rose to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. He did not oppose this Bill on the ground of any of the circumstances connected with the particular case of Mr. Smith O'Brien and his associates; but the punishment now sought to be carried out could not be executed without the intervention of the Legislature; and he held that it was contrary to all constitutional principle to ask the Legislature to enable the Executive to pass a punishment upon a man by ex post facto legislation, after judgment had been pronounced. Clearly the present law either gave the power to commute the sentence to transportation, or the present state of the law rendered the power doubtful. If the power to inflict this punishment was clear, then the Government ought to carry it out on its own responsibility; and if the power was not clear, then it was manifestly op- posed to the spirit of the constitution to inflict this punishment on this man by ex post facto legislation. On the sole ground, then, of the unconstitutional nature of this measure, he felt hound to move this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

seconded the Motion.

said, that Mr. Smith O'Brien had long been a useful Member of that House, and had been known for many years as one who was not intemperate in language. Only six years ago that Gentleman had moved for a Committee to take into consideration the state of Ireland, with a view to the redress of grievances; and in bringing forward that Motion, he said he was not an agitator, but was sincerely desirous of living a tranquil life in his own country, surrounded by a happy and contented people, and that all he sought for was a redress of grievances. Those grievances the hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury bench then acknowledged, and supported Mr. S. O'Brien in his Motion. The House ought, then, to consider the causes that to some extent had driven him into the subsequent course he had pursued, and remember that those causes, with the exception, perhaps, of the case of Maynooth, which he (Colonel Raw-don) thought had been rightly and liberally dealt with by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, still remained. If the Whigs had been in opposition instead of being in the Government, this would be considered as an ex post facto law, without reference whatever to the question whether it tended to mitigate or make more stringent the punishment of any individual; and considering, as he did, that it was to bring in a punishment referring to a foregone act, he should, upon general constitutional grounds, vote against the third reading.

said, this was a great constitutional question, and he thought that the opposition to be offered to this Bill ought to be strictly confined to constitutional grounds. It was clear, after the Bill had been sent down from the House of Lords, the highest legal authority of the country, although it had not sat judicially on the question, that the present state of the law was admitted to be doubtful with respect to the power to transport these prisoners; and why ought not the great rule of criminal law to be adhered to in this case, of giving the prisoners the benefit of the doubt? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General give any reason for passing this Bill? No, the hon. and learned Gentleman merely said it would be very inconvenient to the House, that this cause in the course of the autumn should be argued in the Irish courts; and for the mere question of convenience it was proposed to pass an ex post facto law to place the prisoners in a worse position than they now are in. If there were doubts with respect to the law, there were courts where they could be settled, and the prisoners should be left to make their appeal to those courts, however inconvenient it might be, rather than run the risk of having an infraction of the constitution. He begged to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact, that he had not answered the appeal made to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. He had put a question to him on broad, strong, simple, and constitutional grounds, and had placed him in this dilemma—the Bill was necessary or it was not; if it were necessary, he had no right to pass an ex post facto law; if it were not necessary, he had no right to come down to Parliament to ask them to pass a measure which on the very face of it was an infraction of the constitution. He (Mr. Spooner) trusted that hon. Gentlemen who had come there without any party feeling, and who were desirous to give a conscientious vote, would pause until the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the question.

said, it was satisfactory to perceive, from the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment, that the case was so clear that they expressed an opinion that the Bill was objectionable because it was unnecessary, and because there was power in the Crown at present to mitigate the sentence to transportation, without going to Parliament at all. That was his (Sir G. Grey's) impression; and in answer to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, he might merely refer to what his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had said, on a former occasion, that in his opinion the power did exist in the Crown, and though doubts had arisen, they had no existence in his bosom. However, the Lord Lieutenant, having consulted the law officers in Ireland, thought it expedient to suggest that this Bill should be proposed. The measure came down from the other House with the opinion of high authority that no such doubts existed in their mind; but at the same time it was thought that the proper course to take was to propose the Bill. With regard to the allegation (which was rather inconsistent with the belief that the power rests in the Crown) that the Bill was one to enable the Crown to aggravate the punishment of the prisoners, he (Sir G. Grey) denied that such was the object of the Bill. The legal position of the parties was that of persons whose lives were forfeited after trial and sentence, and it was only by the mercy of the Crown extended to them, or supposed to be extended to them, that their lives were spared. It was not a Bill to enable the Crown to aggravate the punishment of the prisoners, but was a Bill to enable the Crown, looking at it as a legal offence, to exercise its leniency by that mitigation of punishment which, in this country, was exercised with regard to this offence, and in Ireland with regard to some cases of capital felony. He denied that that was a practical aggravation of punishment, as had been stated by an hon. Gentleman, who said the Crown had the power, by reprieving from time to time, to imprison for life. He (Sir G. Grey) now asked the House to consider whether imprisonment for life under such circumstances, would not be a more severe sentence than transportation? He must give an explicit contradiction to the statement of his hon. Friend, that this was a Bill to enable the Crown to aggravate the punishment: it was merely a Bill to remove all doubts as to the power of the Crown thus to mitigate the punishment in cases of treason.

reminded the House that the right hon. Baronet had admitted, that it was in consequence of the doubts of the Lord Lieutenant as to the power of the Crown, that this Bill had been introduced. Considering these doubts, and the haste with which the measure had been passed by the other House, they ought in that House to pause and give a mature consideration to any measure which, like the present, was an infringement of the constitution.

opposed the Bill as dangerous to the constitution. If there were any doubts in the case, they ought to be solved in favour of the prisoners. There was no precedent, be believed, in the history of our statutes for Parliament interposing between the courts of law, and the appeal of an individual to these courts. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had not stood up in defence of constitutional law. The measure was dangerous to civil liberty in England as well as in Ireland.

denied, as had been said, that those who opposed the Bill were recording their votes against an act of mercy. The contrary was the fact—they asked for a merciful consideration of the case of those gentlemen. They asked that, inasmuch as they were not to be hanged, they should get the benefit of the doubt that was raised in their favour, and that the prisoners might be either confined during Her Majesty's pleasure, or some smaller punishment might be inflicted upon them. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether one million from the public treasury had not been expended to enable them to transport Mr. Smith O'Brien and those other persons? He was told that was an exaggerated calculation, but he was prepared to work out the figures. From the commencement of the proceedings they had to maintain 30,000 troops in Ireland. [An Hon. MRMBER: 40,000.] He was told there were 40,000 there, so he would strike an average, and say 35,000; and when they came to calculate the expense of those troops, they would find that the army in Ireland had cost half-a-million in the course of the last two years more than the army cost in the two preceding years; and if they calculated the law and constabulary expenses, he was guilty of very little exaggeration when he said those proceedings would cost a million of money.

Question put, "That the word' now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 27: Majority 132.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3 ^o .

then moved, as an Amendment, to omit at line 15, page 1, the word "transportation," and insert "imprisonment during the Queen's pleasure, or banishment." The House having affirmed the third reading of the Bill, it only remained for him to make one last attempt to mitigate the severity of the Bill, and to take away some portion of the unconstitutional character that belonged to it. The "Queen's pleasure "might extend to imprisonment for a term of years, or for a few months, or for life; but even the latter punishment in severity fell short of the punishment of transportation, which not only oppressed, but, far more, contaminated. The punishment of transportation to a penal colony had been condemned by almost every successive Government, and it was already in course of extinction. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to quote the evidence of the Bishop of Tasmania in proof the corruption of morals and prevalence of degrading and unnatural practices among the convicts of Van Diemen's Land, and protested against subjecting gentlemen of birth and education to the degradation of contact with such persons. If the House passed this Bill, it would be impossible for the Government not to consign Mr. Smith O'Brien and his associates to this horrible captivity in a penal settlement; they would take away all discretion from Her Majesty's Ministers, and the Home Secretary would not dare to make an exception in their favour from the treatment to which all convicts on their arrival were necessarily subjected. The punishment of imprisonment was what they were liable to now at common law, and his Amendment would take away the ex post facto character of the measure, and would be a declaration of the present state of the law.

, in opposing the Amendment, stated that the object of the Bill was to set at rest doubts which had arisen with respect to the power of the Crown to transport a prisoner con- victed of treason. In the present case, the prisoner was by law a convicted felon, and as such liable to the sentence of death; and the object of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would be to compel the Crown to the adoption of one of two courses—either to hang or imprison the parties. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member should covertly put forward an Amendment the very effect of which would be to defeat the object of the Bill. It was the wish of the Government to assimilate the law as it existed both in England and Ireland; and he trusted that the House, by rejecting the Amendment, would prevent any restriction being placed upon the exercise of the Royal prerogative.

considered that it was neither necessary for the ends of justice, nor required by the public opinion of the country, that Mr. Smith O'Brien, who was a noble and honourable-minded man, and whose only crime was that he had loved his country too well, should be subjected to the degradation and pollution referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Youghall; he should therefore support the Amendment, the effect of which might be to allow those unfortunate persons, if banished, to lead an honourable career in some foreign land.

also appealed to the magnanimity of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in whose ranks Mr. Smith O'Brien had often voted, in behalf of the unfortunate prisoners. He believed that thousands would hail with delight and gratitude any extension of the clemency of the Crown to these gentlemen for the paltry, petty, cabbage-garden affair—rebellion he would not call it—in which not a drop of blood was shed, and in which no attack was made upon the rights of property. Nothing would pacify Ireland so much as an act of clemency to these persons. He must ask the House, would there not be sufficient punishment in allowing those unfortunate men to transport themselves?

