take up a great deal of time, this would not come on at all.

must appeal to the right hon. the Speaker, whether this man, being in custody, and asking for his discharge on certain allegations, was not entitled to be heard?

said, he was not entitled.

said, he should move that the petition be considered to-morrow. A member of the man's family had felt it very much—his wife.

said, it would be a bad precedent to accede to a petition on the ground of family circumstances.

informed the House, that the Agent for the petitioners having been examined before the Committee, has declared that the evidence of James Skegg and Thomas Burchmore is most material for the purpose of substantiating distinct acts of bribery against the Agent for the sitting Member, and that notwithstanding warrants have been issued, and the utmost exertions have been used to serve such warrants upon the said James Skegg and Thomas Burchmore, and to procure their attendance before the Committee, all such attempts have hitherto failed in securing that object. Under these circumstances he should move that James Skegg and Thomas Burchmore, having absconded from the service of a warrant, have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege.

said, the hon. Gentleman said the Agent stated that the evidence of these witnesses was necessary; he did not say that the Agent stated upon his oath that he had any knowledge these parties had absconded.

said, the depositions of these people were taken upon oath, and the Agent swore that their evidence was necessary to substantiate distinct acts of bribery; that after haying made those depositions, warrants were issued against them, which were sent to their homes and their places of occupation; but they were absent, and had not hitherto returned to them. Advertisements had been inserted in the newspapers offering a reward, the police had been put on their track; but notwithstanding all these steps, they were not to be found. He contended, therefore, that they were wilfully absent, and under these circumstances he made this Motion.

begged to ask the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress had been made towards the settlement of the frontier between Turkey and Persia, and whether the rumour that Astrakan had been ceded to Russia was correct; and also whether there was any truth in the report that the Turkish Go- vernment were negotiating a loan with this country?

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would, in private, in-form him what specific details he required for any purpose he might have in view, they should be readily supplied to him. The House was aware that the British and Russian Governments had for some years past been mediating between Turkey and Persia in relation to various differences that had threatened to involve those Powers in war, both of which insisted very pertinaciously, and often very wrongly, on their supposed rights; but he was happy to say that an arrangement was very likely to be made which would settle the main question, and leave only the local matters to be decided by the commissioners. The mediation, in fact, commenced under the late Sir Robert Peel's Government. By this mediation a treaty of peace had been effected, in which certain lines of boundary were described, and under which certain towns, which had been matters of dispute, were to be given up on either side. Four commissioners, an English, Russian, Turkish, and Persian, were appointed to mark out the boundaries indicated in the treaty, but no satisfactory progress had for some time been made, owing to the tenacity with which the Mahomedan commissioners insisted on their respective pretensions. Tie understood, however, that of late better progress had been effected, and that the survey was advancing towards completion. With respect to the report that Astrakan was to be ceded to Russia, he had to state that it was entirely unfounded. It most probably had arisen from the wish of the Russian Government to maintain a number of hostile buildings on their frontier. As to the loan to Turkey, nothing could be farther from the intentions of the British Government than to have anything to do with a foreign loan. The experience of the last few years had been quite lesson enough. There had certainly been a proposition submitted to various private persons, but the Government had nothing to do with it.

rose for the purpose of moving the following Resolution;—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the law of Church Rates and the difference of practice which exists in various parts of the Country in the assessment and levy of such Rates; and to report their observations to the House."

The hon. Member said, that it was then too late to contend that Church Rates presented no grievance; people would not readily credit this who were aware of the past history of the question. It was enough to say that for fifteen years previously almost every leader of every party had deprecated a continuance of the existing state of the law, and the mischiefs arising out of it. Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, the Premier, and most of the Members of his Government, had at various times expressed their feelings very strongly on the subject; and unless they were to suppose that Parliament was a mere debating club, where any subject might be proposed for discussion, and where no one was to he understood to bind himself by professions of earnest zeal to amend the condition of society, to gratify on gaining office the expectations he had raised, it would seem to follow that no one party in the House was in a situation to affirm, upon its honour, that legislation of some sort was not imperatively demanded. He would not weary the House by long extracts from Hansard; he had dwelt sufficiently upon what might be called "the argument of authority" on the last occasion on which the subject had arrested the attention of Parliament; and any Gentleman who might be curious to know what individual Members had said on Church Rates, might find numerous extracts in the debate which took place on the occasion alluded to. He would, therefore, only make one brief quotation from the speech of a noble Lord, the head of a great party, who, should he ever come into office, he considered was pledged to introduce at once a measure on the subject. Lord Stanley thought and was ready to acknowledge "that Church Rates, as they stood, formed to Dissenters a serious and substantial grievance." It might be urged in objection to the Motion, that the Dissenters were comparatively tranquil and uncomplaining at the present time, and that the grievance was probably little felt. How far that was true, he should have occasion to show: but even if it were true, he had yet to learn that a period of excitement and acrimony was the best time for removing a grievance, or that patience was any ground for continuing persecution. He said that, precisely because there was now an opportunity of legislating calmly and deliberately should that opportunity be earnestly embraced. Some degree of quiescence might be ascribed to the fact that in large and populous towns Church Rates are practi- cally obsolete, Indeed, wherever the Dissenters were in a majority, or wherever they could command the assistance of a majority, Church Rates could generally be successfully resisted. He believed he was warranted in saying that in the borough he had the honour to represent, no Church Rate had been levied for many years; and yet the church had been restored, improved, and adorned in a manner which excited the admiration of every person of taste, and that entirely by the action of the voluntary principle. Indeed, in that instance there had not been wanting examples of liberal contributions from Dissenters themselves. But, with respect to the interest the question had excited in times past, nothing proved it more completely than the number of plans submitted to that House for the settlement of the question. There was the plan of charging the land tax with 250,000l. to be paid to the Commissioners for Building Churches; and, in certain cases, the cost of providing for divine worship was to be defrayed from funds arising out of pew rents. But how was this any relief to the Dissenters? In one sense it was an aggravation of the grievance, because it converted a contingent and defeasible liability into a certain demand. As it was, there was at least the chance of defeating the rate—either by nominating churchwardens favourable to abolishing the rate, or by proposing nominal rates, or by other means. But from the 'moment the charge was transferred to any portion of the public income, the grievance became fixed, permanent, and inevitable. Then came the plan of the late Sir Robert Peel, which proposed to charge Church Rates upon the Consolidated Fund, which was no more satisfactory to the Dissenters than the plan already described. Next, there was the plan of Mr. Spring Rice, which involved the following Resolution:—

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for the repair and maintenance of parochial churches and chapels in England and Wales, and the due celebration of divine worship therein, a permanent and adequate provision be made out of an increased value given to Church lands."

This plan, however, met with an amount of opposition by which it was virtually defeated. A Committee was formed subsequently, to inquire into the mode of granting and renewing Church leases, which ultimately eventuated in the creation of a large annual fund, now applied to the extension of the Church. Again and again had the subject been opened, and with various success. But he thought he had adduced enough to prove the interest the House had always taken in the matter, and he wanted no higher justification for the Motion he was then submitting. It was time to sketch the state of the law on this subject. The first Braintree case occurred in 1837. In that instance the churchwardens, having duly convened a parish vestry and proposed a rate for the necessary repairs and expenses of the parish church, which a majority of the assembled parishioners refused to make, a rate made by the churchwardens alone at a subsequent meeting and on a subsequent day, was decided in "Burder v. Veley" by Lord Denman, in the Queen's Bench, to be illegal and void. It was worth remarking that in his judgment Lord Denman plainly laid it down that "churchwardens are only liable in respect of moneys which come to their hands." This was very important, because the contrary supposition was part of the argument of those who took an opposite view. He quoted Chief Justice North, it was true, to show that the spiritual court might excommunicate every inhabitant if the church was left unrepaired, but yet could impose no tax. Further, he did not deny that if a vestry were regularly called, and no one attended but the churchwardens, they might then make a rate; but he did not decide this point. It was right to state that Lord Denman distinctly laid it down, "the parishioners are charged with the repairs of the body of the Church. Neither does he deny "that the churchwardens are liable to spiritual censures if they neglect their duty." But if parishioners refused, he evidently did not think the churchwardens could be visited with any legal punishment. If they could, there would be a wrong without a remedy; but, that not being so, the argument fell to the ground. On appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, this decision in "Veley v. Burder" was confirmed by Chief Justice Tindal. But he laid it down in the most unqualified manner that the parishioners were liable to repair the body of the church, and that by the common law of England. To show the antiquity of Church rates, he cited a case of the time of Edward III., in 1370. His language on this liability was very precise:—

"The repair of the church is a duty which the parishioners are compellable to perform; not a mere voluntary act, which they may perform or decline, at their own discretion; the law is imperative on them absolutely, that they do repair the church; not binding on them in a qualified limited manner only, that they may repair or not, as they think fit; and that, where it so happens that the fabric of the church stands in need of repair, the only question upon which the parishioners, when convened to make a rate, can by law deliberate and determine is, not whether they repair the church or not, but how and in what manner the common-law obligation, so binding on them, may be best and most effectually, and at the same time most conveniently and fairly between themselves, be performed."

The second Braintree case arose out of the first. In that case it was decided that a rate could not be made by the churchwardens alone met together without the parishioners, and without their having been summoned. But, in the course of his argument, Mr. Justice Tindal let fall a remark which seems to have served as a hint to the supporters of Church Rates to adopt another mode of conducting their case for the general establishment of the legality of rates obtained against the opinion of a majority of the parishioners. That remark was as follows:—

"We do not enter into the discussion whether a rate made by the churchwardens at the parish meeting, where the parishioners were then met, would have been valid or not; or how far such case might be analogous to a corporation aggregate, of which some members protesting and refusing to vote, as bound in law to do, are held to throw away their votes, and the act of the minority, in conformity to law, holds good without them."

The church, it seems, had got out of repair, and a monition issued from an ecclesiastical court, requiring the churchwardens to call a vestry for the purpose of making a rate. Notice was given, a meeting held, a survey produced, and a rate of two shillings was proposed. An amendment was moved against Church Rates on principle, and refusing any vote for the purpose, and was put and carried. Upon this the churchwardens and minority made a rate, and proceeded upon it. It was decided in the Queen's Bench that this rate was good. This was the case of "Gosling V. Veley;" and the judgment given was confirmed on appeal to the Exchequer Chamber. It was thus an established point, unless the decision should be appealed against, that a minority could make a rate. It was true there was still a possibility of immense litigation. Indeed, the present state of the law of Church Rates looked like an ingenious mode of keeping alive the dying embers of sectarian rancour. It was a very great question whether they would ever hear of the existence of such a body as the Anti-State-Church Association, if there were no such law as that of Church Rates. Why, said the hon. Gentleman, the position into which these judicial legislators have brought the law by a series of decisions is almost worse than if we were to readopt the law as it existed in the early times of the Church. For, then, the only consequence of a refusal to pay Church Rates was interdict and excommunication, penalties which in these days, so far from possessing terror, would almost be regarded with indifference. A minority make a rate! Can it be possible that the right of the people to tax themselves in a free country can thus have been undermined? As Sir Fitzroy Kelly argued, it is ship-money over again.

"It was contended that the country was bound to provide the means of carrying on the war; and then it was sought to infer that (other means failing) a tax might be laid on without Parliament. Mr. St. John, the counsel for Hampden, admitted the general principle, but denied the inference. We are morally bound, at all events, to support the Crown by votes in supply; but what would be thought of an attempt in these days to dictate to the people what should be the amount proposed?"

A minority make a rate! We might as well let a minority of Judges make the law—in which case the late decision would be reversed. But, it is said, property is acquired subject to the liability, and therefore there is no grievance. If, however, the public evil of Church Rates be greater than the public advantage, this otherwise powerful argument loses much of weight and authority. But there is another mode of meeting this objection. If for good public ends it be desirable to tax particular individuals, and if the vendors of their property were already virtually taxed in the price of sale, why not levy the same amount as an education rate, or even a police rate—in short, for some purpose in the benefit of which all can participate? This argument, that property is acquired subject to Church Rates, is open to these objections. First, it is not strictly true. But, if true, it is not conclusive against the proposal he had to make; and then, still further, it might be said to prove too much. It is not true that property is acquired subject to the tax. It is only of late that it has been established that Church Rates are otherwise than contingent upon voluntary grants. In many towns they are systematically refused, and will probably never be granted again. In fact, they are a personal charge, not a charge on land. In theory every one is liable to pay Church Rate, or risk excommunication. And take the case of a man who has no property and begins to acquire it; why is he to be mulcted for the support of a Church whose tenets he disallows? But, admitting the liability of all property, he asked if no tax could be legitimately abolished which all were liable to pay? On this principle, there never could be a reduction of taxation at all. How could the expenses of prosecution have been transferred to the Consolidated Fund, if the principle thus contended for were fixed and irrefragable? How came a fourth of the tithe in Ireland to be given up? Simply because it was not expedient, for social reasons, to continue to raise the old amount of tithe; and that was precisely what he argued in the case of Church Rates. In short, the argument proved too much. It went the length of tying the hands of Parliament altogether wherever a fixed tax has existed for long periods of time. It has been said that Church Rates and tithes stand precisely upon the same footing; but see the difference between the cases. Tithe is a charge upon land—definite in amount, and not contingent upon the consent of the parishioners. Church Rates are perfectly uncertain, and are, as to amount at least, determined by the decision of a vestry. A nominal rate may, despite the recent judicial decisions, be proposed and carried; and though it may be argued that a succession of nominal rates would be as good as one adequate rate, this is not so in practice, it being understood that a nominal rate has been tried, and won't repay expenses of collection. Then in the case of tithe, the sanction is summary and effective. In the case of Church Rates, there is no adequate sanction. The question, therefore, is, whether is it worth while, by a pedantic adherence to a principle drawn from the analogy of tithes, to keep Churchmen and Dissenters in perpetual hot water for so insignificant an object as a nominal rate, contingent upon an inadequate sanction? It is difficult to a Dissenter to understand why Churchmen should not pay the expenses of a church where they alone assemble. Look at the very numerous churches in America, well kept, well ventilated, well warmed, and crowded, without a farthing levied for their support by any legislative enactment. And as to precedents on this subject, there is the precedent of the Act of 1833—the 3rd and 4th Geo. IV., sec. 63, which abo- lished the Irish Church Rate under the name of vestry cess. By this statute, the purposes for which vestry cess had been heretofore applied, were to be provided for out of the funds vested in the Commissioners under the Act. These funds were to be raised by an annual tax on the value of all ecclesiastical dignities and temporalities in Ireland, and from the actual revenues of certain archbishoprics and bishoprics which were to be abolished or united with others on their becoming void. Again, there is a parallel case to the proposal to exempt Dissenters from this payment, in Canada. By the old Canada Act a great principle is sanctioned, which is applicable to Dissenters in this country—a principle still in force—namely, that the lands of Protestants in Lower Canada are exempt from tithes, and even if they purchase lands from Roman Catholics subject to tithes, they are discharged from the liability to pay them. The legal liability was thrown to the winds, though, in the case of Church Rates here, the argument rests on that alone. It is right to remark that the charge for maintaining ecclesiastical fabrics was a general and universal charge, made so by law, when the law acknowledged the existence only of one body of religionists. This was the case when the Roman Catholic was the established religion, and it was the case when the Church of England became the only recognised Church. The law now recognises and acknowledges other religious bodies. Dissenters are under a sort of necessity of calling immediate attention to this evil, because it is likely to be a growing one. It appears that the existing liability is not all they have to complain of, because under the Act of Parliament for the extension of churches, new Church Rates may be levied, with regard to which, at all events, the plea can never be set up that property was acquired subject thereto, and that, therefore, no grievance can be reasonably pretended. But it is not the Dissenters only who complain. Churchmen who are rated in the first place to their parish church, and then taxed in the shape of pew-rents at the chapels which they find it most convenient to attend, are loud in their complaints of the state of the law; and, conceding, for argument's sake, that in this case there is no grievance, it is enough to say that they think it one; and under such circumstances, the law is not worth retaining. He need not dwell upon the unseemly controversies which took place, periodically, between clergymen and their flocks, as being alike unfavourable to religion and destructive of social harmony. No believer in the value and usefulness of the Establishment would desire to see the support of its worship contingent upon a successful vestry campaign—in which the professed softener of human asperities was liable to be goaded by irreverent conduct into hasty and intemperate remonstrance; or if he kept his temper, did so by the force of a philosophic patience hardly to be expected in one who felt a very lively and earnest interest in the faith and truths of a religion he was sent to inculcate. Why should Dissenters be called on to pay Church Rates? The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford would argue that there was no burden in the case—that every citizen determined for himself whether the conditions of existence offered by the society to which he belonged were worthy of his acceptation, But if; this were so, and no law that was oppressive to individuals were to be abolished on this plea, why had they passed a law to permit Quakers to make affirmations instead of oaths? It might be urged by persons taking extreme views on such subjects that the public had a right to dictate the conditions of citizenship, and that those who disliked them had their remedy in leaving the country. But would the exercise of this right be politic? Was it wise to lose, for the sake of an observance proved to be of little value, the advantage of the society and intercourse of so moral and useful a body as the Quaker community? He contended against any act which enforced conditions of citizenship not essentially necessary to public happiness. Suppose a law existed imposing a tax to be applied to the dissemination of an erroneous system of natural philosophy (and it was begging the whole question to affirm that the Protestant episcopal system was perfect), would it be a sufficient answer to the taxpayer to say that he became a citizen at a time when the tax was in operation, and having given less for his estate by the fee-simple of the tax, he ought not to endeavour to remove from his shoulders a burden for which he had been already compensated in the price he gave? It might as well be argued that he bought his property with the chance of getting rid of the tax. But it was not only in the case of oaths that Quakers were exclusively favoured. They wore favoured in respect of this very charge of Church Hates. Any demand from a Quaker under 50l can be summarily recovered at a cost under 12s.; and in practice the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was annihilated as regards this particular sect. What said the Report on Local Taxation, page 53?

"If a Quaker refuse to pay church rate, and if any churchwarden complain of such refusal, and the Quaker have had a reasonable warning of the complaint, one justice of the peace may summon him to appear before any two justices. These two justices may examine upon oath or affirmation, the truth and justice of such complaint, and ascertain what may be due from the Quaker, and may order payment of any sum not exceeding 50l., with costs and charges not exceeding 12s.

By way of confirmation of this advantage, the 5th and 6th William IV., c. 74, prohibits the ecclesiastical court from entertaining "any suit, or proceeding, to recover from any Quaker any rate of or under the sum of 50l.; which very nearly amounts to an absolute exclusion of the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts." He wanted to know any good reason for limiting to Quakers the benefits arising out of this exemption from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. He next proposed to show how Dissenters themselves viewed the state of this church-rate question, and he would add a few examples of the working of the law. He would not trouble the House by reading at full length any of the letters he had received; but he could not resist giving extracts from two or three of the most important. He had a letter from a Quaker, who, after stating that his sect paid not only poor-rate but maintained its own poor, bitterly complained of a system by which he was periodically distrained upon. He said—

"The churchwardens take my furniture, generally nearly three times more value to me than the amount claimed. The expenses are extremely heavy: as most respectable auctioneers refuse to meddle with such doings, the job is given to parties who sell the goods at a sale-room, where the lowest class of furniture is sold."

He adds—

"About two years ago I had a dmand for about 21l., and they took between 40l. and 50l. of furniture. About twelve months ago they took about 17l. worth for a demand of 6l. 5s. 6d.; and a few weeks since another seizure took place of furniture, worth to me about the same, for an amount very similar."

Next came the Sudbury case, He would shortly add a list of cases of goods seized in excess of the value claimed: "Andrew Hunter, rate, 1l. 4s.; goods taken, calico (value), 4lz. 2s. l0¾d. John Mays, rate, 13s.; goods taken, butt and sole leather (value), 3l. 3d.. James Wright, rate, 2l. 7s.; goods taken, account books, &c. (value), 6l. 7s. J. R. Oxley, rate 1l.; goods taken, twelve canisters (value), 2l. 2s. Edward Wright, rate, 1l. 6s.; goods taken, 111¼1bs. of loaf sugar (value), 3l. Total amount of rates, 6l. 10s. 3d.; value of goods seized, 18l. 12s. 1¾d. Now, no doubt it would be urged that there was no grievance in these cases, because, had these men quietly paid the demands made upon them, they would have incurred no additional loss. But he asked if it was politic to keep up a standing grievance of this kind? Were the advantages arising from the amount contributed by the Dissenters worth the ill-feeling engendered in parishes, and the detestation unfortunately excited against the established religion? Besides the cases already mentioned he had others. One of the individuals already alluded to was recently mulcted of goods worth 57l. 7s. for a rate and costs amounting to 17l. 3s. Another of the name of Wright suffered seizure of goods to the extent of 24l., taken for sale for a rate of 3l. 12s. These were only a few cases, intended to show how far it was true that Dissenters preferred the forfeiture of their property to the endurance of a system which sought to coerce their consciences in the manner described. It was often said that great irregularities occurred from time to time in the application of the funds arising from local rates. But he thought he had never heard of a more flagrant case than that he was about to cite. It was possible it might not be entirely accurate; if so, the inaccuracy of his correspondent would come out in Committee. He had in his possession a letter from a person resident at Kew Green, Kew. What said the writer? He spoke of a churchwarden who held the office for twelve years, and during that period he thought proper to claim in his accounts, from Easter, 1847, to Easter, 1848, 39l., for a herdsman who was employed to manure the green and commonable land of three or four acres. To the pew-opener 20l. 16s. was charged. A charge was further made of six guineas, under pretext of assessing the parish to the assessed taxes. This was not all. There were more objectionable circumstances about the case, which he refrained from pursuing, without obtaining a Committee. That was an example of misappropriation of funds. He would next give a case of grievance arising out of the mode in which churchwardens obtained their offices in some instances; and the same example would serve to confirm the argument with respect to misappropriation of funds. And before he cited the example alluded to, he might observe, that it was in itself a fair argument against the present Church Rate system, that Dissenters are taxed at the suggestion and under the administration of officers, in the nomination of whom the clergy have the chief voice. The hon. Member read a letter which stated that the Church Rates of the borough of Congleton, containing 30,000 inhabitants, were levied, by custom, by six gentlemen calling themselves prepositi or posts, and that one half of this amount was not legally appropriated. It was no small part of the complaint of the Dissenters, that they were liable to be drawn into the ecclesiastical courts, the abuses of which were so notorious, and which no Government appeared to possess courage to subdue. What said the Report on Local Taxation on that head? His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had brought the state of these courts under the notice of the House, and hopes were held out that some legislation might be anticipated at no distant day. But no effective step had been taken. What said the Report on Local Taxation on the subject of these courts? No ex parte statement, but a deliberate expression of opinion on the part of a commission, upon whom devolved the duty of solemnly investigating the abuses of local finance, and suggesting remedies which, in their judgment, might be applicable? They said that the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts was most inefficient (p. 52). But Churchmen, too, had reason to complain of the state of the law. Take the case where a Low Church congregation were called on to support the teaching of a Tractarian minister, or vice versa; or take the case where a district church was established, and pew rents in existence. Was it no grievance to be compelled to pay twice over? Then, again, the difficulty, uncertainty, and complaints of the law (which were evidently parts of his complaint against Church Rates) were matters in which the Church was distinctly interested. When, too, the social aspect of the case was considered, and the position in which the clergyman was placed in reference to his flock, no sincere lover of his Church would maintain that the present system was one which it was very desirable to continue. Again, the Church had now but a precarious support. Its tenure of Church Rates in any given parish was a pure matter of good fortune. The Church might lose its advantage any day, by means of a trifling change in the tide of population. Whatever the mode of repairing the Church might be, at least it should be certain and uniform—not contingent and defeasible. Why not substitute pew-rents, or adopt some other plan unobjectionable in principle? Would not a regular church-repairing commission be better than the hap-hazard and irregular superintendence of above 20,000 churchwardens? Now, all this was ground for a Committee of Inquiry. Dissenters were entitled to immunity from the payment of Church Rates on the ground of what they did for education, morality, and order. Their 8,440 congregations contributed little less to the security of Government and the moral improvement of society than the 11,825 episcopal churches and chapels; and reputed as they were to constitute a body of 2,700,000', they were entitled to consideration on the part of that House. He might be asked what plans he had to offer in Committee? In reply he had to say that there were various methods which might be suggested from various quarters. First, there was simple abolition. But then there was a difficulty about that proposal. To offer it would be tantamount to saying he did not hope to legislate at all. Now he had hopes of legislating; and the first step to success in this respect was to exhibit a spirit of fairness and moderation. Besides, it was unnecessary to excite opposition by a proposal simply to abolish Church Rates—because modes might be suggested of different kinds by which the end desired might be attained compatibly with the support of the fabrics of churches. What was then to prevent the legalisation of pew rents? The pew-rent system worked well in many cases, and the objection to adopting them could only be formal and pedantic. But there was a fund on which Church Rates might be very fairly charged, namely, the fund originally created for them; and he thought the fund would be as well spent in supporting churches as the houses of the bishops. Of course he alluded to the fund which arose from the improved management of church leases. It might be said this fund was already applied, vestigia nulla retror-sum. Well, conceded—but still there were other plans. They might even adopt the plan of the Solicitor General, and exempt Dissenters. No doubt much might be said against that, but still a Committee was the very place for calmly discussing the suggestions offered from different quarters. It might be urged, why alter your Motion? Why not simply demand abolition? He had altered his Motion, because he thought he could not succeed in the naked proposal to abolish Church Rates. For the reasons, then, he had given—on account of the evils arising out of the payment of Church Rates—on account of the uncertainty and complexity of the law, and the consequent addition in the shape of annoyance to the mere pecuniary liability—on account of the heartburning and contention excited amongst sects, and the unseemly relative position in which clergymen were placed with respect to their flocks—with argument, precedent, and the authority of their greatest modern statesmen in his favour, he felt entitled to claim of the House that he had established sufficient ground for the Motion of which he had given notice. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

said: Sir, I confess that when my hon. Friend last year was time after time unsuccessful in his attempt to bring on the question of Church Rates, I felt considerable disappointment, which was, I believe, shared not only by lion. Members within the walls of this House, but by a large class of persons out of doors. But, considering, as I do, the objections which exist against making questions of this kind mere annual Motions of course, and bearing in mind also how large has been the advance in public interest on matters of ecclesiastical reform, my disappointment has been very much diminished, for I think the interests of this question will have been better served by the omission of a year, than they would have been by a discussion last year, followed by another this. Last year we had heard nothing of the question which has since usurped the place of all other questions. This year the fears of Protestants are awakened by what they consider to be a common danger; and I think I see symptoms of a desire on the part of the more liberal party in the English Church to sink all minor differences, and make up existing quarrels, with a view to close their ranks against what they consider to be an insidious and a dangerous enemy. But I see another reason, and a more serious one, for judging that it is time this grievance should cease. The decision on the Gorham case, and the battle of surplices and sacraments which has been raging in a neighbouring parish, and more or less all over the country, has convinced most men that the Church of England contains within her bosom not merely two opposite parties, or rival factions, but two antagonist religions; and this renders the compulsion exercised to make Dissenters pay Church Rates all the more onerous, as they consider that in so doing they are contributing not only to services to which they object, but to the promulgation of doctrines which they abhor. Questions of this nature, involving as they do both political and religious considerations, ought to be examined both in their social and in their ecclesiastical bearings. I think the political reasons for a reconstruction of the present system are manifold; but perhaps there may be ecclesiastical grounds for desiring to retain it. I may be told by zealous Churchmen, that to alter the present system will endanger the security of the Church of England in its present form, and that this constitutes a reason for doing nothing. Without stopping to question whether the present position of the Church of England is so perfect as to warrant us in refusing to run any risk of altering it, let us consider for a moment whether altering the law of Church Rates would have the effect predicted. I think, if it had any effect, it must be either on the maintenance of the fabric, or on the maintenance of the endowment. And if we show that neither the one nor the other is dependent upon Church Rates, it seems to me that no one can object to the conclusion to which my hon. Friend wishes to conduct them. First, then, as to the maintenance of the fabric. Without compulsory Church Rates, would the fabric go to decay? It is computed that there are about 4,000,000 Dissenters in England and Wales, forming about 8,500 congregations; while there are about 12,000,000 of Episcopalians, with some 12,000 churches. It is to be remembered that the Dissenters belong almost exclusively to the middle and lower classes; while the whole aristocracy and great part of the wealth of the country belongs to members of the Church of England. Now the Dissenters—the poorer body—have within the last half century built, and do maintain at their own expense, between 8,000 and 9,000 Meeting Houses; and yet we are to be told that the Church, representing the richer communion, requires all the help of these very Dissenters to enable them to keep up their own churches, these churches having mostly been built without expense to their present occupants in former ages. But there is another view of this particular part of the subject, and it is this: It is not proposed to make contributions towards the repairs of churches illegal—it is only proposed to make them not compulsory. Now, we must bear in mind, first, that Church Rates are not the only fund which exist for the repair of churches, for there are very considerable endowments for this express purpose; secondly, that the Dissenting body, consisting principally of the lower-middle and lower classes, probably pay less than in the proportion which their numbers bear to the whole community; and, thirdly, that the amount which is usually levied by Church Rate contains many items which would not be allowed if the rate were legally contested. And, considering all these things, I think the sum legally chargeable upon Dissenters does not amount to more than one-sixth of the whole amount annually levied; and this deficiency is to be fatal to the security of the fabric. But I shall be told, "Oh, but if you make it voluntary, many Churchmen will refuse to contribute." Now, I don't say that I would make Church Rates voluntary on the pewholders; but even granting this, what a satire it is on the Church of England, and how much does it aggravate the hardship of forcing Dissenters to pay Church Rates, that the very persons who use the churches should have so little love to the services performed there, that they require legal compulsion to induce them to discharge the necessary expenses for those services. Well then, Sir, I confess that I do not see any strong reason to think that the very abolition of compulsory Church Rates will very much endanger the fabrics of churches. But if a middle course were adopted, such as has been had recourse to in some parishes where the churchwardens had the wonderfully bad taste to prefer peace and a voluntary assessment of the seatholders to war and a Church Rate—if a small sum were made legally leviable upon the holders of seats, any risk to the fabric would be indefinitely diminished; besides which, there are many men who, from innumerable motives, would contribute voluntarily, though resisting compulsion. Let us, then, look at the other supposed danger—danger to the sys- tem of tithe. The analogy between tithe and Church Rate, so specious at first sight, will be found on examination utterly to fail. Tithe is nothing more nor less than a Parliamentary rent-charge, never changing except with the price of wheat. Church Rate is a variable impost, dependent for its amount on the state of the fabric—on the whims of a churchwarden—on the tastes of an incumbent—on the will of a rural dean—and, for its practical existence, on the vote of a vestry, consisting of ratepayers who vary from year to year. Tithes pass from hand to hand, like other property—the only way in which Church Rates are dealt with is by mortgaging them, and this constitutes one of the principal grievances of populous parishes. St. Marylebone, for example, paid 50,000l. in Church Rates between the years 1837 and 1842; but this is done only by a particular Act of Parliament, and is, I believe, not in general practicable. Tithes are payable to laymen, charities, corporations, as well as to incumbents. Church Rates are payable to the churchwarden alone. Tithes imply no prearranged compact of payment on the one side, or duties on the other; for it continually happens that the person who does the parochial duty does not take the tithe, and, of course, as often, that the person who takes the tithe does not do the duty; and even when the incumbent is titheowner, he is forced to do the duty, not because he takes the tithe but because he has taken orders. But Church Rates imply by their very nature some interest on the part of the person who pays them in the fabric to the repair of which he contributes. If he is to pay the rates, let him have the opportunity of profiting by the services. But ii' by the growth of population, or the carelessness of past generations, he is deprived of the boon of making use of the church, it appears to me that the compact is broken, and the feeling of wrong which attaches to a payment thus made, in my mind is productive of evil consequences far outweighing any trifling advantage to be derived from the payment itself. It is, I believe, the law, that a landlord, not bound to rebuild premises which have been burnt down, may still demand rent for the remainder of the term, although I should not think any hon. Member of this House would think it exactly consistent with honesty to avail himself of such a power; but it seems to me to be just as fair to take rent for a house which has been burnt down, as to exact rates for the repair of a church from which the payer is practically excluded; and to say that the security of Church property depends on a law like this, is about as reasonable as to say that the security of house property depends on a practice like the other. Sir, I am aware that an argument founded on the breach of a presumed contract cannot be pressed in favour of exempting Dissenters as such from Church Rates. But I have every reason for pressing it in the case of Churchmen. And if it be necessary to quote a high Church authority for an opinion of the injustice of the present state of the law of Church Rates, I can do so; and I can go further, for I can show that this high Church authority, having stated a case exactly and in all points analogous to the case of the Dissenter who is forced to pay Church Rates, expresses an opinion that this state of things constitutes a grievance—an opinion in which I most heartily concur. The authority to which I refer is the Government Report of the Subdivision of Parishes Commissioners, and among the names appended to this report I find that of the noble Lord the Member for Bath—who, though denounced by one section of persons calling themselves Churchmen, deserves, I think, the respect and esteem of all those who arc interested in the spiritual welfare of the country—the names of Dr. Hook, Dr. Dale, Mr. Champneys, and of Mr. Robert Seeley; and what say these Commissioners? "In our opinion," say they, "the present state of the law of Church Rates is obscure, vague, defective, and unjust;" and they go on to say, that it has been urgently represented to the Commissioners—and the whole tenor of the report leads to the conclusion that they agree in the suggestion—