Question put, "That the word 'transportation' stand part of the Bill,"

The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 21: Majority 125.

On the Question that the Bill do pass,

said, he was very sorry that in the course of the debate which took place on this subject there had been manifested so much of personal rancour. He earnestly hoped that nothing of that sort would operate in aggravation of the punishment to be inflicted on those unhappy gentlemen. He might venture to say, that there was no more loyal subject than he was; but, under the fullest influence of a sentiment of loyalty, he had opposed the Bill in every one of its stages.

observed, that though in the course of the debates on that Bill, much had been said respecting the circumstances connected with those events which rendered such a measure necessary, and with regard also to the offences committed by the persons who had been convicted of high treason in Ireland, yet he and the other Ministers of the Crown had carefully abstained from saying anything which might imply a disposition to put forth such considerations as were calculated to aggravate the offence which those persons had committed; and Ministers had refrained from doing this in spite of the temptations—he might say the provocations—afforded by the speeches of those who would have the Government interfere with the functions of the jury and the judge. He believed that the advice given to Her Majesty in this matter was the advice of mercy, and he could, without hesitation, affirm that there was no vindictive feeling whatever. If, however, the punishment were to be lighter than the offence merited, there would be found in such a course great hazard to the peace of Ireland. Further, then, he thought that some marked warning ought by that measure to be held out to those who might be disposed to disturb the peace and security of Ireland.

Bill passed.

, after some observations, relating to the progress already made in Committee, put the words in the 8th line of the first clause—" it shall not be lawful. "

said, he had some difficulty in knowing where to begin the discussion on which they were then about to enter; they would, however, have had DO difficulty of that kind to contend against if it had not been for the surpassing folly of the hon. Member for Limerick, who some nights ago, at twenty minutes to twelve o'clock, excluded the reporters. As they had not had the advantage of debating in the presence of the reporters, it now became necessary that there should be a recapitulation of the arguments used by those who held that the clause imposing a maximum rate should be negatived. Taking the question as one to be decided by precedent, and following the analogy of the English poor-law, he should say that the experiment of a maximum rate had been tried in some districts of England, and he conceived it to have been a complete failure, though the rate had eventually been doubled. It had been tried in the 36th of George III., and in the 52nd of the same reign; but in both cases it had failed, and perhaps hon. Gentleman on the other side would be able to explain why it had' proved a failure. In considering a question of this kind, it was to be borne in mind that the clause imposing a maximum rate would not alter the rate in and. The House had already passed a rate in and, but by the wording of the clause no increase of the rate in and would affect the maximum. The rate in and at a future time might be increased to 1 s ., to 1 s . 6 d ., to 2 s ., or to 2 s . 6 d ., but that would not lower the maximum. There could be no doubt that, in some form or another, the noble Lord would not allow his fellow-subjects in Ireland to starve; the great guilt, the great scandal that must attach to the starvation of a whole community, would lead any Minister, at almost any sacrifice, to prevent such a catastrophe. The measures which they were now engaged in passing, would, as they all must see, impose upon the north of Ireland the task of maintaining the poor of the other provinces. By the north he meant all the solvent unions. The prosperous, the solvent part of Ireland, would be called On to pay for the impoverished portion of the country; and, looking at the state of Ireland, he should say that they, the Ministers and the Parliament, had no se- curity to offer to the public that there would be any permanency in the maximum rate. It might be 5 s ., it might be 7 s .; they had not, and, in the nature of things, they could not have, any security that such a rate would be permanent. It had been said that the purpose of introducing the clause respecting a maximum was to induce persons of capital to settle in Ireland; but let the House for a moment only reflect upon the probable state of affairs in Ireland. What chance had the solvent unions that the rate in and would be temporary? And if the maximum rate were established, what chance was there that the people of Ireland would be allowed to starve? And as their necessities increased, so might the rate in and be augmented and the maximum elevated. The solvent unions might administer the relief of the poor in a manner the most economical, but they could have no security that the less prosperous unions would do the same; on the contrary, they might do precisely the reverse; and the only security which the solvent unions could have must be, not in any particular provision of that Bill, but in the general spirit of a legislation designed for the purpose of stimulating industry, and not that of maintaining paupers. By the law of chargeability a pauper was asked where he came from? If he replied that he came from one of the electoral districts of the union, he was charged upon that; but if he came from a place outside the union, then he was charged upon the union at large. No pauper making a false statement incurred any penalty whatever—no board of guardians making a false allocation incurred any penalty, and the effect of leaving the law in that state must facilitate unfair practices. He never had heard any one say that the proposed maximum had anything to recommend it beyond this, that it was calculated to lure capital to Ireland; but for his part he should not recommend any one to purchase land in Ireland on the strength of that maximum. For these reasons, then, he must take the sense of the House against the maximum clause. He regretted that the hon. Member for Manchester was not then in the House, and he regretted that the right hon. Member for Ripon was leaving the House. He regretted that the hon. Member for Manchester was not present, as he wished that hon. Gentleman to hear a passage which he was about to refer to from a journal which in an especial degree was supposed to express the sentiments of the hon. Member, who was, he understood, to take the chair at an important meeting relating to this subject on Friday next. The passage in the Daily News contained a statement to the effect that local taxation could not be dealt with by Parliament to any good purpose, except by giving the ratepayers equal power to determine the amount of the rate, to direct its apportionment, and control its expenditure. The first clause of this Bill was in direct contradiction and antagonism to the principles there laid down, and he was therefore obliged to give it his unqualified opposition.

The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had complained of what he called his (Mr. J. O'Connell's) surpassing folly in excluding the reporters. The hon. Gentleman had no right to make this complaint, for, thanks to the hon. Member for Tavistock, the statement then made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire reached the public; and he now was afforded an opportunity of inflicting upon the House another sample of his surpassing self-sufficiency, prosiness, and emptiness. If they assented to the proposition first made, the landlords would soon have the people in their own power. They could then immure them in workhouses in such crowds that they would be soon carried off by disease and pestilence. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had no suggestion to make, because he had no faith in the poor-law, and he did not think it could be made to work beneficially. He was, however, disposed to think that the maximum rate was much too high in the present condition of Ireland. He was of opinion that the maximum rate should not be higher than 2 s . 6 d . The further amount that might then be necessary for the support of the poor should be supplied first by a union rate—if that were found impossible, it should be by a national rate, or by an imperial rate if necessary.

observed, that the general opinion in Ireland seemed to be so much in favour of this Bill, and so many hon. Gentlemen had borne testimony to the advantageous effects it was likely to produce in many districts of that country, especially in the south and west, that he hoped the measure would receive the assent of the House. It was of the greatest importance that a feeling of confidence should be established in Ireland; and he believed that if some limit were fixed with regard to the amount of poor-rates to be levied, persons would be induced to invest their capital in that country, and the facilities for obtaining loans to be employed in the improvement of cultivation would be greatly increased. The amount of the rate upon the electoral division must be fixed with due regard to the amount which, in ordinary times, the country could support. The noble Lord at the head of the Government wished to fix the sum at 5 s .; but he (Sir J. Young) questioned whether that sum would be sufficient for the proper relief of the poor, and it appeared that this view was taken by the noble Lord, as he now proposed to raise the amount to 7 s ., which was to be a union rate, and not confined to the electoral divisions; and this proposition was one which he (Sir J. Young) believed would attain the object which the noble Lord had in view. In the majority of unions in Ireland, the rate did not exceed 5 s .; but that amount had been very considerably exceeded in the electoral divisions. The returns which had been presented to the House for the financial year, ending the 28th of September, 1848, showed that the noble Lord's plan, if taken as a whole, would be found to meet the exigencies of the case. The return to which he alluded proved that there was not a single electoral division in the province of Leinster in which the poor-rate exceeded 5 s . in the pound. It would not be possible to isolate the 320 unions in Ireland; but, looking at the experience of the past, and regarding the plan of the noble Lord as a whole, he believed the maximum rate would meet the exigencies of the case, although in some electoral divisions the rate, he admitted, did exceed the maximum. In his own county, Cavan, the maximum rate would have met all the expenses necessary, because, in the electoral division in which the greatest distress prevailed, a rate of 2 d . expended over the whole union would have been sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. He had not found that the arrangement of the unions had been characterised by carelessness or laxity, and he believed, on the whole, that no danger of lax expenditure would result from throwing the additional rate upon the unions. He admitted that there was, to a certain extent, a choice of evils; but he did believe, looking to the whole case, and weighing those evils, that considerable advantages would result from adopting the principle of the noble Lord. It had been said that a union rating would tend to increase the expenditure; but from his experience he conceived that it would have a contrary effect, for he believed that under such a system the boards of guardians, knowing that any extra charge on a particular electoral division would be thrown upon the union at large, would scrutinise the expenditure very narrowly. It had been stated by more than one witness in the Committee upstairs, that the parties who looked most narrowly into the union charges were the ex-offcio guardians; and he thought they might reasonably expect that when the electoral members of the boards became conversant with their duties, they would follow the example of the ex-officio guardians, and exercise also a strict supervision over the union charges. There was one point connected with the administration of the poor-law in Ireland, the importance of which, he thought, could not be overrated. Every witness who had been examined before the Committee upstairs, and every person conversant with the theory of the poor-law, had urged the necessity of providing extended workhouse accommodation in Ireland. It was necessary that new workhouses should be built, and that old workhouses should be enlarged, in order that a proper system of discipline might be enforced, and that sufficient accommodation might be afforded to the inmates. It had been stated before the Committee, that neither by the workhouse test, nor by the operation of any test, in the breaking of stones or otherwise, could they materially diminish the number of claimants for outdoor relief in the union of Ballinrobe—that the effort had failed to diminish them very materially; for although they were struck off for non-attendance in one week, they immediately made application again, and must be put on—and that he was of opinion that the only safety was in adhering to the workhouse test. Then the Earl of Clancarty, who resided almost constantly in Ireland, and who spent a noble fortune upon his own property, stated that a great number of additional workhouses had been taken in the Ballinasloe union, but that it was impossible to maintain order and discipline in those auxiliary houses, and it was found necessary, in order to carry out the poor-law, to make additions to the main workhouse. But the reasons assigned by the Earl of Clancarty for wishing to place the people in the workhouses were not mere reasons of economy, but reasons the force of which would, he thought, be admitted by every humane man. Earl Clancarty said—