"That the law in its present state inflicts a serious hardship on the owners of property, in distinct and separate parishes and district parishes, by compelling them for twenty years not only to provide for the expenses of their own church, but to contribute towards repairing the mother church."

Now, this is the case of the Dissenters, in every particular except one, that both the rates are compulsory, whereas no Dissenter is compelled by anything except feeling to contribute to the repair of his own meeting-house. But as if to clinch the matter, the Commissioners go on:—

"In the case of a chapelry district, cut off from a distinct and separate or district parish, the grievance is still greater; for although the inhabitants, during that period of time, pay a double rate, namely, to the mother church and to the distinct and separate or district parish church, they have generally to provide for the repairs of their own chapel also, by voluntary contributions."

And now let me ask, if it be a hardship for a Churchman in a chapelry, who has to contribute voluntarily to the repair of his chapel, also to have to contribute by compulsion to the repair of the parochial and district churches, why is it not a still greater hardship for his next-door neighbour, being a Dissenter, having to contribute voluntarily to the repair of his chapel, also to have to contribute by compulsion to those same parochial and district churches? Sir, after this avowal of opinion, I think the question might safely be left in the hands of these Commissioners, if they would but be true to the principles they have laid down in their report. They have not, it is true, called the compulsory Church Rate an act of persecution; but they have defined a similar tax to be a grievance, and a grievance still greater than one which they denounce as a serious hardship. What the distinction is between a grievance greater than a hardship, itself serious and a religious persecution, I may leave for Mr. Seeley to discuss with the editor of the Nonconformist. We have heard much of late of personal and religious liberty. I will not attempt to add-my definition either of the one or of the other to those numerous and, as I think, mostly incorrect definitions which have been given here and elsewhere. I will simply observe that I think the methods in which the State may influence the conduct of individuals in religious matters is twofold—by compelling to do what they think wrong, and prohibiting them from doing what they think right. The first must he always persecution, if it be only sprinkling incense on the altar of Jupiter. As to the second, I am not so clear, for if the State is not to retain some control, I don't see how she is to prevent Roman Catholic processions in the streets of London, or suttees on the Ganges. Whether the compulsory payment of money for a purpose presumed, is exactly of a similar nature with the compulsory performance of an order manifestly religious, I will not attempt to determine; but the difference can be but slight. Sir, it matters comparatively little whether this question be set at rest this year or next, in this or a subsequent Parliament. What is really of consequence is, that the principles of religious liberty should be clearly and distinctly understood by that great community which has sent us here to represent them; for, when that is the case, I have the fullest confidence that those principles will be boldly carried out, and successfully maintained.

I don't wish, on this occasion, to follow the hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded this Motion, into the various arguments they have used in reference to Church Rates; if I were to do so, too, I fear I should differ with them on some points to which they have referred, and in the conclusion at which they have arrived. It does seem to me, however, after the statements and the references they have made, and the Reports of the several Commissions, that it is desirable there should be some attempt made to settle this question of Church Rates; and that, if they should not be able to effect that object, they, at all events, should endeavour to make some improvement in the law. Holding these opinions, therefore, and having been myself a party to one or two attempts to settle this question, but without success, I think the proposal now made is one which will lead to a practical benefit, and to which I willingly give my consent.

said, that while the House was engaged upon this question, he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the case of the Annuity Tax now raised in Edinburgh. He had repeatedly called attention to this tax before, the collection of which had led to acts of violence requiring the military to he called in to suppress them, because the feeling of the community was opposed to the continuance of the tax. He had hoped, from the promise he had received last year, that the noble Lord would have introduced a Bill on the subject. Ireland, also, was subject to a tax called Ministers' Money, amounting to about 18,000l. a year; and nearly the same amount was raised in Scotland, but Edinburgh and his own borough (Montrose) were the only towns that contributed to the tax in Scotland. This tax was very different from Church Rates in England, because Church Rates were in some sense voluntary; but this Annuity Tax was compulsory, and it was levied under an Act of Charles H. It was exacted only from the royalty of Edinburgh, and did not extend to the rest of the city. He was sure that the welfare of the Church greatly depended upon the speedy settlement of this irritating question.

said, that it seemed to him very practicable to introduce a measure to put an end to Ministers' Money; but with regard to the Annuity Tax, he had taken every means that he thought likely to bring about an arrangement of that subject, but hitherto those means had failed.

said, that the objection which he might feel even to a Committee on this subject, as tending to unsettle the question, was a very different objection from that which he should have felt had a Resolution been proposed pledging the House to a particular course of action in the matter. It was not necessary for him to advert in detail to the three attempts which had been made in that House to settle the question of Church Rates, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), although he had referred to them, did not at present propose to revive any of them. With respect to the statement, that 600,000 persons had petitioned for the repeal of these taxes, he apprehended that, if the fact of petitioning against a tax would ensure its repeal, there were few taxes for the repeal of which three times 600,000 signatures could not be easily obtained. The hon. Member for Colchester said that these 600,000 formed but a very small portion of the persons affected by the grievance; at first, he said that the Dissenters were one-third of the population of England, and afterwards that they were one-fourth; but he admitted that, in consequence of their being chiefly of the middle classes, their contributions to the Church Rate did not amount to more than one-sixth of the whole sum levied. But he (Sir R. Inglis) had always understood that, if the principle of a tax were unjust, the number of those upon whom it pressed was not a thing to be taken into consideration. Now, be contended that there was no property in England which had not been bought and sold subject to this burden; and the present holders of the property could not fairly claim to be exempted from its payment. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had, during the debate upon the Papal Aggression, asked if the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) thought that the Church which he desired to protect was a tolerant Church—"the most tolerant of Churches"—when forty chairs had been taken from a Friends' meeting-house in the City, and sold for Church Rates. Now, what were the facts of that case? The parish to which the hon. Member referred was that of Bishops gate; the tithes of that parish, amounting to 2s. 9d. in the pound, would have raised in the aggregate a sum of between 5,000l. and 6,000l. a year. Not only, however, was that sum never raised, hut there never was any intention of raising it; and, in 1825, an Act of Parliament was passed, by which the tithes were extinguished for ever in respect of that parish, and a sum had since been raised by rate, in respect of tithes and Church Rate, and for every parochial object and purpose, amounting in the aggregate to 2,500l. a year, subject to certain deductions; for instance, a sum of 300l. for the service of one church, 150l. for another, and 100l. for a third; and for all the necessary expenses attendant upon the performance of Divine service. He believed that every one understood the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) to allege, as the grievance complained of, that it was at the meeting-house, the place of worship of the Friends, upon which the rate was levied, and from which the chairs were carried off. Now, in fact, the rate was not levied upon the meeting-house at all, hut upon the adjacent dwelling-house, and the amount of it was never, in any any one year, more than 2l. 5s., while it had been as low as 1l. 14s. 9d.; that was the sum the payment of which was resisted by the wealthy and eminent body of which the hon. Member was an ornament. It should be remembered that the tax did not, as a capitation tax, attach to any individuals, or to any place of worship, but to particular individuals in respect to particular property, and therefore could not be regarded as a personal grievance; and yet this wealthy body had thus rendered necessary this unseemly scene to take place to liberate themselves and their consciences, as they said, from such a payment as this. He regretted that the noble Lord had thought it necessary to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny); had the Motion embraced a Resolution, he (Sir R. Inglis) should have opposed it. He thought that such a Committee as that contemplated should only have been granted to put an end to some uncertainty in the law upon the subject; but was the law doubtful—would the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or the Master of the Rolls, say that the law was doubtful after the decision in the Braintree case? He believed that, by the decision of the highest Court in that case, there was now no point of law better established than the legal existence of Church Rates as applicable to the repair of the parish church, its fabric and services. Every house in the kingdom had been bought or sold for so much less, in consequence of its being liable to Church Rates, which only differed from the ancient system of tithes, inasmuch as the tithe was a fixed proportion of the produce, whereas the Church Rate varied in amount according to the particular circumstances of each case. He thought that the unsettlement of the question, by having a Parliamentary Committee, was, under any circumstances, undesirable. If the law were doubtful, a measure should be introduced to declare the law, if the Government felt sufficiently strong in their legal authorities; or to alter it, if it were against their preconceived notions. But when the highest tribunal in the country had declared the law to be clear, he could not understand why there should be a roving Commission or a sedentary Committee, to which should gravitate all the plans of the Dissenters for the removal of that which was a positive obligation upon them, not as Dissenters, but as holders of property. No man was taxed either to tithe or Church Rate as a Churchman or a Dissenter, but as a holder of particular property—in respect of that property, and not as an individual. As the Motion of the hon. Member for Tavistock did not, however, pledge the House to a particular course of action—as it was not a measure transferring to the Consolidated Fund, or to the episcopal or clerical revenues, the burden now appropriated to Church Rates, he felt less objection to it than he would otherwise have entertained; and he would only express his earnest hope that the Government would take care, in the constitution of the Committee, that it should be fair and impartial.

said, that had he known it was the intention of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) to refer to the statement made by him (Mr. Bright) on a previous occasion, he would have been prepared to enter into the more precise details of that particular case. However, he should dispute altogether the view of the hon. Baronet, that he had no right to bring forward that case in a discussion on another subject. He thought he had a perfect right, inasmuch as whilst they were discussing the aggression of one Church, it might be as well to call attention to the aggressions of another. The hon. Baronet had stated that the chairs and tables to which he (Mr. Bright) had on a former occasion alluded, were not, taken from the meeting-house, but from the premises. But that made no difference whatever, whether taken from the place of worship or from any of the committee-rooms adjoining, the crime of sacrilege not being understood or admitted by the Society of Friends. However, he asked the hon. Baronet if he could look on the question from any other point of view than that in which it was usual for him to regard it; and to say whether such a state of things should be tolerated? On one side of the street there was a large church frequented by a congregation of the Church of England persuasion; and on the other side of the street there was a place of worship built by the voluntary contributions of a sect which professed in the main the very same religious doctrines preached and believed in by the congregation assembled in the Church of England edifice. In that church the clergyman preached to his congregation; whilst in the other house of worship there was no minister of any order, no minister paid for services rendered. They both lived in a country the constitution of which professed to have done long ago with pains, penalties, and persecutions on the ground of religious difference. Yet, by authority of an Act of Parliament, the minister of the Established Church—legally, of course—by his agents or proxies, entered the premises of the meeting-house and took, not, 2l. 5s.—though the hon. Baronet knew very well that to take 2½d. would he as much an injustice as to take 2l. 5s.—but something like 40 articles of furniture belonging to those premises. These articles were sold by an auctioneer; picked up, in in all probability, by some friends of the auctioneer—he knew nothing of the particular circumstances, but that was generally the case in the country—and the proceeds were put into the sack in which the Church Rate and tithes were deposited. He admitted that the clergyman, of whose excellence or otherwise he knew nothing whatever, was legally empowered, and that he had the sanction of an Act of Parliament; but if that Act had received the assent of every Legislature in Europe, the seizure of these articles would not be the less an unjustifiable aggression. The hon. Baronet might get up and talk these things at Oxford, where he believed almost anything in the direction of persecution would go down—but they would not go down here or in the country; and no sophistry about houses being bought and sold subject to Church Rate would ever induce the people to think that the infliction of Church Rate should he permitted, or that it was a benefit even to the Church itself. The hon. Baronet had stated that the law had settled the question; but results demonstrated the contrary, as he believed the most eminent lawyers and judges in the land were opposed in their decisions on the question. Why, the fact as contended for by the hon. Baronet, that a parish minority, consisting of the clerk, the sexton, the grave-digger, and the bell-ringer, meeting together, can do that in a parish which a minority of that House cannot do for the country, was an overturning of every thing which they held to he valuable under the constitution of this kingdom. In his opinion, the Church Rate law was like martial law, as explained by the Duke of Wellington the other night, no law at all. It was impossible by an expenditure of less than some 2,000l. to go through the quagmire of the Ecclesiastical Court; but in the end, it fell out that the suit was generally dropped for want of funds. He was convinced there were no two lawyers in the kingdom would give the same opinion in reference to Church Rate law. This might be a reason for the appointment of the Committee, hut he was not very sanguine that this Committee would accomplish all that was required of it; that however, was no reason why it should not be appointed. He thought it would be better for all parties if the Rate did not exist at all; and he did not think the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis), warm Church advocate as he was, believed the Church ever gained by the system. All religious and conscientious Churchmen—the really pious men who wanted to live in harmony with their neighbours, loving their own faith, and desiring that every one else should follow his faith, and that all should observe the holy precepts set forth for us in the New Testament—such Churchmen, who might be counted by thousands in the Church, were in favour of the abolition of the Rate. Why not, therefore, get rid of it? But there was a class of Churchmen who did not want to get rid of it—the political Churchmen, who were of no use to the Church beyond agitating in its name and getting up majorities in its favour in that House. But the hon. Baronet should turn from these men to the really pious and conscientious members of the Church, who wished to see the question settled for ever. The question was one of only some 250,000l. a year. In Manchester no Church Rate had been collected for the last fifteen years. On one occasion the tax was decided against by a majority of one. The tax was next refused by a majority of 1,100; and thirdly, it was refused unanimously on a show of hands, since when there had been no Church Rate. There was what was called an "optional" rate, that was, those paid who liked, arid those refused who did not. The great hulk did not like. Now he asked the hon. Baronet if he thought it advisable that for the last fifteen years there should have been an annual contest waged on the question? Was it not better that it should have been dropped, taking the tax only from those who were willing to pay it, particularly when the Church was nothing the worse? In the parish in which he (Mr. Bright) resided, there were some 70,000 or 80,000 persons, with, he believed, sixty places of dissenting worship; yet all these persons were expected to pay tax to one parish church. He believed some 700l. annually used to be collected, and eaten and drunk, though he never could understand that the Church was the better for it. The result of the opposition to the rate, was, that at length the expenditure fell to 150l. a year, though at the last contest, about eleven years ago, a great struggle was made, and as much money was spent in the contest as would, if placed at interest, produce 150l. a year for ever. Nothing had produced so much animosity as these contests about Church Rates, promoted as they were by the present vicar. He wished to know if it were not possible to adopt the Manchester system throughout England? In the last Session the hon. and learned Solicitor General suggested some compromise by which Dissenters would be exempted from the rate, which should be only collected from members of the Establishment; and his (Mr. Bright's) opinion was, that if these rates were not collectible by law, the congregations would provide, by their own contributions, for the maintenance of their own edifices. Did they not see notices of sermons for bible societies and schools every day? And would it not be possible for a zealous, honest, and pious minister, by arrangement with his congregation, to provide as much as would be necessary for maintaining the Church, without coming to the Dissenters? The congregation of the Rev. Mr. Russell was more numerous than that which resorted to the meeting-house of the Society of Friends at the opposite side of the street; and, therefore, it was nothing short of a scandal to call on the latter to maintain the establishment of the former. Were he (Mr. Bright) the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. H. Inglis), instead of defending such practices, he would endeavour to find out if there were not sufficient liberality and conscientiousness amongst Churchmen to induce them to maintain their places of worship without calling on the Dissenters to assist them, particularly when these places of worship were found them by the State, and when the Dissenters erected their own places of worship by voluntary contributions. If the hon. Baronet would only do that, be would be likely to sweep away one of the evils that was undermining the Church Establishment in the mind of the people, and strengthening the resolution of most of them to have nothing to do with the Establishment, but rather attach themselves to the Nonconformist body. These were troublesome times for the Church, as speeches and other significant signs demonstrated; and therefore he advised the hon. Baronet to "set his house in order." In the event of anything occurring it would be better to be prepared to meet it than to be overpowered by the damaging lumber of the Church Rates; and he hoped the Committee would, therefore, sift the question, and that when the Report should be brought in, the noble Lord at the head of the Ministry would not allow it to be shelved till he came into office again, in the next reign of the Whigs. Indeed, whatever Minister might be in power he would find it beneficial to the interests of the Church to make a clean sweep of all matters which were not alone unjust towards the Dissenters, but materially injurious to the Church itself.

did not mean to have troubled the House with any remarks upon this occasion; but after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he must express the regret with which he heard the former hon. Member express so much dismay at the question of Church Rates being inquired into. The hon. Baronet was far too learned in the history of the Church not to know that the laws that affect Church Rates were laws passed at a time when the constitution of England was very different from what it is now. The law was then cognisant of nobody but Churchmen: and by imposing a Church Rate it only imposed on every man the duty of helping himself to worship God, in the only way in which the State thought it conceivable for him to worship God. That was no longer the case now; and therefore, without wishing, as the hon. Member for Manchester had said, to make a clean sweep of the matter, he thought it very advisable and very desirable that, when other reforms were entered into, and other inquiries were made, Church Rates should not be considered to be the immutable foundations of the faith of the Church of England. On the other hand, the discussion of that night had shown the great difficulty of the question; for, though it was desirable that the question should be investigated, he, as a Churchman, did not think that a Committee of that House was likely to be most favourable, or the best adapted machinery to investigate any question relating to the ecclesiastical affairs of his own denomination, or even those of other denominations; for all denominations being represented in that House made it a machine equally unfit to legislate for any. Still, on the broad principle of Church Rates not being the immutable foundation of the faith of the Church of England, he could not second the dread of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. The plan of a voluntary rate which had been adopted in Manchester, and that of a rate levied only upon Churchmen, which the hon. and learned Solicitor General advocated last year, had, however, one great and fatal objection—that they made religious indifferentism and dissent valuable to a man; they would make it worth so much to him not to be a Churchman. Now he was sure that earnest Dissenters would not wish that people should come to them on a pounds, shillings, and pence calculation, which must be the result of a voluntary rate, or of the rate proposed last year, to be levied on Churchmen alone. How the case was to be met was another question. He had somewhere read a description of a scheme which existed in one or two of the States of America; it had very broad and patent advantages on the face of it; whether or not it was applicable to English society he did not know; but when other schemes were mentioned, he might be excused alluding to it. A general rate was imposed rateably according to the amount of property; then, in a schedule which was sent round to each ratepayer, he was bound to enter himself of some denomination or other, and his money was handed over to the hierarchy or governing body of his denomination, to spend as they thought best for the faith to which he belonged. In that way there was no grievance to any man's conscience, for no man could confess that he was not desirous to worship God according to the doctrines he professed. There was no pecuniary advantage to any denomination over another, and he conceived that some similar plan might be undertaken in this country. He warned the House that the Church of England, though desirous of fair play towards every citizen of the State not belonging to it, and every day more willing to tolerate liberty of conscience, did claim that liberty of conscience to be afforded to herself, of which he was sorry to say she had not as much as she bad a right to, and of which she had met very little from that House, which was the only practical legislature for religious or civil matters.

said, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Tavistock. He did not think the ground taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford was at all tenable; for if it was a good argument that the Church Rate, being a tax on property for a long time, and property having been bought subject to it, ought not to be repealed, what right had the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal the window duties? If the hon. Baronet's argument was good, they could not repeal anything.

was gratified that the Motion for a Committee was granted by the Government. The settlement of the question would be a great boon to society, for there was no more fertile source of irritation than the question of Church Rates. The notice of a contested rate was a notice of a parish war, and led to the greatest heartburnings and irritation in parishes. It had been said that the Dissenter bought his house or land subject to Church Rate. It was, forgotten, however, that it required the vote of a majority in vestry to make a rate. True, if no rate was made, the churchwardens might make a rate; but if the majority chose to make ever so small a rate, no Court would interfere, so that, in effect, the rate might be really and effectually evaded. He did not think that the rate, even if it could be raised, was worth the contest. Our churches would be better repaired if the whole responsibility of maintaining them was thrown on Churchmen themselves. Why was it that the Dissenters contributed liberally to the repairs of their chapels, while from Churchmen you could often get nothing? It was because individuals would never do for themselves what the State undertook to do for them. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester in thinking that the enforcement of these rates was prejudicial to the Church itself; and he believed that the Church was not rendered the more wealthy by it. He knew many cases where clergymen, desirous of living on terms with their parishioners, allowed their churches to go out of repair rather than risk a contest by asking for a Rate. He would confidently and fearlessly leave the maintenance and repair of the churches to those who used them; but he believed that many Dissenters would, out of pure goodwill, assist by voluntary contributions.

suggested that the city of Edinburgh should be included in the Motion. In that city the rate was charged on a large majority of the population who were driven out of the Established Church, and he was quite sure that they ought to receive the sympathy of that House.

said, he could not agree to the suggestion that these two subjects should be referred to one Committee. The two subjects were not of the same nature, the Church Rate having been imposed for the purpose of keeping the churches in repair; whereas, the Annuity Tax in Edinburgh and Montrose was the means by which their ancestors paid the salaries of the clergy. A considerable correspondence had taken place on the subject, and a friend of his had been sent down to Edinburgh to negotiate between the parties on the subject of this tax, These negotiations had not been successful; but the Government had exerted their authority to bring them to a favourable issue, and he was not without hope that the parties might be yet brought to agree amongst themselves.

had now to bring under the consideration of the House a subject very homely in appearance after the stirring questions that had so lately agitated the public mind; but one which he thought he should be able to show was of vital importance to large classes of the community. Twenty years ago it would have been necessary to state many principles, and urge many arguments; now, he believed it was necessary merely to state the evil and indicate the remedy, but he should wish to lay before the House the experience of himself and others in regard to the subject—one which he had studied for several years, and in reference to which he could say that he believed a very great existing evil, pressing upon a large portion of the labouring community, might be removed, and that without establishing institutions of an eleemosynary character. He would first call the attention of the House to the condition of this population, looking upon it as stationary and as migratory. To begin with what might be called the stationary population, those who were living in houses, not removing every week or night by night from one lodging-house to another, but permanently settled. A return made in 1842 gave the following result of a house-to-house visitation in St. George's, Hanover-square, reported to the Statistical Society:—1,465 families of the labouring classes were found to have for their residence only 2,174 rooms; of these families 929 had but one room for the whole family to reside in, 408 had two rooms, 94 had three, 17 four, 8 five, 4 six, 1 seven, 1 eight; the remaining three families were returned "not ascertained." If this was so in one of the best parishes in London, what must be the condition of the over-populous and more needy parishes in the east of London? Now, this return said nothing of the condition of a great many of the residences of the working people, in which there was not one family in a room, but two families, three, four, and, as he had himself seen, five; four occupying the corners, and the fifth the middle of the room. To look first at the moral aspect of the subject: In these rooms there were grown-up persons, male and female, of different families, or the same family, all living together; in these rooms every function of nature was performed. How could decency be preserved? Education was impossible; pernicious example was ever before the child, Who could wonder that in these receptacles nine-tenths of the great crimes, the burglaries, and murders, and violence, that desolated society, were conceived and hatched? Or if the physical state of these people were considered, what must be the condition of dwellings with 8, 10, 20, or 25 persons, or even more, living in a single room? Nothing produced so evil an effect upon the sanitary condition of the population as overcrowding within limited spaces; and if people were in a low sanitary condition, it was absolutely, impossible to raise them to a just moral elevation. Their general state of health and capacity for work reduced, they must be brought upon the parish, and the general charity of the community. Here was a very remarkable statement of the evils of a system existing now over the length and breadth of this metropolis and all our large towns; it was an exemplification of the effects of living in a crowded atmosphere. In the report of the London Fever Hospital for 1845, of one particular room in an establishment it was said—

"It is filled to excess every night, but on particular occasions commonly 50, sometimes from 90 to 100 men, are crowded into a room 33 feet 9 inches long, 20 feet wide, and 7 feet high in the centre. … The whole of this dormitory does not allow more space, that is, does not admit of a larger bulk of air for respiration, than is appropriated in the wards of the Fever Hospital for three patients."

What was the consequence? Why, that considerably more than one-fifth part of the whole admissions into the Fever Hospital for that year—no less than 130 patients affected with fever—were received from that one room alone. The experience of the Board of Health went to the same point. The horrible desolation in the children's infirmary at Tooting was found to arise principally from enormous numbers being crowded in small ill-ventilated apartments. A similar case occurred, about the same time, in Hackney, in a charitable institution where the parties were well cared for, well fed, well warmed, well clothed, surrounded by a district in which there was not one death, and yet the mortality in that establishment amounted to no less than 10 or 15 per cent of the inmates, simply because they were put in ill-ventilated and closely-crowded apartments. Such was the condition of the stationary population; this was what might be seen by any one who would take a walk into the more crowded parts of the metropolis. How was it with the migratory population—those who flitted from one lodging-house to another, and were perpetually moving? Here was a report made by one of the city missionaries:—

"On my district is a house containing eight rooms, which are all let separately to individuals who furnish and relet them. The parlour measures 18 ft. by 10 ft. Beds are arranged on each side of the room, composed of straw, shavings, rags, &c. In this one room slept, on the night previous to my inquiry, 27 male and female adults, 31 children, and two or three dogs, making in all 58 human beings breathing the contaminated atmosphere of a close room. In the top room of the same house, measuring 12 ft. by 10 ft., there are six beds, and, on the same night, there slept in them 32 human beings, all breathing the pestiferous air of a hole not fit to keep swine in. The beds are so close together that, when let down on the floor, there is no room to pass between them; and they who sleep in the beds furthest from the door can, consequently, only get into them by crawling over the beds which are nearer the door. In one district alone there are 270 such rooms."

The statement went on to say—

"These houses are never cleaned or ventilated; they literally swarm with vermin. It is almost impossible to breathe. Missionaries are seized with vomiting or fainting upon entering them. 'I have felt,' said another, 'the vermin dropping on my hat like peas. In some of the rooms I dare not sit, or I should be at once covered.'"

These were some of the worst instances. But, though they were the worst instances, it must be recollected that these houses were the receptacles of thousands. He hoped the House would forgive his going into these details, because the conclusion he desired to enforce was not to be proved by argumentation, but by an induction of facts, the collection of which must be the result of much inquiry and long investigation. He was sorry to say the state of things he had described was not confined to London. It prevailed in many parts of the kingdom, and in almost all the great towns. The following was an extract from a report of Mr. Rawlinson, an inspector of the Board of Health, being a communication from a clergyman in Dover:—

"From a ministerial experience of thirteen years, first in a parish of 7,000 souls, then in a parish of 20,000, and now in a parish of 10,000, I am perfectly satisfied of the close connexion subsisting between the sanitary and moral condition of our poorer classes. At Fulham, Maidstone, and Dover, I found, without any exception, the worst demoralisation in the worst constituted dwellings and neighbourhoods, the one being-traceable from the other directly as effect from cause. I affirm, in conscience, that to raise them while they live in such places and under such circumstances as they do now, is impossible. No sense of decency or self-respect can struggle against the difficulty; and the chief force of our pastoral ministrations is rendered nugatory. I may add, that I have very rarely met with a parish priest, accustomed to minister in a large town, who has not fully felt the same conviction. The relieving officer for Charlton stated—'There are 650 houses, or rather substitutes for houses—hovels. The whole parish is one receptacle for filth. In reference to Barwick's-alley, where there are about fifty separate small huts, built in steps, one over the other, against a steep hill-side, there are but three privies attached, and there is only one very dirty draw-well to supply the whole neighbourhood with water. The horrid state of this alley is beyond description."