"Our experience of the outdoor system of relief last year, was such as to induce us at the earliest period to return to the workhouse system; we found that while that was prevailing the saving of fuel was almost entirely neglected, and that the farmers had great difficulty to contend with in getting their work done—a system of demoralisation had become very general among the poor, and their industrial habits had been altogether interfered with. For that reason, when the harvest commenced, having but fifty vacancies in the house at the time, we made an order for the general admission of all who were considered fit objects for relief who applied; they refused the workhouse; but from that time we were without any outdoor relief, except in cases of sudden and urgent necessity, which were always provided for, and we were without outdoor relief until the month of August, when the apprehension of the cholera made it indispensably necessary that we should be prepared to meet it by making room in the house, without it being too much crowded; but we have none of the system of relief under the 1st section of the Act."

This question was put to the noble Lord—

"You found that when outdoor relief was given, the recipients declined to work for the farmers, or even to cut turf? "

And he replied—

"We found that they neglected to cut their turf, and the consequence has been a most serious amount of suffering in the union; and that was one of the inducing causes of our adhering strictly to the indoor system of relief, because, when the people were in many instances houseless, and their fuel was so extremely scarce, and their clothing was so very deficient, it appeared that the mere issue of food would be a very inadequate mode of relieving them; and consequently we extended the workhouse accommodation to the extent of about 4,500, and we adhered to that system till the cholera was so prevalent in the neighbouring unions that it became necessary for us to make arrangements for its approach."

He (Sir J. Young) considered, then, that it was absolutely necessary that workhouse accommodation should be provided, where the poor might obtain proper clothing and shelter.

said, it was the opinion of those connected with Ireland that a maximum rate of 5 s ., with 2 s . added, would be ruinous to the country. He did not see, therefore, how such a rate could restore confidence. It was more likely to have the contrary effect. It was an opinion generally entertained, that the electoral divisions ought to be reduced in size, in order that the ratepayers might have greater facilities for diminishing pauperism. The poor-rate, it should be recollected, was a new tax in Ireland; it was one that had not yet entered into the social arrange- ments of the people, and therefore the imposition of an additional rate of 2 s . in the pound on the net annual value towards the relief of those electoral divisions that were distressed, was looked upon with dismay. It would tend to discourage parties from investing capital in land, if they found that in proportion as they kept down the rate to a reasonable amount in their own divisions, they would be called upon to contribute towards other electoral divisions in the same union. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government said that a union rate of two shillings in the pound would make a large sum of money available for the relief of the poor. He (Mr. Clements) wished to point out the fallacy of that expectation. In Munster, out of twenty unions, twelve of the electoral divisions were almost wholly at the maximum rate. It was therefore impossible to realise any considerable amount from the imposition of 2 s . in the pound. He thought it better, in cases where an additional rate was necessary, to leave the matter to the discretion ef the Poor Law Commissioners, than to establish a maximum rate, which would be too low in unions not distressed, and too high in unions that were distressed. He should certainly give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, which would do away with the necessity of establishing any maximum rate at all.

said, that, as a choice of evils, he was in favour of a maximum rating; because he was aware, from his knowledge of a portion of Ireland, that, owing to the enormous amount of poor-rates, wealthy farmers were quitting the country, and the land was getting more and more out of cultivation; and in such a proportion were the rates increasing. It was impossible that the Incumbered Estates Bill could have any effect, unless there was a maximum rate. Capitalists would not purchase land subject to an unlimited rate as it at present existed. It would appear, from what fell from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, that the great apprehension was that the 5 s . rate would be exceeded, and that the maximum rate was a mockery, because it would be necessary to have a new Act of Parliament to save the lives of the people. When he recollected that the average amount of poor-rate in Ireland, in 1845, was but 5 d . in the pound, that they had had three years of famine, and that notwithstanding the famine, only 280 elec- toral divisions had exceeded 5 s . in the pound, he could not believe that the 5 s . maximum rate would be levied. Some observations had been made as to the rates now due by the different unions in Ireland. If the famine were to continue, he admitted that the debts due to contractors would be in jeopardy; but as he believed that they had only legislated for the ordinary condition of Ireland, he thought that, although the House consented to fix a minimum rate, not one penny which was due to the contractors in Ireland would be lost. If, by some unexpected circumstances, this maximum rate should be ever exceeded, he believed that the same means of preserving the lives of the people would be adopted which had been heretofore adopted. These were his reasons for supporting the Government in this proposition of a maximum rate: he admitted that it was a choice of evils, but he acted according to what he conceived to be his duty.

said, that, representing a large agricultural constituency which had paid more in rates than the proposed maximum in the Bill, it seemed an ungracious task to reject what appeared to be a boon and guarantee. He would accept that guarantee with thankfulness, if he could see that it was worth more than the paper it was written upon. The noble Lord told them they were to pay no more than 7 s . in the pound; but the noble Lord had not stated what was to be done when that amount was reached; or rather, the noble Lord had said that when the maximum had been reached, the poor in Ireland were to go back to the resources which had existed previous to 1834, prior to the existence of a poor-law. What were those resources? The conacre. Everybody knew that whatever might happen, let there be crops or not, let there be another visitation of famine or not, the conacre was gone, and could not again be resorted to. What was another resource? The charity of the farmers? It was obvious that that source was exhausted, and that those who had been used to beg of the farmers would now beg in vain. Another resource was in the minority—he regretted to say—of Irish proprietors who resided on their property and did their duty; but could that source alone be relied upon? He believed that the promise held out by the noble Lord was a delusion, and meant nothing more than this—the people of Ireland were to be told that when the maximum was reach- ed, they must starve. He was sorry to see so thin an attendance of Irish Members; but many of those present were members of boards of guardians. How, he asked, would they act if that which had occurred before were to occur again, when 1,500 or 2,000 people were turned back from the workhouse to die, and riots took place, and the military were called out? If the noble Lord had said that when 7 s . in the pound had been paid out of the property of the country, and then that more than that amount was required in any district, that district was in an unsound state, and the necessary measures should be taken to render it in a sound state—that would have been intelligible; and he hoped the noble Lord intended to propose some such plan. But it would be more respectful to the House of Commons if the noble Lord would state distinctly what was to be done when that amount was reached. Unless some explicit declaration that this guarantee was not a mere delusion, were made by some Member of the Government, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

had listened with much pleasure to the announcement of the noble Lord's intention to introduce a measure respecting a maximum rate in Ireland, because he (Mr. Grogan) believed that such a measure would induce capitalists to purchase property in Ireland, and thereby stimulate the industry of the country. But a perusal of this Bill of the noble Lord, had made him a decided opponent of any such measure. The Bill had now been before the House for a considerable time, and the public at large were acquainted with its provisions; but had it stopped the tide of emigration flowing from Ireland? Every hon. Gentleman connected with that country was aware that tide was moving onward with accumulated force. He had arrived at a conclusion the very opposite to that arrived at by the hon. Member for the city of Cork; for he believed that, instead of giving confidence to capitalists to purchase land in Ireland, it would even frighten away those who were at present unfortunately owners of land in Ireland. This Bill of the noble Lord contained a principle exactly the reverse of that which was in force in England. This country had adopted what was called "the rate-in-aid system;" but the courts of law had decided that before such a rate could be levied for the relief of any district, the resources of that district must have been thoroughly exhausted. If the hon. Member for Northamptonshire should decide on taking the sense of the House on his Amendment, he should certainly have his (Mr. Grogan's) support.

expressed his belief that, had the maximum rate been introduced into Ireland before the famine of last year, it would have tended to prevent the emigration now going on; it would have prevented the scenes taking place which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, of 1,500 or 2,000 people being turned away from the workhouses, for it would have covered the most extreme cases that had occurred. Out of the 130 unions in Ireland there was not one in which more than 7 s . in the pound had been collected; and there were only seven in which 5 s . in the pound was expended. He believed that there were only 11 out of the 130 unions in which 7 s . in the pound was expended; and there only 24 in which 5 s . in the pound was expended. Surely these figures went to show that this measure of Her Majesty's Government would not crush Ireland in the manner described by hon. Gentlemen opposed to the Bill. Those hon. Gentlemen had spoken against the measure, because, in their opinion, a maximum rate of 7 s . in the pound was calculated to destroy all confidence in the owners of land in Ireland, and would deter capitalists from making purchases in Ireland; but he should like to be informed how an unlimited extent of liability was likely to inspire confidence. The arguments of the opponents of this measure appeared to him to be mysterious; he could not possibly comprehend them. He really believed that the absence of such a measure as this had inflicted immense injury on Ireland. The great evil under which that country laboured was want of confidence; but he firmly believed that this measure would restore to that afflicted land such a degree of confidence as would restore to her prosperity and happiness. Hon. Gentlemen had argued that this measure would have a demoralising tendency, but he was decidedly of a contrary opinion. He believed that it would improve the moral condition of Ireland, which the present system had rendered most deplorable. The maximum rate appeared to be absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of the poor population. How many farmers formerly comparatively wealthy had been driven from their property by these increasing rates? And was it not natural, when a man saw the rates rising and running up around him as they did in the years 1847 and 1848, that he should feel it was hopeless to attempt to stem the current? As to the difficulties started by hon. Members about the probability of extravagant and useless expenditure being the consequence of a rate in and, he considered that their best security against that lay in the interest which the ratepayers, the guardians inclusive, had in keeping the amount down. Nay, he believed that the effect of a maximum rate being fixed, would be to engage the poor themselves in seeing the poor-laws economically administered in the district, and that for their own sake. He confessed that the condition of the people of Ireland was morally degraded, and that there was no hope of elevating their moral position until, by securing property from unlimited liabilities, they encouraged the return of capital, with confidence to the country, and the revival of its commercial and agricultural concerns; and that such was likely to be the effect of this Bill was his firm belief, and therefore he should support it.

expressed his regret that through so long a debate as had taken place that night, no Member of the Government had risen to explain or defend their views as to the working of this clause. He was opposed to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. But while he was opposed to the principle of a rate in and, of which he should say more when the clause came before the House, he said he felt inclined to support the Bill, not for the remedy which it proposed, but for the valuable admission in regard to an existing evil which it involved. Her Majesty's Ministers now virtually said by this Bill, that the landlords of Ireland and all the moneyed interests necessary to the well-being of the country, had been all but ruined by the system of taxation hitherto enforced, and they proposed therefore to fix a maximum rate. He said it was an undoubted principle, now virtually admitted by the Government, that taxation had a limit beyond which the effect of it was to destroy production; and hitherto his objection to the poor-law in Ireland had been the mode in which Her Majesty's Ministers had chosen to have it administered. He believed no one could read the papers which had been laid on the table of the House, without seeing that the evils of the country were aggravated, nay, that three-fourths of the distress had been occasioned, by the levying of the rates imposed under the poor-law. Indeed, there was no parallel to be found to their procedure in Ireland for the raising of the poor-rate, except in the despotic measures adopted by Mehemet Ali to raise the sums he chose to demand from the Fellahs of Egypt. The consequence was that the tenants were broken down, their cattle were being swept away, and poverty was increased in amount and aggravated in character, under the pretence of relieving the distress of the country. He believed, if the poor-law had never been passed, and if the country had been left to struggle through the season of famine at which it arrived, deriving such and as it could from the good feeling its condition was likely to excite, it would have been in an infinitely better state than it now was in. Such was the opinion he had risen to state. He would give his vote in favour of a maximum rate, but he did not go to the extent of approving of a rate in and in the union district.

said, as the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, complained that no Member of Her Majesty's Government had risen to explain their views as to this clause, he should remind him that this was an adjourned debate, and that his noble Friend at the head of the Government stated in great detail his opinions the other day in respect of this very clause, so that the Committee were in full possession of the views of the Government. He said he had listened with some curiosity to hear whether any answer would be given to the clear and able speech of the hon. Member for Cavan; but he had heard nothing at all to interfere with the definite impression which his statements were calculated to make. Looking to the question now before the House, there were two ways of viewing it—first, as it was supported or not by precedents; or, secondly, as it rested on certain peculiar grounds specially connected with the present circumstances of the country. As to precedents for the Bill, he was ready to admit that there was no precedent for a fixed maximum rate on which the Bill could be rested. The only precedent, as far as he was aware, was that supplied by the highway rates in England. Hon. Gentlemen would be aware that a maximum percentage was fixed for that rate, beyond which, unless for certain special considerations, it could not be levied. That, however, was not a precedent which could be adduced in justification of this Bill; the two cases were different. The only other precedent was that adverted to by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, who referred to it as proving the complete failure of a maximum rate to meet the expenditure necessary in England. He should call the attention of the House to the precise nature of that case. He said there never was, under the general poor-law of England, any maximum rate; but he believed there were certain local Acts for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, fixing a maximum rate for certain specified purposes. That rate was fixed about the middle of last century, when prices were low, and it was found to work satisfactorily for a considerable period of time. Towards the end of the century, years of scarcity succeeded, and in 1796 a general Act was passed, giving power to the counties he had named to exceed the limits previously fixed for the rating. That was a year of peculiar scarcity, the one, he believed, in which Mr. Burke wrote his Thoughts upon Scarcity. Afterward, a further change occurred, and about the year 1812, when the depreciation of the currency was greatest, this fixed rate again failed to work satisfactorily. But no wonder that it failed, for it was fixed when prices were low, and then was inadequate in a time of scarcity. In the present case, however, they were, in a time of scarcity, proposing to fix a rate which, for amount, was not likely to become inapplicable to the circumstances of future years. Abandoning precedents as the support of the Bill, and viewing it as resting on its own peculiar ground, he came to ask what those grounds were? After a series of years in which the potato crop had failed in Ireland, when the western and poorer parts of the country had been afflicted by a succession of years of scarcity, and also when a series of high rates had been exacted from a very wretched population for the amelioration of that scarcity, it was found that a state of panic was occasioned, that lands were no longer tilled, that tenants left their homes, some for America, others for different parts of Ireland, and as many as could to cross the water for this country. The landlords could not get their rents, and in many instances the state of the land almost resembled the devastation caused by an invading army. Such a state of things was unexampled even in Ireland. It became necessary, therefore, both for Government and for Parliament to apply a remedy, and the best mode of dealing with the case appeared to be to fix a limit beyond which the poor-rate could not be levied; for hitherto it seemed as if an unlimited poor-rate had discouraged agriculture. By the advice, then, of the Poor Law Commissioners, and those who were possessed of experience, Her Majesty's Government proposed to Parliament such a limited rate as would in their opinion give confidence to the inhabitants of the districts, while it was left sufficiently large to meet the necessities of the country. For 5 s . was an amount countenanced by previous experience in the country, where, although in some cases a greater expenditure had been incurred, a larger rate had seldom been collected, and he doubted whether, if the distress had continued without a maximum rate being fixed, a larger amount would have been levied. 5 s ., therefore, had been determined on as the maximum in the electoral divisions, with 2 s . in and in the union, and this extra rate was not likely to be called for the sooner because it had been provided for in the Bill. He said that many of the objections which were urged to different heads of the Bill implied a variety of questions which it was necessary to have settled before they could proceed to determine as to the propriety of passing the Bill. One of those questions was, whether they were legislating on the assumption that the present state of famine was to continue, or on the assumption that they were to have the ordinary production of food in the country. He thought they must legislate upon the assumption that the ordinary production of the potato crop would be restored. They could not assume the continued failure of the potato crop, for if they were to suppose a continuous state of scarcity, the supposition was one that would defeat all calculations, and it would be impossible in such circumstances to say what amount of rates might be required to meet the distress. It seemed to him that the only ground on which they could pass a permanent measure for the poor of Ireland was to assume that the ordinary state of things would be restored, and that the earth would yield its increase as hitherto. Upon that assumption he could not but think that the fears expressed relative to the sufficiency of the five-shilling and the two-shilling rates were greatly exaggerated. Looking at the years previous to the year 1845, and looking at the character of the Irish poor-law, which imposed great restrictions upon outdoor relief, restrictions greater than were imposed by the English poor-law, he thought the alarm was exaggerated. As to the state of exhaustion in which the western unions were found, he begged to call attention to the fact that the witnesses examined before the Committee dwelt almost exclusively upon the effect of a succession of years of famine. It was not the first year, or the second, which brought on the present distress: it was a succession of years of distress which had destroyed their resources and exhausted their powers, commercial and bodily. The reasons, therefore, for such remedial measures as would restore confidence and revive agriculture were never stronger. It was necessary for them to consider whether they could infuse energy into the people, and activity and confidence into the ordinary pursuits of the nation. He did not mean to say, that the one Act before them was to be successful in producing those results which could only be attained by a combination of useful measures; but he did think that this Bill was an important contribution towards such an end. But when the hon. Member for Radnorshire stated his opinion to be that the poor-law had been the cause of the present distress of Ireland, he must be permitted to say that he could not look upon that opinion as other than a paradox. He could not see by what possible chain of reasoning he could have brought himself to believe that the relief extended to the people in the workhouses and out of them by the distribution of funds on the strictest and most economical principles, so as, in the opinion of some, it was not thought to be sufficient, was the cause of the distress now actually existing in the country. He was speaking of relief under the poor-law, and not under the Labour Rate Act. It had been said, that the relief given was not sufficient—that the portion of relief doled out to the poor was not enough for their maintenance. Whether that were true he would not take upon himself to decide; but the distribution of relief had been made with the laudable desire of relieving as large a number as possible. The difficulty had arisen from the task imposed upon the distributors of relief of choosing, among a large body of persons, all of whom were almost in a state of starvation, a limited portion to whom that relief should be afforded. That it should be maintained, because the rate had been levied upon re- luctant ratepayers, sometimes by distraining their cattle and household furniture—cases which often of necessity occur in England as well as in Ireland—that because that extreme remedy had been sometimes resorted to, it should be maintained that the general result of the poor-law in Ireland had been not to relieve distress, but to aggravate it, appeared to him an assertion not only contrary to all reason and probability, but one that was contradicted by the most decisive experience.