Birmingham was in the same condition; so were Manchester and Leeds. He could make that statement from his own personal experience, having examined Manchester from one end to the other. Morpeth was worth mentioning, because, being a small town, it afforded a very fair sample of what occurred in small towns. Of these, there was scarcely one in the kingdom where a measure of the kind he proposed ought not to be brought into operation. Looking to Morpeth, the inspector said—

"In Lumsden's-lane I found lodging-houses dirty and crowded, one of which was over a large ashpit, the same where the woman had died of cholera. At the head of Lumsden's-yard there are also open middens and privies, the drains from which pass under the adjoining cottages."

And he went on to describe a place called Bell's-yard. He proceeded:—

"This state of things surrounds the poor inhabitants with a surface of visible filth, and also keeps them in an atmosphere of foul gases, where the seeds of disease most readily ripen. Fever, according to the medical evidence, is almost constant in these places; and cholera, as shown, is first developed in such rooms as that over the privy and ashpit situated in Lumsden's-lane. This undue crowding is as destructive to the property as to the health of the poor inhabitants. The wet and damp retained by the middens generate rot, and the surface filth is trodden into the houses, the cleansing of which is consequently neglected, and the result is rapid decay. If a labouring man is compelled, for want of better accommodation, to reside in such tenements, he loses his health, loses his labour, and the owner cannot obtain payment from a family reduced to pauperism, and so he loses his rent."

That was a state of things which was frequently found to exist. A labouring man came to a town where employment was to be had, when he was in the prime of life, from 25 to 35, and capable of making 15s., 20s., or 25s. a week. It was necessary he should take a lodging near the place where his work was carried on. The tenements he had to choose from were many of them in ill-drained, ill-ventilated neighbourhoods, and of the filthy description already mentioned. From these, however, he was compelled to make his selection. What was the consequence? The consequence, as appeared from the testimony of city missionaries and minister of all denominations, was that of hundreds and hundreds of these men, who came in the prime of life to a town in search of employment, it was found, ere long, that their health was broken down, that they came on the parish, that they sank into the grave, and that they left their wives and families a permanent burden on the community. Now, the following graphic description of the lodging-houses in Morpeth was furnished by the town-clerk:—

"The table will show the narrow space afforded to each, but it can give no idea of the actual state of the rooms, or the scenes they exhibit. Those that offer beds have these articles of luxury filled with as many as can possibly lie upon them. Others find berths below the beds, and then the vacant spaces on the floor are occupied. Among these is a tub filled with vomit and natural evacuations. Other houses have no beds, but their occupiers are packed upon the floor, in rows, the head of one being close to the feet of another. Each body is placed so close to its neighbour as not to leave sufficient space upon which to set a foot. The occupants are entirely naked, except rugs drawn up as far as the waist; and when to this is added that the doors and windows are carefully closed, and that there is not the least distinction of sex, but men, women, and children lie indiscriminately side by side, some faint idea may be formed of the state of these places, and their effect upon health, morals, and decency. Fevers prevail, and the sick-ward of the workhouse is filled with typhus in its worst form from these places."

A gentleman, who had taken a great interest in the examination of towns, with a view of obtaining some remedy for the existing evils, gave an account of a part of Leeds, in which he stated that in a yard he inspected—

"was a house containing one room, with one bed in it, and no fewer than eight persons were found occupying it. In the same yard was another house, comprising two rooms, and containing three beds, and 31 persons were occupying them, giving an average of more than 10 persons to each bed. In that yard there were several other houses, in which three, four, or five persons occupied each bed. In a semicircle, drawn in a radius of about a quarter of a mile, they found 222 such lodging-houses."

What wonder, then, that typhus fever greatly prevailed? that the medical officers reported that it mainly had its origin in the low lodging-houses of the town? Again, another from Bradford writes—

"In some of these cellar-dwellings, of about four yards square, there were collected sometimes 20 persons, some in beds, some on the floor; some naked men and women together; children in the smallpox in the midst of them. One of these lodging-house keepers had been fined a few days before for having taken in so many. 'Sir,' said he, 'what is to be done with these people? there are not houses for them; can I let them lie in the street? 'I am told,' said his informant, 'that supposing Bradford to contain 60,000 people, at least One-fourth are at this moment thus lodged.'"

He should mention only one other place in London, for the purpose of showing the absolute necessity that existed for some remedy similar to that which he contem- plated; because it was right that the House should know the effect that clearances and alterations, made with the view of beautifying the metropolis, had on the accommodation of the working classes. When the great thoroughfare of New Oxford-street was opened, a great number of wretched dwellings were cleared away, and no provision was made for the accommodation of those inhabitants who were displaced, so that while the formation of that street added to the beauty of the town, it had the effect of exaggerating the evil that pressed on the humbler classes. There was a district in Bloomsbury called Church-lane, one of the filthiest that existed in the metropolis, and one of the most unsafe to visit, from the constant prevalence of fever. It was examined in 1848 by the Statistical Society, whose committee stated in their report that it presented—

"a picture in detail of human wretchedness, filth, and brutal degradation. In these wretched dwellings, all ages and both sexes, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, grown-up brothers and sisters, the sick, dying, and dead, are herded together. Take an instance: House No. 2, size of room 14 feet long, 13 feet broad, 6 feet high; rent 8s. for two rooms per week—under-rent, 3d. a night for each adult. Number of families, 3; 8 males above 20; 5 females above 20; 4 males under 20; 5 females under 20; total, 22 souls. Landlady receives 18s. a week; thus a clear profit of 10s. State of rooms filthy."

Now, the average number of persons in each house in Church-lane was 24, in 1841; when an examination took place in the end of 1847 the average was 40 persons to each house; and he desired particularly to direct the attention of the House to the fact that, the parties who had swelled those numbers were people displaced along that line of street occupied now as New Oxford-street, displaced in consequence of the formation and beautifying of that thoroughfare. When great improvements were in progress it was a matter for consideration whether provision ought not to be made for the accommodation of those removed, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the community, who were exposed to peculiar danger from the confluence of many persons into places which fostered typhus and cholera. Now, to give a summary of the state of the country, he would mention that the inspectors of the Board of Health had examined 161 populous places, the aggregate population being 1,912,599; and he might safely say that, without ex- ception, one uniform statement was made with respect to the domiciliary condition of large masses of the workpeople, that it was of one and the same disgusting character. It was therefore to meet such a state of things that he asked leave to bring in a Bill which should be as nearly as possible a transcript of the Baths and Wash-houses Bill. That measure had not been fully worked out in all respects as he trusted it would be; it was coming slowly into operation; but, where it had been applied, it had conferred a boon on the people, of which the benefits were incalculable. The provisions of the Bill he now asked leave to bring in would be—1, That the Act might be adopted in certain boroughs and parishes; 2, that the council of any borough might adopt the Act, the expenses to be charged on the borough funds; 3, that on requisition of ten ratepayers, churchwardens might convene a vestry to determine whether the Act should be adopted, but the resolutions were not be deemed carried unless two-thirds voted for it; 4, that, when the Act was adopted, the vestry should appoint commissioners for carrying the same into execution; 5, that the overseers levy, as part of the poor-rate, such sums as the vestry should deem necessary; 6, that vestries of two or more parishes might concur; 7, that town councils and commissioners might erect lodging-houses, or adapt buildings, or purchase existing houses; 8, that if lodging-houses were considered unnecessary, or too expensive, they might be sold with the approval of the Treasury; 9, that the council and commissioners might make bylaws, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and also fix charges subject to an appeal to the Poor Law Board; and, 10, which was a necessary provision, that no person receiving parochial relief should be allowed to be a tenant. This Bill he proposed to be altogether permissive, and not compulsory; it was desirable to follow, in this request, the precedent of the baths and washhouses. He might now state from some experience of the model lodging-houses, what good effects they had produced. Nothing was more remarkable than the cheerfulness with which the rents were paid. By an accurate or rigorous system, by not allowing rents to fall into arrear, the greatest punctuality was observed, equally beneficial to the parties who let, and the parties who paid. Another advantage was the freedom from disease. There was a very remarkable statement by Dr. Duncan, an officer of the Board of Health, writing from Liverpool, with reference to the effect which even a registration of lodging-houses had attained:—

"In a certain number of registered lodging-houses, the history of which has been traced, there occurred annually, before registration, which involves supervision, prevention of overcrowding, and attention to cleanliness, 150 cases of fever. During the late epidemic there occurred in these houses only 98 cases of cholera, while the total cholera cases in the town were to the fever cases of the preceding years referred to as two to one. So that cholera after registration was only in the proportion of one to three as compared with fever before registration."

The Model Lodging-house in George-street, Bloomsbury, was within a stone's throw of Church-lane. The ravages of cholera in Church-lane were dreadful; in the model buildings in George-street, Bloomsbury, not one person died, and there was only one case of diarrhœa, which speedily yielded to medical treatment. There was another benefit. The wages the people earned they kept. These were not expended on medical relief or the beershop. The accommodation offered in these houses held out inducements to remain at home; the possibility of cultivating some of the better part of man had been the means of reforming many in these establishments. These parties said, "The wages we earn we now keep." It was impossible to go among them without hearing the liveliest expressions of gratitude. One who visited the Model Lodging-house in Streatham-street would see the advantage to children, who had a large open space for play, instead of running in the streets and forming evil associations. Some objections had been stated to the system. First, it was said an increase of rent was a consequence which working people would not be able to boar. Assuming an increase, he was convinced they would be able to bear it, from the greater health they enjoyed, and the greater activity and diligence they would be able to bestow on their work. In many instances a working man was calculated to lose about 30 days in a year. At 1s. 6d. each day, the loss would be 2l. 5s., which was a vast deal more than any increase of rent for superior accommodation. He would say, besides, there was no increase of rent, but a diminution, and with that an adequate profit. It was stated that—

"The average rent paid in Snow's-rents, Westminster, 'a vile place,' was, in 1844, 2s. 4½d. per week per room. The people employed in the docks pay from 1s. 6d. to 3s. per week for single rooms, which for filth and disgusting appearance were such wretched hovels as defied giving a fair description of them. The single men pay in the lodging-houses 1s. 6d. per week for half abed, and 2s. for single beds, several sleeping in the same room, wanting in comfort, cleanliness, &c."

Another statement was, that the apartments rented by the London Dock labourers were at 2s. to 4s., the average being 3s. per week per room. Another person said—

"As near as I can judge, the average price paid per week for the wretched rooms occupied by the lowest poor in the vilest neighbourhoods is about 2s. 6d. To make up this rent the apartments are crowded to the greatest excess."

What was the rent in the model lodging-houses? In George-street, Bloomsbury, every man had a compartment to himself, with a bed, chair, and space for all necessary movements. For that compartment he paid 4d. a night, exactly the same payment demanded from him in the worst and most disgusting locality. That house yielded a clear profit of 6² per cent on the money invested. Then houses of three rooms, with every accommodation and a constant supply of water, were given at a rent equal to that exacted for one room elsewhere. The rent varied, according to the position of the rooms, from 3s. 6d. to 7s. An artisan, with 25s. to 30s. a week, might take a house at 6s. or 7s.; those making less, a house at 4s.; but they received every accommodation for the same sum that they paid for one disgusting room, which often had to be shared with another. Then it was said these matters ought to be left to private speculation. He should much object to that. Private speculation was very much confined to the construction of the smallest houses, of the lowest possible description, because it was out of those the most inordinate profits could be made. Private speculation was almost entirely in that direction. Then private speculators would not undertake these houses, for to make the lodging-house system work well, there must be constant and vigilant superintendence. Again, at this particular time there were many advantages for the construction of model lodging-houses. First, the reduction of the duty on bricks had greatly facilitated the operations. It was a reduction of 15 per cent to the consumer. On the entire cost of the house in Streatham-street it was about 3 per cent; but when the hollow brick was brought into use for houses of moderate size, a saving would be effected of no less than 25 per cent. He wished also to bear testimony to the great value of reduction of the window duty, and wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present to hear the result of the experience obtained by those interested in the model lodging-houses. The Streatham-street house contained suites of apartments for fifty families. If these suites were separate dwellings, there would be no window tax; but, being under one roof, window tax might be demanded to the amount of between 60l. and 70l. a year, adding 25s. a year to the rent of each set of apartments. The removal of the window duty would permit a reduction of rent from 7s. to 6s. 6d., and so on. Now, the present proposition violated no principle. These houses were self-supporting. What had been the result of some years' experience? The Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes had expended 20,750l. in building and fitting up these new piles of model houses, and 2,250l. in improving, adapting, and fitting up these ranges of old dwellings, making together an expenditure of 23,000l. The net return on the same, after deducting all incidental expenses, including those of management and ordinary repairs, averaged 6 per cent; or on new buildings, 5½ per cent; on old, 12 per cent. They had kept one house as a curiosity, and as an illustration of the exorbitancy and intolerable profits levied by the low lodging-houses. It was a small house, on which the profit was not less than 30 per cent. There could be no doubt that, from many of the houses a much larger profit was obtained. By the removal, too, of single houses in some localities, much might be done to promote a better circulation of air, and improve an entire district at a very cheap rate. It would, moreover, be very desirable to remove impediments in the way of associations to be formed with limited liabilities; but the expense of a charter was now an insuperable obstacle to the formation of all societies. He was anxious the House should take up a matter which had excited the interest of all civilised Europe; from parts of which, as well as from America, letters had been received, asking for the plans, and reports on the subject. He was certain that he spoke the truth—and a truth which would be confirmed by the testimony of all experienced persons, clergy, medical men, all who were conversant with the working classes—that, until their domiciliary condition were Christianised (he could use no legs forcible a term), all hope of moral or social improvement was utterly vain. Though not the sole it was one of the prime sources of the evils that beset their condition; it generated disease, ruined whole families by the intemperance it promoted, cut off or crippled thousands in the vigour of life, and filled the workhouses with widows and orphans. Let this be taken as a proof: in the time of cholera, in the Model Lodging-house in St. Pancras, there were 500 persons under one roof. In a small court, called Peahen-court, in Bishopsgate-street, there resided 150 persons. Mr. Grainger, the inspector, went over that court, and reported to the Committee, that, if the cholera did break out there, the consequences would be frightful. Three days afterwards the cholera broke out on that spot. In the Model Lodging-house, not a single person died of cholera. In Peahen-court, there were 7 deaths; and in one day 12 orphans were thrown on the workhouse. He found that the number of widowers, widows, and orphans, in 95 unions, caused by the cholera was—widowers and widows, 628; orphans, 1,689; total, 2,317. In Bradford there were 27 widowers and widows, and 82 orphans; total, 109; in Leeds, 35 widowers and widows, and 73 orphans, 108; Lambeth, 81 widowers and widows, and 234 orphans, 315; West Bromwich, 34 widowers and widows, and 86 orphans, 110; Wolverhampton, 27 widowers and widows, and 68 orphans, 95; and most of these became permanently chargeable on the workhouse. But what cholera did suddenly and openly, fever did slowly and secretly. The cholera slew its thousands, but fever its tens of thousands; and, if they doubted the fact they might have, within ten minutes' walk of the magnificent palace that was now being built for Parliament, full evidence of it. His prayer was, for leave to bring in a Bill to remove some of the fatal impediments that prevented the free exercise of the activity and energy of the working classes. They had never sufficiently tested either the will or the capacity of those classes, who, from a variety of circumstances, had been placed in a condition very disadvantageous indeed to the exercise of all their energies. He saw no reason why the working people of this country should not equal, if not surpass, in physical prosperity their brethren of the United States. Their wages were enormous, but their expenditure, in a great measure owing to their sanitary condition, was wild and extravagant. Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade, had published a work some time ago, called Self-imposed Taxation, and in that work he said that the expenditure of the working classes in this realm, in the consumption of three articles that might be abstained from entirely, or in a great degree, namely, spirits, beer, and tobacco, amounted to not less than 57,000,000l. a year. Imagine that sum expended in wholesome food, clothing, education, and the improvement of dwellings; and could any say that the moral, social, political, and religious condition of a responsible and immortal being would not be exalted in the scale of society? He could not believe they would fail in their efforts. He felt assured that God would bless such efforts, directed, as they would be, to the advancement of the social, moral, and religious wellbeing of a very largo portion of the human race; but it must be well borne in mind, that it was as necessary to pull down as to build: if these foul and dark receptacles were left, thousands would flow into them, and perpetuate the vice and wretchedness which disgraced these localities. The noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to encourage the construction of lodging-houses for the working classes.