considered the question involved in the clause the most important principle in the Bill. It involved, in fact, the whole principle of the poor-law. It was acknowledged that every hope of amendment both of the poor-law, and, he might say, of Ireland, depended upon the maximum rate which was now proposed; and therefore he could not think it desirable to discuss this clause alone, but the 5 s . maximum rate following the 2 s . union rate, and then what further provision was intended to be made for the poor. He had heard with great regret the admission of his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire, that they must depend upon the revival of the potato culture. Considering the immense opportunities now afforded for restoring a better state of things in Ireland, to get out of present difficulties by a restoration of the potato, would, in his opinion, afford a most disgraceful picture of our statesmanship. The poor-law, it was stated, had borne down all classes. The landlord was ruined, the tenant in a state of famine, and the land uncultivated. It was necessary to repair this state of things by giving confidence to agriculture, and by encouraging capitalists to invest money in the country, and in this respect to assist the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act. Such was the object; but the House had not been told how the object was to be accomplished. They saw the object; they knew the means proposed to he applied; but they had not been shown the relation in which those means stood to it. There was to be a maximum and union rate. Now, it would be found that an immense preponderance of the evidence was against this proposal. Of forty-eight witnesses examined before the Committee, thirty-three were examined upon the maximum and union rate, of whom nine were either Government commissioners or inspectors, and of those nine, seven were against and only two for it. Upon the whole, fourteen to lour of those not employed by Government, and seven to two of those employed by Government, were opposed to the measure contained in the Bill. Yet his hon. Friend, notwithstanding this evidence, stated the Bill was determined upon, because the Poor Law Commissioners, and parties having most local knowledge, were in favour of it. In fact, the measure was condemned by a great majority of the witnesses. And, taking it as a whole, it was liable to several very serious objections. In the first place, it misconceived entirely the principle of a poor-law; in the next place, it violated the principle of a poor-law; and, lastly, when it proposed a maximum rate and a union rate, it abrogated the principle of a poor-law. The first objection to a maximum was, that it mistook both the evil and the remedy. It was thought to provide a remedy when it had reduced the rate; the fact being, that the value of the reduction depended upon the means by which it was brought about. If the rate were reduced by reducing pauperism, the advantage was certain and clear; but if the rate were reduced whilst pauperism was increasing, the remedy was artificial, delusive, and unsound. Capitalists were keensighted enough to see this; and the House might depend upon it they would not be attracted by the mere promise of a maximum which might turn out to be delusive. Then, as to the union rate, it violated the principle of a poor-law founded upon local responsibility and control. Some of the most intelligent witnesses, and some employed by the Government in the administration of the law, showed the evils which would attend it in electoral divisions, if it was run up to 5 s . When that took place, all disposition to economise would be lost. Mr. Senior agreed in this opinion; and he added that a maximum would destroy all motive to industry in the labourer, in the guardian all disposition to vigilance and economy, and that adequate means of control would be at an end. All the witnesses concurred in saying that the maximum could not be kept, that it must be passed, and that the ratepayers who trusted to it would be taken in. But all their evidence proceeded upon the belief that the principles of a poor-law were to be observed in this respect, that we were to be faithful to the principle of giving relief to the poor. They supposed that when the 5 s . and the 2 s . were exhausted, legal provision for the poor would go on from some other source. But the Legislature took no further charge of them. It turned out, then, that the maximum was not a maximum of rate, but a maximum of relief; and the poor were to fall upon casual charity. Now, it was the evils and inconveniences of casual charity that had compelled Parliament to pass the poor-law. Since that period the relieving powers of districts had been diminished. They had been impoverished by the poor-law; and the fact of a maximum proved that their poor-sustaining powers were exhausted. Did the House, then, consider what it was called upon to do, by abrogating the poor-law, as it would be when the 7 s . rate was exhausted? They were now repealing the beneficent Act of Elizabeth, which said that every man was entitled to relief or to work. That law had been proved by experience in England; and it had lately been extended to Ireland and Scotland. Upon what principle could the House say it was right to ensure the poor man should be relieved up to the 7 s . point, and say afterwards that relief was not just and necessary? If relief was given upon the principle that his life ought to be preserved by public charity when he had no means of his own, why should not that principle be extended when the arbitrary point of 7 s . had been reached? Irish. Gentlemen would tell the House they were indebted to it for new discoveries in statistics. They knew, now, what was the population, their occupation and pursuits, and the duration of life, and it only remained to see what was the average value of life. According to this measure, the average value of life was worth 7 s . It was not worth 7 s . 6 d . Seven shillings was the poor-law value of the pauper; at three half-crowns he was knocked down to the undertaker. And this beneficent provision was enacted—for what? Why, really, to tempt English speculators to buy Irish land. Their identification with this measure was to give a wholesome security to their estates. But just see the difficulty they got into. The object of the poor-law, then, was twofold: the giving of relief, and the security of property. The evils attending upon any poor-law were so great, that motives of humanity alone would not justify them in encountering such tremendous dangers, but public policy compelled it. He really believed that if there was anything which could make the position of English settlers in Ireland odious and intolerable, it would be their relation to this measure. The purchaser, with this Bill in his hand as a letter of introduction to his new tenants, would be looked upon as the concocter of the measure. They would represent him as having made the annihilation of a portion of the population as part of his contract. He would not he looked upon with a welcome. Instead of the old English motto of "live and let live," his motto, as they would represent it, would be "live and let die." This was all for the purpose of attracting capital and enterprise; and well it might be called enterprise, for a man would indeed be enterprising to trust his fortune and person upon such terms. He, therefore, repeated his objections to a maximum, as violating the principle of a poor-law, and destroying local responsibility economy, and control, and as abrogating the poor-law altogether, when, the point of 7 s . having been reached, there was no further provision for the poor. But he went further; not only was the maximum indefensible, but one of the causes from which followed all the evils under which every class in Ireland was suffering, arose from the breaking down of the poor-law; and it behoved the House carefully, deliberately, and cautiously to examine the causes of it, and the mode by which they could be amended. From the first day in which it had been introduced into Ireland, now twelve years ago, there had not been one single important fact of legislation connected with it that had not been unjust to Ireland, and not creditable to the wisdom of English legislation. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire, who said that without a poor-law the famine would not have destroyed all germ of improvement. Without a poor-law they would not have had tenants flying away with capital, and land left uncultivated; but when the famine had gone by they might have had hopes of improvement, which had been diminished by the operation of the poor-rates. It was full of evils and mischiefs, which must be counteracted by other provisions. The two most indispensable conditions of the safe working of a poor-law were an efficient test, and a concomitant field of independent labour. Could these be found in Ireland? The law was introduced into Ireland, partly because the English were determined that the Irish should maintain their own poor, and partly because it was alleged that the obligation to feed the population would induce the proprietors to give employment. But there were parties in this country who denounced the measure as certain to beg- gar the proprietors, and drag down all classes into one common ruin. The present Archbishop of Dublin was one of those who gave out the intimations which were now in course of fulfilment. Apparently from carelessness and ignorance, the British Legislature left out altogether every one of those proper precautions without which the law must be entirely neutralised. A test was the only security for the safe working of the poor-law; and it implied that the condition of the pauper could be made less desirable than that of the independent labourer. A workhouse test was the only effective test which had been yet devised. It followed, then, that there could be no economy so wasteful, so deplorable, and so un statesmanlike as to enact a poor-law, and grudge the expense of an adequate number of workhouses. The number of workhouses must depend upon the social condition of the people. Where the population was in a low state of poverty, and self-reliance least established, particular provision must be made, and extreme precaution taken, for careful and economical administration, especially by such a number of workhouses as should make the application of the test at all times immediately available. He said, then, to extend the English poor-law to Ireland, without the precautions for security taken in England, was intolerable. In England, all the districts of administration were of moderate size; in Ireland. they were made of a perfectly unmanageable size. In England there were 600 workhouses; in Ireland the Government that introduced the poor-law proposed to begin with only 15. Although the commissioners stated, in their report, there were nearly three millions of poor people dependent for a certain portion of the year upon alms, that was stated in Parliament as a reason for limiting the workhouse accommodation to 80,000. Thus, the workhouses of Ireland were built in the inverse ratio of her pauperism. Here, then, lay the root of all the evil. Suppose we had the poor-law in England without an efficient test, in what condition should we be? It would not be endured a single day. Yet it was our poor-law without an efficient test that had been given to Ireland. In England the poor-law was associated with the habits and feelings of the people. The people were practised in its administration. The country was rich. The paupers were insignificant in proportion to the property of the country; and the labouring population was brought up in habits of comparative industry and self-reliance. Yet even in England, with all these advantages, the poor-rates were an increasing burden, and the law was a subject of anxiety to thoughtful men. What, on the other hand, was the state of Ireland? In Ireland, there were no men practised in the administration of the poor-law; pauperism was excessive; the population were of an unmanageable character, brought up in no habits of self-reliance, and having no field for employment. In England there were 584 workhouses; in Ireland, 131. In England the unions averaged 54,000 acres; in Ireland, 147,000. In England the population in unions averaged 25,000; in Ireland, 62,000. In England the area of parishes averaged 2,000 acres, with a population of 1,200; whilst in Ireland the electoral divisions averaged 9,000 acres, with a population of 4,000. In England there was every advantage of size, wealth, intelligence, independence, employment, habit, and industry, yet there was difficulty; but in Ireland, whilst making the districts of unmanageable size, they were denied the advantage and security of a test. Even if the districts were made the same size in both countries, the difficulty would be greater in Ireland than in England; but when there was added such other defective arrangements as those he had stated, did it not follow that what was not easy in England, must become impossible in Ireland—that what was dangerous in England, became utterly destructive and ruinous in Ireland? Agreeing then with the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire, he doubted extremely whether Ireland was fit for the poor-law at the time it was given to her. The potato cultivation had given her an enormous redundancy of population; and she was in that state in which she could not support a large portion of the people without pauperism. A poor-law had two objects—the relief of destitution, and the security of property. A poor-law was good where healthy employment was the normal condition of the people; but it was not the institution by which a transition was to be brought about. It was very well to say that property must support poverty; for whatever might have been their relation in 1837, they were very much altered in 1849. When property had been decreasing and poverty increasing, to meet a famine by nothing but a poor-law, was only to consign property to confiscation, and poverty to death. With a redundant population, he considered this poor-law was socialism. It was socialism, which, in spite of all our artifices of maximum and union rates, would prevent either proprietors or occupiers from cultivating the soil. He could not conclude without stating that the poor-law being in Ireland, must be kept. He did not think it ought to be destroyed. We must make the best of it; and the question was how? There was only one mode, so far as he could see. Let it be established upon sound principles. Give to the population, the property, and the pauperism of Ireland, the same securities, the same restrictions, and the same advantages that they had in England. Bring about an amendment in the law by securing the two objects of employment to the ablebodied, and to the destitute the strongest application of the workhouse test. In England, when the poor-law was amended, there was a greater field for employment, the manufacturers wanted more hands, an increased capital was laid out in agriculture, and the labourer for the most part preferred the honest and independent support of wages, to dependence on the degrading bread of charity. But the case was far different with Ireland: we could not make the position of the pauper there less desirable than that of the independent labourer; the only test we could apply to him was, his aversion to the workhouse restraint; but if that principle broke down in Ireland, the case of that country was desperate; for a country with a redundant population, and with a poor-law without a test, was utterly and irretrievably lost. No institution could be so utterly unjust and unprincipled as a poor-law without a test. That error, however, we had committed towards Ireland; and if we did not repair it, all our remedies would be shortlived, and the evil must return upon us. We had much to answer for for our carelessness in legislating for Ireland; and the responsibility we had incurred had been immensely aggravated this Session by the connivance at a great deal of bad legislation on the part of the English Members, who, feeling exhaustion and weariness on Irish subjects, and anxious to get rid of what was odious and troublesome, had thrown the whole of the task on the Government; and the Government again had found a very favourable condition of parties for carrying imperfect and faulty measures—measures known to be such by many of those who connived at them; and thus, on the part of the House, all sense of conscience and responsibility had been abandoned. All history taught that nothing was so fatal as the recoil of bad legislation; and they might depend upon it that the Irish difficulty would not be got rid of by being put out of sight for the day. He had had a feeling of apprehension and alarm before; but that feeling was different now from what it had been when he entered the House that evening, when he found the Government looking upon the revival of the potato as a means of extricating them from all the difficulties of Ireland. He trusted the House would even now be aroused to some sense of the responsibility resting upon it with regard to Ireland; for they might rest assured that this question would return again and again upon them; but he did not believe it would ever again return, giving such opportunities for dealing with it in a masterly and effective manner, as they had had during the course of the present Session.