seconded the Motion.

said, having himself been one of the visitors in fourteen large towns of the country, when he had the honour to be a member of the Board of Health, he could bear his testimony to the miserable condition of the working classes, arising from no fault of their own, but from the close and noisome courts and alleys in which thousands of them were unhappily located. He remembered, while in Wolverhampton, on visiting a small court there, a person with whom he conversed as to its condition, told him that he had seen all the inhabitants of that court transported twice over. He felt assured that permission would be given to bring in this Bill to allow them to direct their efforts to the mitigation of such enormous evils. One great difficulty arose from the law of partnerships, which prevented persons joining together to improve their dwellings; but he hoped there would be a remedy for that difficulty. The House should remember that the health of the working man was his property, and as they watched over the property of other classes, they ought also to watch over that.

had listened with great attention to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), and he must confess that it was a great reproach to that House that the state of things should exist of which the noble Lord had given such a painful description. Knowing the attention the noble Lord had paid to those matters, he (Mr. Hume) would ask any man whether he could have believed that such things existed in this country? Who were to blame? Not the unfortunate wretches who became the victims of badly-drained localities and ill-ventilated dwellings; but the Legislature, who had the power to prevent or remedy such evils, but had not exercised that power. The noble Lord had referred to the United States of America. There every man was taught to read and write; and what was there, he asked, inherent in the Englishman to prevent him from equalling the American? He remembered when 75 per cent of our whole taxation was levied from the working man, and it was not until within the last ten years that any attempt had been made in the direction of a more Christian and humane legislation. One great means for removing the present wretched state of things was the carrying out of the commercial policy of the late Sir Robert Peel; for the change of our fiscal system had proved very much calculated to improve the state of society. Another means was the promotion of education—an object, alas! too much obstructed by the opposition of rival sects of religion, who could not agree as to the system to be adopted, and so resisted any. In Manchester he was happy to find an attempt had been made to conquer this obstruction; and in Leeds, Liverpool, and other large towns, endeavours had been made for the diffusion of education, which deserved all praise. But the Government ought not to leave this great work to individuals. It was the duty of the Government to enforce the proper instruction of the people. Such measures as that before the House were useful; but it must be a general change alone which could remove a general evil, and until the various Christian communities united in the object of diffusing education among the masses, it was hopeless to expect any general improvement. The present measure could only be of any effect in distant parts of the country, by way of holding out examples worthy of imitation. Its object was laudable, but its effects would be superficial; and until the Government felt and acted on the conviction that legislative intervention ought not to be restrained to the mere physical improvement of the people, but applied also to their moral and religious education, no real progress could be made in the extirpation of the evils of which all perceived the existence.

said, he gave a willing assent to the introduction of the Bill; the subject being, he was aware, intimately connected with the well-being of the great body of the people. He feared that the system which prevailed in the metropolis, and the other large towns, of crowding to-together masses of people in ill-constructed and in ill-ventilated houses, was destructive alike of their physical health and moral welfare. As to the measure proposed by his noble Friend, of course the House must suspend its judgment till the Bill was before it. He understood, however, that it was permissive, and was framed upon the principle of the Baths and Washhouses Act, which had in so many cases effected so much benefit. But he thought that the House could not look to any measure of this kind to remove the evil which existed in the country; and his noble Friend himself had indicated the means by which greater good could be done—that is, by encouraging associations for the promotion of these objects, and, to this end, removing the obstacles, fiscal, legal, or otherwise, which had hitherto stood in the way of the working of such associations. His hon. Friend (Mr. Slaney) had directed his attention to this subject, and had presided over a Committee last Session (another similar one having already been appointed), for the purpose of considering especially the expense of the obtaining of a charter by any such association. The attention of the Government bad been directed to this subject, and measures would be taken shortly to reduce that expense within reasonable limits. Such measures were more to be relied on than any direct legislation. He had been glad to hear his noble Friend state the importance of the alteration of duties like those on timber, and acknowledge the advantages arising to the working classes from the repeal of the window duties. And he was persuaded that by proceeding in this course, and removing obstacles in the way of the construction of lodging-houses for the poor, more good would be done than by any direct legislation on the subject. He was not, however, at all inclined to disparage the effort made by his noble Friend, under certain restrictions and in certain cases, to encourage the formation of model lodging-houses out of the poor-rates. He did not doubt his noble Friend would adopt the principle of the Baths and Washhouses Act, as establishing a scale beyond which the rents should not be raised, in the event of lodging-houses being erected and placed under the control of Commissioners. It was not only in towns, but also in the country, that the subject was important, for in many country districts not to be reached by any Bill such as that proposed by his noble Friend, the evil existed to as great an extent almost as in large towns. Speaking, however, of that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected, he would say that the attention of the upper classes had boon turned to the subject; and they had felt that the responsibility rested on them of providing houses for the poor, independent of any pecuniary advantages to be derived from such a system, and rather regarding those far higher and more valuable results, the improved condition and religious and moral elevation of the working classes. As to the question of education, he concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) in thinking that it was of the greatest importance; and he agreed in the feeling of gratification his hon. Friend had expressed at the attempt lately made at Manchester, with a good prospect of success, to establish a system of education more commensurate to the wants of the population than any hitherto existing. Without, however, entering further into that subject, he must say that he thought his hon. Friend, in complaining of the inertness of the Government, had overlooked what they had recently been doing, and the great improvements they had effected in the promotion of popular education. But, after all, it was not to the Government, it was rather to the efforts of individuals, and associations of individuals, that they must look for real and general improvement among the great body of the people. All that the Government could do was to remove obstacles in the way, and to present facilities, by modifications of the law, more useful than direct legislation. He wished success to the scheme now set on foot for the abatement of so enormous an evil, and he thought the country was indebted to his noble Friend for having called attention to the subject. The very notoriety of the facts his noble Friend had stated, would lead persons to devote more attention to the subject, and each in his separate sphere would, he trusted, use his influence for the attainment of so important an object.

said, for some years his attention had been directed to the subject; and he had in his own parish endeavoured to promote the object they had in view. He had, however, experienced much opposition from the ratepayers, and he was persuaded that the Government ought to interfere, and that it was impossible for individuals or associations to attempt the work without the aid of an Act of Parliament. He could confirm the statements of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), and believed that great advantage would result from his measure—not merely from the lodging of a certain number of persons, but from the effect of the example of thirty-four model lodging-houses in the different parishes of the metropolis, which would compel landlords to improve the dwelling houses they let to the poorer classes. Such measures were far more important than political rights, for it was impossible to arrive at and improvement of the religious and moral state of the poor while they were badly clothed and housed, and unable to practise proper cleanliness and decency.

said, there was a strong necessity for direct legislation, even more direct than that now proposed. The extension of education might, as his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had stated, do much for the eradication of existing evils, but could not do all that was required. Instances occurred by hundreds of thousands of persons tolerably instructed coining to largo towns for the sake of employment, and forced by necessity into those dens which had been alluded to, there to herd with the wretched inmates, and to have their whole moral being degraded and debased. It was impossible for the poor of themselves to resist the inevitable effects of the evil and powerful influence of circumstances thus brought to bear upon them. There were two great difficulties which made direct interference on the part of the Government necessary. One was that the working man was limited in the range of his residence, being forced to sleep within a certain distance of his place of employment. The other was, that the farming out of old houses in the loathsome way which had been described, was a lucrative occupation, Such "fever factories," as they had been called, should not be allowed to exist, but should be proscribed by law. So long as such a system existed, nothing great could be effected by education among the working classes, who had not the power—by free competition—of resisting the wretched system to which they were exposed. His fear was that the measure of the noble Lord would be too feeble, and would not do enough. The very improvements effected in those parts of the metropolis or other large towns inhabited by the middle classes, aggravated the evil under which the poor suffered, for they were cramped up into a smaller compass, and were more and more crowded together. Such a system unquestionably called for powerful legislative interference.

as a member of the Metropolitan Building Association, could inform the hon. Members who had preceded him, that much good could be effected without the aid of Acts of Parliament; and he could tell the hon. Member for Reading that steps had been taken to introduce the improved system of the association into that town, where he hoped it would have his support. His opinion was, that direct interference was not the duty of the Government, and that the removal of obstacles and difficulties was all that the Government should attempt. One main difficulty was in the expense of commencing an association, and he could state that the obtaining of the charter for the association he belonged to had cost 1,200l. If means could be devised for reducing the expense, much good would be effected.

said, that the amount of the expense in that instance had been owing to peculiar circumstances, especially the great length of the charter, and a legal error in the course pursued by the association. Certainly, however, the expense of unopposed charters was at present too great, and the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject. He felt that whatever check might be imposed on the formation of such associations, it ought not to be in the indirect form of a heavy pecuniary fine, but rather with the discretion exercised by that department of the Government which was entrusted with the regulation of such matters. It was unfair to impose a heavy fine, in the shape of expenses, upon a charter the granting of which that department must have already decided was a public benefit. He believed the expenses would be reduced to such a moderate extent, that they would no longer interfere in the attainment of objects so desirable.

said, he begged to move that that House should resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the state of Ireland. In doing so he would attempt to describe the distressed condition of the great majority of the people of Ireland, and would compare her condition in 1845 with her condition at the present moment. He took 1845, because it was immediately after that year that the three great causes to which he attributed the present distressed condition of Ireland had occurred. The first cause to which he alluded was the famine, the second was the change in the corn laws, and the third was the disastrous poor-law which had been inflicted in 1846. To commence with the poor-law, he found that in 1845 the poor-law taxation in Ireland amounted to 310,000l., while in 1850, according to the official returns, it was 1,571,000l., being an increase of 1,261,000l. He would be told by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that a decrease of 90,000 had taken place in the poor-law relief list. That had been vaunted from one end of the kingdom to the other, but it was the greatest delusion ever practised on a credulous people. In 1849 the Irish Members of the House pressed on the Government the necessity of abolishing outdoor relief in Ireland by means of the workhouse test, and he (Sir H. W. Barron) moved a clause in the Poor Law Amendment Act, that all outdoor relief should cease. A discussion had taken place on the 3rd July, 1849, on his clause, and every one agreed that we ought to return to what Sir Robert Peel had told the Government was the principle of the Bill of 1837, that no outdoor relief should be given. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland then pledged himself that this principle should be adopted, and the Motion was withdrawn. That pledge had certainly been kept: the Poor Law Commissioners had instructed the boards of guardians in Ireland to put the workhouse test to the whole of the paupers on the list, which caused the decrease of upwards of 90,000 paupers. In every instance in which the test had been applied the relief list had been reduced. In one of the Dublin unions there were 17,000 paupers on the outdoor relief list; the test of the workhouse was applied, and in six weeks only 400 out of that number were found to take the test. In the union of Waterford, he had obtained his information from the master of the workhouse; in July, 1849, there were 2,500 persons on the outdoor relief list, only 200 of whom had taken the test. He therefore asserted, that the reduction of the outdoor relief lists was to proof of the reduction of pauperism. It simply showed that great fraud was practised before the test was applied. There were 191,000 on the indoor lists in 1848; in 1849 there were 194,000; and in 1850 197,000, thus showing a considerable increase in the number of paupers. He would now look at the state of the workhouses in his own district. In Waterford, on the 1st February, 1850, there were 2,540 persons in the workhouses; and on the 1st February, 1851, there were 2,798. In Kilkenny, on the 1st February, 1850, there were 2,98G paupers in the workhouses; and on the 1st February, 1851, there were 4,120. In Cork there was an increase of 141 persons during the same period. The pauperism of the country was thus increasing instead of decreasing. The master of the Waterford workhouse stated that in May, 1849, there were 1,128 persons on the outdoor relief list; but if the families of those persons were included, it would increase the number to 2,548. The county rate had increased in 1845, to from 149,132l.; to 351,000l. Thus making an increase of taxation—poor-law, 1,261,000l.; county rate, 201,868l.; total, 1,460,000l. With this great increase of taxation, what was the state of the agricultural districts? He found, by Captain Larcom's tables, which reached down to the beginning of 1850, that, compared with the first year he had alluded to, there was a decrease of corn cultivation—including peas and beans—of 1,139,000 acres less in 1849 than in 1847. The taxation of the country at the same time had increased by nearly 1,500,000l., and the means of paying that taxation was from the land. Taking 6l. an acre as the average value of corn produce, that would make 6,600,000l. less in the produce of grain cultivation than in 1847. Then the return of swine imported into England from Ireland showed a diminution of 1,000,000l. less than in 1845, which, together with the decrease of 500,000l. in the importation of sheep from Ireland, would make altogether upwards of 8,000,000l. less produce. How could any country go on with such a decreasing produce, and increasing taxation? These facts could not be denied. He had seen destitution surrounding him at every step—he had seen things which were never known, and could scarcely be believed by any one in this country. Every one who had looked at the effect of the Encumbered Estates Bill, would see how landed property had diminished in value. In his own county alone, three estates had been sold, one of which had been sold 32 years ago at 23 years' purchase. It had now been sold for little more than 12 years' purchase. Land sold in 1845 for 24 years' purchase, was now sold, according to the average rate of the Commissioners of Encumbered Estates, for 14 years' purchase, sometimes even loss than nine. Land in Ireland was let at a rate 30 per cent cheaper than in this country. Frown his own experience as a landowner and as a farmer on an extensive scale, he could say that land in Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire, and Kent, with which counties he was familiar, was let 30 per cent higher than in Ireland. The reason why land was selling at so low a price in Ireland was the bad legislation of that House, which had glutted the market at a time of extreme depreciation. But did all these circumstances affect land only? They affected all the towns with which he was acquainted. For instance, household property in the city which he had the honour of representing (Waterford), had fallen 40 per cent, and there was 5,000l. per annum of rateable property in that city uninhabited. Trade had vanished, and the shopkeepers were all but bankrupt. The labourers had either emigrated, or were in the poorhouse. He asked for investigation into these facts—he challenged inquiry, for he was certain that he could prove them. He had lately seen a letter from Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, in which he stated, in answer to a letter which had been addressed to him by a clergyman, asking, whether a collection should be made in his chapel for the proposed Roman Catholic university—

"In the present impoverished condition of our city (Dublin)—while our charitable institutions of prime necessity are, as you well know, languishing for want of adequate support—when the very rent which is duo for your parochial house has not, from the decayed state of the parish, been yet collected, I cannot bring myself to call on the poor labourer and the struggling shopkeeper for a collection on their entrance into their place of worship."