I must say, Sir, that in the earlier part of the debate the Gentlemen representing Ireland who spoke on this subject, kept themselves closely to the question immediately before the House, confining themselves to the consideration, not particularly to the maximum rate of 5 s ., but whether or not it is wise and desirable to impose a maximum or limited rate on the electoral division, with a rate extending to the union; and the hon. Baronet the chairman of the Select Committee on the Irish Poor Law, made a very able and logical speech on this proposal, stating very fairly that, when it first came under his consideration, he was inclined to view it unfavourably, but that subsequent reflection on the reasons he gave to the House, induced him to conclude that this is a measure which the House ought to adopt. Now, I must say, that the English Members who have taken part in this discussion, seem to me to have left the question which is the main subject of debate this evening, and to have gone into other matters, no doubt of the utmost importance, but the consideration of which will hardly help us in the consideration of the question now before us. But this applies more especially to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who no doubt found it very easy, on any subject connected with Ireland, to say, "This measure is defective, and will not of itself restore prosperity to Ireland. You are going on a wrong course; see the evils that have occurred, and Parliament and the Government is responsible for them. "No doubt the hon. Gentleman, and those even less able than he, could all urge these topics with very great effect and seeming advantage in debate; but I must say, that, notwithstanding the ability of the hon. Gentleman upon these points, he appears singularly mistaken in his history, and singularly inconsequential in his logic. He says, in England we imposed a poor-law with various guards and checks, and especially with a test, whereas in Ireland we adopted a poor-law with no test whatever. Now, without going into a defence either of the poor-law of England or of Ireland, the plain historical facts of the case are, that in the reign of Elizabeth a very short law was passed, stating that all the impotent poor should be relieved, and the ablebodied poor set to work. It was about two centuries afterwards that any provision was made for the workhouse, and not until the year 1834 that by the amended poor-law any effectual test was applied—[Mr. HORSMAN: I said so]—against indiscriminate outdoor relief being given in England. And what was the case with regard to Ireland? So far from proposing a poor-law without a test, the first thing that was done was to establish the workhouse, and then not to give relief excepting within the workhouse. But anybody ignorant of the history of these things would have supposed from the hon. Gentleman's speech, that in the reign of Elizabeth we had workhouses all over England, and in Ireland only unions, but no workhouses. Such is the hon. Gentleman's history of the poor-law in both countries; and so completely is it at variance with the fact, that one cannot wonder that his reasoning upon it should not have been exceedingly accurate.

I spoke of the amended poor-law in England, and said, that when we established the poor-law in Ireland, we commenced with only fifteen workhouses altogether. I did not refer to the Act of Elizabeth.