This, he thought, was pretty strong evidence of the distress which prevailed in the metropolis of Ireland. He was not very fond of quoting from newspapers; but there was a passage from the Dublin Evening Post—a great free-trade paper, and which, he believed, was the only paper in Ireland patronised by the Government—a paper whose constant cry had been, that the Irish landlords were the greatest tyrants in the world. The article began in the usually flippant style of that paper, and then proceeded as follows:—

"If the Papal Aggression Bill were abandoned, there would still remain agricultural distress. This is an evil, and a most formidable evil, for which there seems no hope of remedy. Still we hold it to be our duty to publish accounts of this distress, and to force the well-grounded complaints of the Irish landowner and farmer on the attention of the public. The exhausting effects of famine and its inordinate taxation have left the Irish farmer helpless in the struggle to hold his position against still deficient crops and unremunerative prices."

He found that, even in his own district, at the present moment, a sum of 1,800l. was outstanding for poor-rates; and the collector said, that he should be obliged to seize, in order to levy that large amount. It was also a further proof of distress, that, in all large towns of Ireland, the number of coaches and vehicles had diminished in a most remarkable manner. In Waterford formerly, there was kept 40 pairs of coach-horses, now there are only 16 pairs. Formerly there were two steamers running between Waterford and Bristol; one had already ceased running, and the other was about to be taken off. He thought that the condition of a country which was suffering under this state of distress, ought to command the attention of Parliament. Every class—and no class so much as the labouring class—was reduced at this moment to the lowest state of misery and distress. He would now read an extract from a letter from a gentleman in Ireland who was a Whig, and who had made large sacrifices for the Whig party in Ireland. That gentleman said—

"The resignation of Ministers has been received here, and I regret to say that it has been received with universal satisfaction. The Whigs have been very unfortunate in the government of Ireland. Trade is smashed, the landlords ruined, the towns broken, and the labourer in the poor-house. Those of the people who have the means left are flying out of the kingdom by parishes. To this complexion has it come at last, that the Irish nation is totally wrecked, and left to be devoured by its own paupers. The cities, the towns, the villages, are half deserted; nearly all the peasants' cottages are levelled to the ground, and their former inhabitants wandering about the country as beggars or thieves. Such is the multitude of these strollers, that the farmers cannot sleep at night, lest their houses should be broken into and robbed. The spring emigration has commenced by 700 persons leaving this port on yesterday."

This subject of emigration proved, more than anything else, the miserable condition of Ireland. What alarmed him most was, that it was not the pauper that was going; but the man who had some money was getting together his means, and leaving a country in which he could no longer gain a livelihood. He agreed entirely in what Lord Stanley said to his friends the other night, that—

"Can it be a mark of the prosperity of a country when tens of thousands of industrious men, women, and children, are collecting together the wreck of their fortunes, and flying from penury and distress at home, and carrying with them what they have been able to save out of their diminished capital and property, to enrich, not our own colonial possessions, but foreign countries, with their industry and capital, and, in too many cases, their blighted affections also."

Those people would not forget that it was bad laws which had driven them from the land of their birth. He believed that nothing but extreme misery would drive an Irishman away from his native land. Let him observe that it was one most remarkable feature connected with these poor people, that they send large remittances to relieve their unfortunate families at home. He had known some of them to send back 9l. or 10l. in as many months, who left Ireland without a single shilling beyond the expense of paying their passage to New York or some other American port. However they might abuse the Irish nation in that House and in the newspapers, he would say that there was not a better peasantry on the face of the earth than the Irish peasantry; and that fact—which he now stated with respect to these remittances for the relief of their unfortunate relatives and friends at home—was worth whole volumes of eulogies. As to criminal offences, these had fearfully increased in Ireland. In 1845, the number of criminal offences against property without violence was 5,686; in 1849, the number had increased to 23,179—more than fourfold in five years. When he looked at the latest Customs returns, received yesterday, he found that there had been a falling-off in the Customs receipts in Ireland, this year, of 37,000l. When he inquired into the condition of the circulating medium in Ireland, he found that, in the last month alone, there was a deficiency of not less than 131,000l. Such was the miserable, the prostrate condition of unhappy Ireland. If the House refused to take measures for remedying that misery and raising up that prostration, they would be confessing their impotence, their unfitness to govern. He called upon English legislators as men, as Members, as Christians, not to suffer Ireland to perish, while they so vaunted the prosperity of their own country. From the Treasury bench the name of Ireland was never heard; in the Queen's Speech distant lands, India, Canada, every thing and every place, was attended to, except Ireland; model lodging-houses for the English poor were attended to, but not starving, despairing Ireland. He should conclude by once more calling upon the English Legislature to save his unhappy country.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed that little was known in this country of what was passing in Ireland at the present moment. He was glad that the affairs of the Kilrush Union had been brought under the notice of the country, by the letters of the Rev. Mr. Osborne, which had detailed some most frightful and heartrending scenes, and to which he would beg to direct the attention of the Government; but he thought an undeserved censure had been thrown upon the Chairman of that Union, whose exertions were most praiseworthy. There were hon. Members who spoke of the poor-rate of 11s. in the pound levied last year in that union as a poor-rate of trifling amount. But he maintained that it was an enormous amount of poor-rate, when it was considered that this was a new tax in Ireland. In the year just ended, rates of 5s., and then of 6s. in the pound, had been struck, and, since Friday last, a new rate of 4s. 6d. was announced. But this was not the strongest case. In the Tullagh Union, county of Clare, the poor-rates in the last twelve months amounted to no less than 15s. 6d. in the pound. The tendency of these high rates was to drive farmers out of the parish. Whole electoral divisions became desolate under the operation of such rates; the landlords had to pay the rates, and had to get a new set of farmers. This had happened in several cases within his own knowledge. The estimates made within the electoral divisions for the future maintenance of the poor, also deserved notice. He would not speak of two or three years ago, when the estimated rates were 44s. in some of the electoral divisions in the county of Clare. In one of the electoral unions of the county of Clare, the estimated poor-rate necessary for the present year was 16s. 10d. He saw, by a letter from Lord Dunsandle, chairman of the Loughrea Union, county of Galway, that in some of the electoral divisions of that union the estimate was 20s. in the pound for the coming year. The hon. Member for Kerry said the other night that the estimate for the union of Kenmare was 26s. in the pound for the ensuing twelve months. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) had the rate in aid and 68,000l. in hand to give to these distressed unions. But how would he proceed when that rate was expended? Then as to the crowding of the gaols. In the county of Clare there was a gaol built for 180 persons that had 600 in it. The cost of this gaol ten years ago was 1,500l., this year it was 6,000l. The poorhouses in the county of Clare were crammed to overflowing; one contained 5,000 inmates, another 4,000, and another in the union of which he was chairman had 3,000 inmates. Altogether 20,000 persons were shut up in the workhouses in that county. In the city of Limerick there were 7,000 in the workhouse. He need say nothing of the immorality caused by the congregation of such numbers, or of the cruel separation of families. He believed it would be far better to give outdoor relief; but the impositions practised by the applicants for relief, and the want of firmness on the part of those who managed the Poor Law, rendered it impossible to give outdoor relief without the liability to constant and wholesale impositions. The extent to which this imposition had been carried had driven them (the Irish Members) to press it upon the Government that no outdoor relief should be granted, but that the workhouse test should be adopted. He thought it would have been better if the Government had thrown their weight into the local administration of the law instead of weakening it. The indoor test need never have been resorted to if the Government had given to the people of Ireland the power of administering the law without the interference of the Poor Law Commissioners, whose expenses last year amounted to 17.000l. He trusted the House would grant the Committee, because he believed that facts would be unfolded with which the public were little acquainted.

said, the hon. Baronet who introduced this Motion had done so in a somewhat ingenious manner. He commenced by fixing on a period from which he said be would start, and by stating that between that period and the present he intended to make a comparison, and to draw the conclusion which he wished to offer to the House. The hon. Baronet stated that he attributed the present distress to the famine, to the repeal of the corn laws, and to the poor-laws. After stating that opinion, however, he commenced an attack on the poor-laws, and from the general tenor of his speech it was not difficult to observe that the Hon. Baronet attributedt he whole distress to those laws. [Sir H. W. BARRON: No, no!] He (Sir W. Somerville) would not now dwell on what was the condition of Ireland in 1845; but to hear the hon. Baronet, they would have supposed that it was then in a state of perfect prosperity—but on that point he need only refer to his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Hamilton), to the hon Member for the city of Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson), and to the other Members of Lord Devon's Commission who had framed that Report and collected that evidence, which showed what in 1845 was the condition of the Irish people, and particularly of the labouring population. The period at which the hon. Baronet had commenced his comparison, was, in the opinion of the Devon Commission, that in which the position of the labouring population was everything that was miserable, wretched, and degraded. The hon. Baronet drew a comparison between the poor-rates levied in 1845 and those made in 1851; but he omitted the intermediate periods, the fact being that there were 80,000 or 90,000 paupers less now than there were then. He held in his hand a return, for which he had moved in the beginning of the present Session, giving the expenses of the poor-law. This return did not begin in 1845, but was confined to the three last years, which would show whether the expenses of the poor-law had increased or decreased in that period, and, whether the number of paupers had also increased or decreased. The ordinary expenses for all Ireland under the poor-law during the quarter ending the 31st of December, 1848, were 425,045l.; 1849, 302,976l.; 1850, 247,271l. Now, he would not say, after reading this return, that Ireland was in a state of prosperity, but some progress in improvement had at any rate been made during the last two or three years; and the comparison made by the hon. Baronet was shown to be most unfair, and only calculated to mislead the House. The total number of paupers on the relief lists at the close of the quarter ended December 31, was, in 1848, 585,106; 1849, 290,015; 1850, 200,533. He could not attempt to prove upon these figures that Ireland was in a state of prosperity, but he thought he was justified in asserting that there had been some amelioration in her condition, and that any comparison between the present year and 1845 was fallacious. The hon. Baronet had complained of the system of outdoor relief being put an end to by the measure of the Government, and yet, while admitting that the Poor Law Commissioners had discharged their duty well, he had visited them with his most severe censure. [Sir H. W. BARRON: No; I never said a word against them.] The hon. Baronet had referred to Captain Larcom's returns, and by some extraordinary process, such as leaving out the peas, he made out that there was a decreased quantity of land in Ireland under cultivation. Now, as he (Sir W. Somerville) read the returns, they showed an entirely different result. He had before him a return of the total extent of land under crops, and the quantities were as follows: in 1847, 5,238,575 acres; 1848, 5,108,062 acres; 1849, 5,543,748 acres.—[Sir H. W. Barron: Of what?] Of cultivated land.

The right hon. Gentleman has totally misapprehended what I said. What I stated was, that in corn—including peas and beans—according to the returns of Captain Larcom, there were, in 1847, 3,313,579 acres of land under cultivation for these crops; and, in 1849, 2,174,480 acres; leaving a decrease of 1,139,000 acres.

Yes, the hon. Baronet had picked out just such bits of Captain Larcom's returns as suited his purpose. What did it signify whether the land was laid down in corn or not, so long as it was cultivated? If the amount of green crops had increased, so much the better. What the House had to look to was the whole result, and not the quantity of peas and beans. And it was clear that the amount of cultivated land was greater in 1849 than it was in 1847 and 1848. The hon. Baronet had referred to the exports of cattle; and here again he had just taken so much of the return as suited his purpose, and no more. The hon. Baronet had confined his remarks to pigs—certainly a most valuable animal in Ireland; bat, taking oxen and cows, the exports had increased. He did not mean to say that Ireland was in a flourishing condition, but he did say that there had been some improvement within the last two years; and picking out hits of returns, as the hon. Baronet had done, was not the way to put the House in possession of the real state of affairs. Then the hon. Baronet had branched off to his own district, and quoted the county cess paid by the city of Water-ford. But the returns showed that this amount was actually less than it was some years ago. Arguments founded on returns quoted in this partial way ought not to have any weight with the House. On a former occasion the hon. Baronet had censured the Government in a letter for the introduction of a Bill, many of the clauses of which he said were copied from a Bill of his own. He could assure the hon. Baronet that not a single clause had been adopted from his Bill. The hon. Baronet had then referred to emigration as a proof of the distress in Ireland. Emigration was not a very healthy symptom; but they had had numerous Motions in that House, not for the purpose of checking, but of promoting emigration. If emigration was so great an evil, the duty of the Government would be to check, and not to promote it. On the subject of crime, he was again at issue—relying on the returns before the House—with the hon. Baronet. Comparing, not 1850 with 1845, but with 1849 and 1848, a decrease was shown; and this was the fairest test of the condition of Ireland. The returns of commitments made by the constabulary showed the following totals for the months of January and February in 1849, 1850, and 1851:—

	1849.	1850.	1851.
January	1,810.	1,017	919
February	1,686.	1,124	960

These statistics were more correct, and better calculated to lead the House to a just conclusion, than those of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Clare (Sir L. O'Brien), who seconded the Motion, complained that the administration of the Poor Law interfered too much with the functions of local boards. The opinion of the House generally was quite opposed to this view. It was right that every latitude should be left to local boards, and that the power of the Poor Law Commissioners should only be resorted to in cases of great emergency. The state of the Kilrush union had been referred to; but taking into account the difficulties which the guardians of that union had to contend with, the Commissioners had called for a special report from their inspector on the state of that union, which report, as soon as presented, would be laid on the table of the House. He might add that the statements of the Rev. Mr. Osborne in the public press with respect to that as well as other unions, had attracted the notice of the Commissioners, who had instructed their inspectors to report thereon; and these reports would also be laid before the House. He must state that the Poor Law Commissioners were gentlemen of as great humanity, and as anxious for the welfare of the poor, as was Mr. Osborne himself. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. W. Barron) had said that the affairs of Ireland were not cared for in that House. Now he (Sir W. Somer-ville) had just taken the trouble to make out a list of the different Commissions of Inquiry into the state of Ireland which had been issued since the year 1840. He would not go through that list, but he might state that they amounted in number to thirteen. A large number of Committees of the Houses of Lords and Commons had been appointed on matters relating to Ireland from the year 1840 to the year 1851. These Committees had embraced every conceivable subject connected with the social condition of Ireland. The number of questions they had put had amounted to many thousands, and the number of Committees had been sixty-three. Having these sixty-three Committees to refer to, his hon. Friend (Sir H. W. Barron) came forward and asked for a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ire- land. And what to consider? He (Sir W. Somerville) had listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Baronet, hut could not make out from that speech one single idea as to what it was into which they were to inquire. The hon. Baronet had not given them the slightest intimation as to the business of the Committee. Were they to launch out to sea, as it were, with no object in view, and allow every hon. Gentleman in the House to propose his own nostrum? He hoped the House would negative the proposal. It was only calculated to arouse false hopes which never could be satisfied. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. W. Barron) had not said what he would propose. He (Sir W. Somerville) suspected the hon. Baronet meant they should fish for some chance remedy which might turn up. The Motion was one which would do no good, if carried, but would prove eminently mischievous, and on these grounds he hoped the House would reject it. He was not by any means indisposed to do what was beneficial for Ireland, when it was proposed in a substantive and practical manner.

said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had stated that he could find no tangible proposition in the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir H. W. Barron). He (Mr. Reynolds) had listened to the speech which the hon. Baronet had made, and he had the same fault to find. But he could not forget, and the House could not forget, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had informed them that thirteen Committees had sat on the affairs of Ireland. [Sir W. SOMERVILLE: Sixty-three.] He thanked his right hon. Friend for having multiplied it by eleven. [Laughter.] He was sorry that he was a little wrong in his multiplication. The right hon. Baronet had informed them that these sixty-three Committees had asked a certain number of questions. He had forgotten the number, and would therefore leave that matter to the right hon. Baronet. Let them ask, however, in sober seriousness what benefit these sixty-three Committees, with all their questions, had conferred on Ireland? Had they put any additional clothes on the backs of the people? Had they increased their comforts in any degree? He believed they had not in any respect improved the condition of the people. They all knew that when any grievance was to be shelved and thrown aside, the proper way of getting rid of it was to appoint a Committee, who put a certain number of questions, and made a large blue book. Now, he begged to state that it was his intention to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford, but he wished to guard himself against approving of his speech. He did not wish to be bound by that speech, because, if good for anything it was good for this—to do away with the Poor Law. He was not prepared to do that. It asked them to go back to protection. He was not prepared for that. It proposed to increase the power of their landlords. He was not prepared to vote for any measure which would increase their power. His object, however, in troubling the House at all on this subject was in consequence of an observation made by his hon. Friend the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) with reference to the honoured name of a benevolent and charitable English Protestant clergyman—the Rev. Mr. Osborne. He had understood the hon. Baronet to say that the House should receive that rev. gentleman's assertions with great caution. He (Mr. Reynolds) need not say that that was more than insinuating a doubt against the rev. gentleman's veracity. Let him (Mr. Reynolds) remind the House that the Rev. Mr. Osborne, in a letter, to the Times, had offered to prove his assertions to the House, and it came with a bad grace from the hon. Member (Sir L. O'Brien) to impeach Mr. Osborne's veracity. The hon. Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien) had, however, gone further than this, and had attempted to vindicate the character of Irish landlords, and among others he believed that of Colonel Vandeleur, whom the hon. Baronet had described as a very benevolent landlord, overflowing with the milk of human kindness. He (Mr. Reynolds) had, however, the evidence of a blue book on the subject. From that book he found that in Kilrush Union within a short period prior to 1850 there had been 1,951 families whose houses had been levelled, 408 families who had been unhoused, and 341 families who had been admitted as care-takers. The gross number who had been evicted, had their houses levelled, or been adopted as care-takers was 2,359, representing a population of 12,000 persons. He found also that there had teen evicted from Colonel Vandeleur's property 185 families, representing a population of 1,001 persons. On the list from which he (Mr. Reynolds) had read the name of Colonel Vandeleur, would be found many of the guardians of Kilrush Union, many agents of guardians, many drivers of guardians, and many bailiffs of guardians. He was ashamed to say they were all Irish. [The O'GORMAN MAHON: No!] The hon. Member for Ennis said "No." [The O'GORMAN MAHON: Colonel Vandeleur is not Irish.] Well, he made the hon. Member a present of the difference. Colonel Vandeleur was what they called a transplanted Irishman. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had said that Ireland showed signs of prosperity. Where did he find the evidence of that prosperity? Manufactures had vanished from Ireland; and their commercial transactions had declined. The trade of Ireland was a mere coasting trade: she was a mere huxter-shop to England. Ireland manufactured nothing for herself, and even was compelled to import the cast-off clothing of England to supply her population. How could it be otherwise? What had that House done to improve her condition? He found nothing but Acts to suspend the constitution, and Acts to amend Poor Law Acts. He heard the hon. Baronet (Sir H. W. Barron) express his regret that the landlords had not greater power given them in the administration of the Poor Law, notwithstanding that already the unfortunate people were handed over to them bound neck and heels. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had introduced a clause into the Poor Law Act increasing the number of ex officio guardians, and making them equal to the elected guardians, though previously they were only in the proportion of 33 per cent on each board. The noble Lord also sanctioned a clause in the Poor Law Act which greatly oppressed the poor tenant. Under the old Poor Law Act the landlord was compelled to pay half the rate where the rent did not exceed the valuation; whilst at present, no matter how high the rent might he, the landlord was only called upon to pay half the rate; and in that way was much relieved. The hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) had spoken of 11s. in the pound; but that meant only 5s. 6d. in the pound to the landlord, and 5s. 6d. to the tenant. He had forgotten one fact, namely, that under the old valuation the Kilrush union was valued at 68,000l. per annum, whilst under the revised valuation, it was only valued at between 40,0002l. and 45,000l. per annum. Therefore, 11s. in the pound on the new valuation was not as severe on the landlord as 5s. in the pound under the old valuation. He (Mr. Reynolds) then made this assertion, that in the Kilrush union land was let to occupying tenants at double the rent it was valued at to the relief of the poor; and yet the landlord only paid half the rate. But passing from that union, he wished to know on what grounds the Government could justify their refusal to granting this Committee. What harm could it do? One good that might be expected from it was, that the feeling expressed in that House might compel the poor-law authorities in Ireland to direct immediate attention to the mortality that was occurring in the Kilrush and Ennistymon Unions. A challenge had been thrown down by the Rev. Mr. Osborne, to send witnesses down and he would prove the accuracy of his assertions; and he hoped the challenge would be accepted by Ministers. He (Mr. Reynolds) would then desist from further observations, because he had a Motion on Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, when he would draw the attention of the House to all that had occurred and was occurring in these unhappy unions; and it was also his intention to avail himself on the occasion of the facts embodied in the evidence already before the House, as also of the assistance of the Rev. Mr. Osborne, notwithstanding that he had been calumniated there that night.

thought it was a great pity that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had not waited to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. He would probably have seen, had he given close attention to the subject, that if they went into Committee, the fight would not be between Ministers and their opponents, but between different sections of the Irish Members; like an interpleader suit at law, the parties would not be opposed to one another, but would be against themselves. He could not help saying that there appeared to him a great deal of justice in what was said about distress in Ireland proceeding from the free-trade measures of 1846, and the Poor Law of 1847, but he thought any attempt in those directions to retrace their footsteps would be ruinous to the population of Ireland. For other reasons he was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had refused to agree to the Motion. He did believe, however, as regarded employment for labour, that the Government could do little more than afford facilities for private enterprise; and he could not help very much regretting that the orders and rules of that House interfered with those loans to railway companies, from which the best results might be anticipated. If the House would suspend its own Standing Orders, an obstruction which they created would be removed from the investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds which private capitalists were ready to embark in the construction of railways on the security which the ratepayers were ready to give. To this the Standing Orders offered an insurmountable impediment by requiring a large proportion of the capital to be paid up. By a wise departure from the strict rules of the House, he doubted not that thousands of the starving population of Ireland would obtain employment. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for the city of Waterford (Sir H. W. Barron), in the speech which he delivered that night, had spoken of the year 1845 as the year of Ireland's greatest prosperity—it at least preceded the decadence of the Irish people. The Devon Commission made their report in the beginning of 1845, after the existence of protection upon home-grown corn for thirty years, and they stated that it was impossible adequately to describe the privations endured by the cottiers and labourers, and their families, whose only food was in many districts the potato, and their only beverage water. He believed a great amount of distress now prevailed among the labouring classes in Ireland; but if he were told that to cure that distress they must go back to a fallacious system of protection, he would point to the report of this impartial commission. In giving his vote for the Motion, he protested strongly against the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the city of Waterford, that the distresses of Ireland were to be remedied by a return to the system of protection.

said, that it was usual, when an hon. Member moved for a Committee of Inquiry, to give some information as to the causes of the evils which were deprecated, and as to the remedies which were suggested; but in this case the hon. Member for the city of Waterford had not given any such information to the House. If, however, hon. Gentlemen gave their attention to the extensive infor- mation obtained on this subject by various Commissions of Inquiry, and by Committees of that House, he thought they would be at no loss to determine what were the causes of the distress which existed in Ireland. They would find, as the result of all previous inquiries, that the main cause of the distresses of Ireland was the disordered state of the relations of Landlord and Tenant. He did not think it possible that the lives of the Irish people could have been saved during recent disastrous years, if it had not been for the repeal of the corn laws. He did not wish to resist inquiry into the distresses of Ireland, but he was desirous that that inquiry should be directed to a tangible point, and he would, therefore, move that the following words be added to the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford:—"And more especially to consider the best means of amending the laws relating to the relationship of landlords and tenants in Ireland."

seconded the Amendment.

stated that he had no objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member for Rochdale being added to his Motion.

Sir, I am afraid that the House would not have any very clear or definite remedies before it if it went into a Committee of the whole House. The hon. Member for the city of Waterford (Sir H. W. Barron) proposes to go into a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland, and he refers more particularly to the famine, to the laws which admit foreign corn, and to the Poor Law in Ireland; and it appears that the hon. Member thinks, if we were to restore protection, and to repeal the Poor Law in Ireland, that we should be in a fair way for the remedy of some of the distresses of that country. Another hon. Gentleman gets up to support this Motion, but he says he would rather give greater laxity, and a more liberal system of relief—and, in fact, he would extend the limits of the Poor Law farther than it is at present. Now, I hardly think that we are likely to arrive at a correct or a satisfactory conclusion by adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Waterford. On the question of protection, the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) entirely opposes the views of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. W. Barron); and that of course is a question which, if gone into at all, would not have respect to Ireland only, but would have respect to the whole United Kingdom, and therefore cannot be considered with reference to Ireland alone. Then the hon. Gentleman who spoke last adds a further subject to the inquiry, and he proposes to inquire into the relation between landlord and tenant—a most important subject of inquiry—a subject on which it is most desirable to legislate; but how any Committee of the whole House would come to any accurate or satisfactory conclusion with regard to it I am at a loss to understand. I am afraid, if we went into Committee on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, we should only find his supporters opposing everything that he had to propose, and the Committee of the whole House would find itself without any remedy whatever. With regard to the statements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, he did not represent, as the hon. Member for the city of Dublin seems to imagine, the state of Ireland as a state of prosperity, but what I am sorry to say is sufficiently obvious, namely (not starting from 1845, as the hon. Member for the city of Waterford started), that Ireland, although she had not suffered the calamities she has since suffered, was in this state: that there was a population far beyond the means of employment—that wages were wretchedly low—that the abodes of the peasantry were miserable beyond those of any other country in Europe—and that their food was not that which was procured by wages, but that which they themselves raised from the ground, and almost entirely consisted of potatoes. Well, when there falls on a country so situated so dreadful a calamity as a famine, and not of one year but of succeeding years, it is but an infallible result that there should follow those dreadful scenes which we have seen—many persons driven from their homes, totally unable to pay the rent they had hitherto paid entirely from the flourishing state of their potato crops; others emigrating to distant shores, hoping there to obtain that subsistence which they could not procure at home; and a great number of persons crowding to the workhouses as the last resource, and in a state of weakness which would produce a great mortality. These are the consequences which we have seen—the consequences not of any laws of Parliament, not of any acts of Government, but the consequences of the state of society which existed in 1845, and during the dreadful famine which succeeded that year. Why, these consequences may be likened to an earthquake occuring in a city, you will find its buildings thrown down—that if a pestilence visits a country, a dreadful mortality will ensue—that if a hurricane rages, the trees and the crops will be torn up by the roots. These are not consequences, then, against which any Government or any legislation can immediately provide; they are consequences which followed from the calamities I have mentioned. Now, we find, according to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that, with regard to many circumstances, although Ireland cannot be described as in anything like a state of prosperity, yet there are symptoms of a less aggravated distress than that which prevailed in former years. We have seen that with regard to outdoor relief, although it has never been refused when absolutely necessary, yet it has diminished to such an extent that in the last three months of last year, I think the whole outdoor relief did not amount to a cost of 1,000l.; and since that time it has been, perhaps, about 250l. a week at the utmost. That is a symptom that there are not so many requiring relief now as in former years. Then, with regard to crime, the number of cases returned by the constabulary have considerably diminished. With respect to other circumstances, likewise, we all saw by various accounts that there are signs of the country being somewhat less distressed than in former years. That is the state of Ireland at present. It may require remedies by the Government, and by legislation, but I hardly think we are likely to find out these remedies by going into a Committee of the whole House. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) says you should relax the laws regulating the application of private capital, and he gave us the particular case of railways. Why, if that matter requires the attention of this House, let it be brought before the House as a separate question. If the Landlord and Tenant question requires the attention of Parliament, let the Government or any hon. Gentleman bring it forward; but it will hardly be a Committee of the whole House that will be able to decide upon such a measure when we have no specific plan before us; and I therefore trust the House will not adopt this Motion.

, seeing the anxiety of the House for a division, would not detain them more than a few moments. Though he doubted that the authority of Mr. S. G. Osborne would be increased by his having been taken by the hand by the hon. Member for Dublin, still he could not allow them to go to a division without expressing his dissent to that hon. Member's eulogy on Mr. Osborne, and his attack on those who, under circumstances of great difficulty, were endeavouring to carry out the provisions of the poor-law in Ireland. When that hon. Member next expatiated on the merits of this rev. gentleman, he should not forget his conduct at Ballinasloe. His strictures on the management of the workhouse of that union were not only declared by the guardians to be totally unfounded, but were contradicted by. Mr. Osborne's own written approbation of their management, entered in their book. His clerical duties would, in his (Mr. French's) opinion, be more effectually discharged by giving more of his attendance to them, instead of performing a part which seemed much to his taste, that of a newspaper correspondent. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford had not been fairly treated in asserting that he had taken the date of 1845 as a period of prosperity for Ireland. It was necessary to take that date as a starting period, in order to show not only the present condition of that country arising from the famine (the effects of which he fully admitted), but also to show how it had been aggravated by the course of legislation which had been adopted. Poor-law extension, to which he might add the Incumbered Estates Act, and other Acts equally fatal to the interests of Ireland, were heaped over each other: a policy exactly the reverse of that pursued towards England whenever difficulties of a similar nature had overtaken her. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had stated that there was nothing new in the present aspect of affairs in Ireland, or differing from other periods in which similar inquiries, had been moved for. He must admit that the intensity of distress was much greater now, and that every interest in Ireland was suffering under it; there was, however, a new feature at present, in the depopulation of the country, which was proceeding rapidly, but of which Ministers seemed to think of lightly. It was, however, a feature well worthy the consideration of England, when the consequences of Irish emigration at former periods of her history were weighed. Let them remember the consequences as shown at Fontenoy—let them remember the recapture of Cremona from the Prince Eugene in person—let them remember that America was lost to this country by the check given by the Ulster emigrants at the lines of Pennsylvania—let them remember that in the late war with that country the veteran troops of England, flushed with their success in the Peninsula, were met on terms of equal issue by raw levies of Irishmen—let them remember that the republic of Mexico fell before an army, nine-tenths of whom were Irish—and let them understand that the United States were conquering, and would conquer, the entire of the new world, through the instrumentality of those whose departure was viewed with indifference.

rose to reply. He denied both what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, and what the noble Lord at the head of the Government had said, and also what the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, he believed, had said, namely, that he (Sir H. Barron) had stated in his speech that he wished to have the Poor Law repealed. He had stated nothing of the kind, or in the remotest degree leading to it. He had objected to the outdoor system of relief, and had alluded to nothing else. It had also been alleged by both the noble Lord and the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and he believed by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), that he (Sir H. Barron) had proposed in his speech that they should return to the old system of protection. He had never said anything of the kind. He had left the House to draw their own inferences. He had purposely avoided proposing any remedy, because it was not the time. But let them go into Committee, and he would be prepared then to do so.