Had the hon. Gentleman been more explicit, one could have more easily understood on what subject he was speaking; but the fact is the English poor-law had existed many years, and more especially with many abuses. It existed from 1796 to 1834 without any effectual workhouse test; and the Irish poor-law, when first introduced, proposed to give no relief excepting in the workhouse; and so far from being without any test at all, it actually laid down nothing but a test as the condition of relief. How, therefore, the hon. Gentleman makes the deduction that in England there was always great caution in the administration of relief, and that in Ireland there has been no caution or test whatever, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. Then I come to his argument where it is more especially applicable to the clause under immediate discussion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire, although he says he thinks the introduction of poor-law relief into Ireland has been a misfortune to that country, nevertheless says, that if there is to be a poor-law, he would rather have the poor-rate extending to 7 s ., but limited to that amount, than have the rates rising to 20 s . in the pound. Now, I can perfectly understand that feeling on his part; but the hon. Member for Cockermouth says it is a great mistake to impose a limit—that a maximum of 5 s . or 7 s. ought not to be established—that it is contrary to the general principle, and mistakes the object of a poor-law. But then he goes on to say, that it was a mistake altogether to introduce the poor-laws into Ireland; and therefore, although he considers it a great fault to limit the relief in Ireland to an amount no greater than 7 s ., yet he has no objection to adopt the plan of giving no relief whatever. He proposes in the first place that it should be 20 s . in the pound, and then he would have that 20 s . in the pound reduced to nothing at all. Now, it appears to me that that is not a very logical view for any one to take on a question like this. But, with regard to the limitation of relief, I think the matter stands pretty much on the grounds upon which the hon. Member for Cavan placed it to-night, and on which I placed it myself in a previous discussion. He states, with regard to Ulster and Leinster, that the limitation would have very little effect, and shows that there are but very few electoral divisions where the limitation would come into operation, as in most of them a poor-rate of 2 s ., 3 s ., or 4 s . at the highest was imposed. He showed, that in the two provinces of Ulster and Leinster there was only one electoral division where the rate in 1848 exceeded 7 s . in the pound; so that it is quite true, as he aragues, that with respect to these two great provinces, the limitation would have no practical effect one way or the other. Well, then, with regard to those parts which we wish more particularly to effect, I think the question is, as to whether we shall obtain the advantages of a poor-law better by the limitation of the rate, or by leaving it unlimited. I agree with the hon. Member for Cockermouth, that the advantages of a poor-law do not rest merely on the ground of humanity; for I think that considerations of general policy—of civilisation, of order, and of security, have had a very great influence at all times with those who have enacted poor-laws. But it is evident that a poor-law must utterly fail if the tax causes the discouragement of cultivation, and preventing the very means by which the poor can be supported from existing and increasing in the districts from which it has to be levied. I think it is evident, from what was heard before the Committee, and from the evidence that has been received since, that these effects of discouragment and alarm at the amount of the poor-rate, have been created in the more distressed districts of Ireland. Therefore, by imposing a limit, some kind of assurance would be given to those who cultivate the land, or become the purchasers of it, that the poor-rate would keep within the limits requisite to enable them to cultivate with a profit. And, if that is the case, you will obtain a greater fund by which the poor can be relieved, than you would if you do not lay down such a limit. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said, this measure was for the purpose of introducing English enterprise to undertake the cultivation of the soil; but it was with regard to Irish enterprise and Irish farmers that great alarm had been raised, and in whom it was wished that confidence should be established; so that, so far from this being a plan to introduce English speculation, it was to give Irish security and Irish confidence to those who owned and cultivated the land. But I also stated before that an unlimited amount of poor-rate does not secure an unlimited amount of relief, for although the whole is nominally the amount of the rate, that will not enable you to raise above 3 s . or 4 s . at the utmost for the purposes of relief, and what farther relief is given must be obtained from extraneous sources; so that a limited rate will provide more relief for the poor than an unlimited rate will. I will not now enter into the discussion of the poor-law in general. It is sufficient to consider the clause at present under the consideration of the Committee. That clause is undoubtedly a novelty, and I do not recommend it on the ground of successful precedents; but I say that the introduction of the poor-law altogether into Ireland has been a novelty, and that the state of Ireland when it was introduced was entirely different from the times of Elizabeth, when the English poor-law was introduced. And let us recollect, although the evil of a poor-law, as the economists say, is, that it produces reckless and imprudent marriages, creating an unhealthy increase of pauper population, yet that without any such laws, these prevailed in Ireland to a far greater extent than in England. While there was an improvident and ill-administered poor-law, all the evils attendant on reckless marriages, among the poorer classes of the community, who, reckoning not certainly on receiving relief through a poor-law, but through the medium of charity, and those irregular modes of living that obtain more or less in any country not properly reduced to order and obedience to the law—it was into a country already reduced to such a state that the poor-law had to be introduced. But I am not going to argue that that measure was the only measure that could be introduced; nor is it my purpose to contend that that measure alone can give prosperity to Ireland, or even very materially contribute towards effecting that object. Still I think it is a fallacy to represent the measure now before us as the only one that Parliament has to consider. It is somewhat out of place to speak now of other measures; but I beg the House to recollect that we have already considered some other measures this year, such, for instance, as the advances for the improvement of Ireland, and to render the drainage and improvement of land in that country more extensive than they are at present. These are not the subjects under consideration to-night; but I think it has been truly said by some of those who have engaged in these debates, that not by one measure, still less by a single clause of one measure, can we hope to provide efficient remedies for the evils of Ireland. If we wish really to benefit that country, we must adopt a great number of measures, all tending towards the same object, and promoting the same end. And my belief is, that if you impose this maximum rating, you will be making the poor-law more efficient in the attainment of its object, that you will be encouraging the cultivation of the soil, and stimulating the application of capital in Ireland; and therefore I trust that the Committee will adopt it.

explained that he had said that there were only three ways in which the population of Ireland could be absorbed, viz., by employment, by emigration, or by death; and that the latter two of these causes were operating in Ireland at present.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had referred to the mode in which the people could be fed; and that if the potato should again flourish in Ireland, it would be the greatest disgrace to the legislation of Her Majesty's Government. He confessed he did not know by what scheme of political economy that hon. Gentleman could propose that Parliament should prohibit the cultivation of the potato. He was far from saying that it was in any way desirable that the former growth of the potato should be kept up, and thought it a great evil that the people should place so much dependence upon it as an article of food; but he really could not think it would be any disgrace to their legislation if the people of Ireland persisted in a course which they had been repeatedly admonished not to pursue.

said, that the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, to whose speech he referred, said that "they must legislate on the assumption of the restoration of the potato in Ireland." He (Mr. Horsman) had taken down the hon. Gentleman's exact words at the time.

stated, that what he said was, that the House must legislate on the assumption that the potato failure would cease or continue; and that it appeared to him they must adapt their laws to the ordinary state of things, which was not a state of failure, but of the growth of the potato crop. And as to the restoration of the potato, he meant simply the restoration of its natural growth.

rose for the purpose of pointing to some topics which he thought deserved the consideration of the House, but which had not been yet sufficiently brought under their attention. For three hundred years the power which the religious houses formerly possessed had been transferred to the landowners, and with that power had been transferred the cost of the maintenance of the poor; and what was now sought by some parties was, that that power should be restored which was possessed by their forefathers, and which had been wrung from them. It appeared to him to be impossible that Ireland could bear the burden placed upon it, which, in fact, amounted almost to a confiscation of property; and he did not believe that under such a system the people of England or of Scotland would be more patient than the Irish. What was the opinion of the Irish people on the subject was to be collected from the fact that the Irish bishops had represented to the Earl of Clarendon that their object was to procure the re-establishment of the religious houses; and they had since followed up that declaration by a representation that the poor-law was nothing but a conspiracy to reduce the Irish poor to such a state that the land might be handed over to Saxon speculators unincumbered of any charges. He held in his hand a letter, which stated that the whole system was one of jobbing; that it was unpopular to all parties; and that it would be found impossibe to carry it out. The letter was signed by Winston Barron. He was convinced that unless they so far altered the constitution of the poor-law as to place more power in the hands of the resident gentry, they would never be able to carry it out at all. He thought it a great misfortune that they had ever made the poor-law for Ireland different from the English, as, if they wanted to try experiments, they ought to be tried in this country, where they could be better afforded. The authorities at Somerset House had endeavoured to try experiments in this country, which were resisted, and a poor-law was then passed for Ireland, it being intended that that of England should come up to it, instead of which that law must come down to that of England. There could be no doubt that one of the great evils of Ireland was the state of the area of taxation; and he advised that House to be careful how they got rid of close parishes, and thereby made an extension of the areas of taxation.

said, that the hon. Member for West Surrey, and other Members who had addressed that House, had spoken of the rates levied in Ireland as amounting to a confiscation of the land. He denied that such was the fact; and to show how exaggerated such statements were, he would refer to what were the averages of the rates in various parts of that country for the year ending in September, 1848. In the province of Leinster, the average rate only amounted to 1 s . 11½ d . in the pound; in Ulster, 1 s . 9½ d .; in Munster, 3 s , 3 and in Connaught, only 2 s . 7 d . in the pound. Of that amount only one-half was paid by the tenant, and one-half by the landlord. He must say that that could not be called a confiscation of property, where on either class the average was but 1 s . in the pound; and hon. Gentlemen, when they talked of confiscation, forgot the facts of the case, and argued on assumption. Having reminded the House of what was the main question before them, he must say that the hon. Member for Cockermouth had displayed a great deal of prejudice against the measure. There were, no doubt, great difficulties in the way of carrying out the poor-law; but he considered that those who opposed it were raising up still greater difficulties with regard to that country. A great panic had been created in Ireland on the subject, but he believed that the maximum rate would never come into operation; and he would support the measure before the House with the view of quieting that panic, believing that the owners and occupiers of laud would see it to be their interest, as far as possible, to employ the population, which would be a set-off against the poor-rate. He believed that the principle of the maximum rate would give such confidence as to increase employment, and that employment and the poor-rate would work well together.

said, that nothing was more fallacious than—as the hon. Member who had just spoken had done—to take averages of a province, and argue from them to show that the poor-rate had not been oppressive in Ireland. It was well known that in many parts of the country it had amounted to little less than confiscation. He would not say that it had been so throughout Ireland, but in many districts it certainly did amount to that. Why, notwithstanding what the hon. Member had said about averages, though he would not assert that it had been called for, the rate had been struck at 40 s . in the pound, which it was impossible could be paid; and in places in his own county the rates had been struck at 13 s . in the pound, and that, too, at a time of famine, when the crops were depreciated and diminished in value by the legislation of that House in the introduction of free trade. It was impossible that such an amount of poor-rate could be collected, and, therefore, it amounted in fact to a confiscation of the property.

denied that any rate of 40 s . had been struck.

said he meant "spent."

said, that in the union to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, only 1 s . 9 d . in the pound was collected, and the rest of the money came from England.

said, that that did not alter the fact that the 40 s . in the pound had been expended. In some parts of his county, he repeated, the rate had been struck at 13 s . in the pound, which amounted almost to a confiscation, and there were various places similarly situated; and it was not, therefore, fair to say that because the average rate did not exceed 3 s . in the pound, it was not a measure of confiscation. It was impossible to go on in Ireland under the present system, and he warned the House that, if it was attempted to be carried out, it must fail; and he was prepared to stand by everything contained in the letter alluded to by the hon. Member for West Surrey. English and Scotch majorities in that House forced measures for the government of Ireland upon them, in opposition to the opinion of the majority of Irish Members. They had not done so in Canada, but had acknowledged the power of the majority; and, until a similar policy was adopted with regard to Ireland, they must pay the penalty of their system of government. With regard to the question before the House, it was one of great difficulty, and he hardly knew how to vote; but, on the whole, he thought the system of a maxi-mum rate was calculated to give confidence to the people, and, therefore, it would be a great benefit to the country. In addition to their other burdens, the rates had been greatly increased of late by an addition to the county rate, which was an indirect tax for the poor, under the pretext of repaying the advances made from the Treasury in 1846 and 1847. The poor-rate was at present pressing so heavily on the farmers that many of them were giving up their farms, and leaving the country for America. If the maximum rate, however, was fixed at 5 s . or 7 s . in the pound, it would, in some measure, restore confidence, and, as he believed, prevent the farmers leaving the country, and, therefore, he would vote for the measure.

supported the clause. He thought there was a point in rating to the poor in Ireland at which individual responsibility should end, and that of the public begin. If each property in Ireland was equally liable for the support of the poor in Ireland, then he should not be inclined to ask for extraneous and until all the money had been collected; but such was not the case. It had been stated, in the course of the debate, that the character of this maximum rate itself was to make it a minimum. Now, he entertained a contrary opinion as to the effect of the rate. The line at which individual responsibility shall cease, and that of the public commence, was a crisis of great calamity, and he believed that that crisis had been reached.

thought it would be more convenient to take the Government proposition as a whole, and the hon. Member for Cavan, and the First Minister of the Crown, seemed to take the same view. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, he presumed, adopted the whole proposition, and was prepared to support union rating. It would be impossible to overrate the importance of the question now before the Committee. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who had dwelt upon the importance of restoring confidence to Ireland, and of inducing capitalists to invest their money in cultivation of the land. He believed, that if something were not done in that direction, in many districts of Ireland the whole race would become extinguished. For what was the present state of Ireland? In Mr. Godolphin'a letter it was stated that, in the union of Ballinrobe, 40,000 persons were being now supported out of the poor-rate, and unless some means could be devised by which the people could be made to look to their industry for support, and not to eleemosynary and, the consequences to the country must be most frightful. He agreed in the objects sought to be attained by the noble Lord, but thought that the proposition of the Government, taken as a whole, was not at all likely to effect them. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had stated that the whole history of the English poor-law did not furnish a precedent in favour of this measure. But the case could be stated even more strongly; for it might be recollected that when the amendment of that law was under consideration, the introduction of such a proposal as this was not even hinted at. In 1817, there was a similar proposition from a Committee, of which Mr. Sturges Bourne was the chairman. A maximum was proposed; but the suggestion was not acted upon: it was adopted by no subse- quent Committee, and was never embodied into an Act of Parliament. Such a proposal had been tried in this country in the case of two local Acts, and in both cases it had failed, and the maximum had to be abandoned altogether. When the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Home Department said that the maximum was abandoned because of the low prices which prevailed, he must have overlooked the circumstances under which the present proposal was attempted to be imposed. At present prices, this maximum must in a great number of unions in Ireland be exceeded. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman had forgotten to answer the question of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire with respect to the debts of the unions. Mr. Lucas, one of the vice-guardians of the Galway union, had stated the liabilities, taking into account the payment of the Government advances, to amount to one whole year's income of the union. In such a case how would the noble Lord deal with the maximum rate? Not one of the witnesses examined before the Poor Law Committee had been found to support the proposal of the Government, without the recommendation that the deficiency should be supplied from extraneous and. Mr. Twisleton had, in the strongest terms, expressed his opinion that when the maximum was exhausted, extraneous assistance must be resorted to. What drove capital from Ireland was the social state of the country, which, as water quenched fire, quenched industry; and until some remedy for this state of things was found, it would be useless to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and ask them to invest money in the land. But what did this proposal of the Government involve? Simply, that a man who might be living twenty miles from a property, and having no kind of connexion with it, might be called upon to pay ten per cent in addition to the charge made upon him in his own electoral division. The proposal, in fact, was to be found in Mr. Tucker's Review of the Financial Policy of the East India Company. That gentleman spoke of a man having to make up the deficiency of his neighbour's rates to the extent of ten per cent. Of what avail, said that gentleman, was it that the husbandman should be diligent and successful in his calling, if he was to be mulcted either for his neighbour's negligence or misfortune? A must pay the debt of B., according to such a rule. Of what avail was it that one vil- lage was prosperous, if it had to make provision for the calamities of another—if from its abundance it had to supply the deficiency existing in another? Could it be possible to conceive a system more calculated to repress industry, extinguish hope, and reduce the whole country to one level of pauperism? He thought it a cruel mockery to attempt to establish that any beneficial results could flow from such a principle. Everything which could have been done to discourage industry in Ireland had been done. Every suggestion which had been made by Irish Members had been disregarded, and measures had been introduced of an exactly opposite tendency, which had ruined the industry and self-reliance of those parts of Ireland which ought to have been the subject of the peculiar care of the Government; and his only hope was, that the House would summarily reject the measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Government.

said, that he dissented from the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Dublin, and several other hon. Members, that the poor-law had been the cause of all the evils which at present afflicted Ireland. He was quite ready to admit, with them, that the people were emigrating in vast numbers from the country; but the reason of their doing so was threefold: that the farmers had not leases or tenures of their land—that the landlords were not prepared to reduce their rents, so as to meet the pressure of the times—and, lastly, the existence of a very general opinion that there would be a great depression in the prices of agricultural produce. He believed that there were no grounds for the opinion that agricultural produce would suffer a great depression in consequence of the operation of free-trade measures, for if ever prices should be ruinously low, he believed that the people of both countries would unite in obtaining a fixed duty upon the importation of corn. He considered that the measure then before the House had been discussed in a somewhat fallacious manner. Instead of its being treated merely as an alteration of the existing poor-law, it appeared to be dealt with as though it were a measure proposed for the regeneration of Ireland. No such results as those were for a moment expected to result from the measure. No person could suppose that a country could be made prosperous by a poor-law. Such law could only relieve, to a certain extent, the pauperism of the country, but could never develop any of the latent energies or industry of the country. The real question, therefore, was, would the alterations now proposed by Her Majesty's Government improve the measure as it then existed? He believed that the proposed alteration would have that effect, and he therefore gave his hearty support to the measure.

, in explanation, said he had stated that the farmers of Ireland were emigrating, and that the Bill then before them had no tendency to check that emigration.

said, he should support the proposition of the Government. For years past the complaint had been that the taxation for poor-rates had amounted to confiscation; and he was surprised to hear Irish Members objecting to this evil being remedied. It had been stated that a rate of 5 s . had been rarely exceeded; but he found that out of 641 electoral divisions, no fewer than 222 had laid rates amounting to 5 s .; 125 had gone beyond 7 s .; and in 12 electoral divisions the average rate had been 11 s . 10 d. He did not think it probable that the auxiliary rate would be needed; but if so, it would not be difficult to point out sources whence it might be procured.

observed, that before we fixed a maximum rate we ought to consider whether, by fixing such a rate, the Irish people might not hereafter claim money from the Consolidated Fund, because by the very act of fixing a maximum rate we would prevent the raising of a greater amount of money, should such be required.

would support a maximum rate on the very ground suggested by the hon. Gentleman, that the Consolidated Fund would have to pay after the proceeds of the rate were exhausted. He approved of the principle, although he thought that in this case the amount fixed was too low.

Amendment proposed, page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "it shall be lawful:" Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 51: Majority 127.

Committee report progress. House resumed.

objected to it on principle, and declined to leave the debate entirely to the Committee. He said that one of the objects of the Bill was to extend the punishment of flogging to juvenile offenders of sixteen years, whereas it was at present confined to offenders under fourteen, That was a return to the body-tormenting system of former times, and before they agreed to it they ought to see what had been the effects of the flogging system hitherto. The presiding judge at the Middlesex sessions said that the increase during the past year of juvenile offenders was from 898 to 1,240; and the commitments throughout England and Wales showed an increase in nearly the same proportion, being a much greater ratio than the in crease of crime in general. Some of those juvenile offenders were takes and flogged as often as six times in the course of a single year—a strong proof of the inefficacy of the punishment as a prevention to crime. Juvenile offenders should be dealt with upon a large principle with a view to education and reformation. They wanted, in the first place, food, not flogging; and next, they wanted to have habits of industry instilled into them, instead of the idle habits in which they had been brought up by their parents. The blue books which had been collected upon the subject showed that neglect of parents and of parishes was the great cause of juvenile crime; and surely they should not flog the children for the fault of their parents. By the common law children under the age of discretion were hold to be incapaces doli; they were under the tutelage of their parents, who were entrusted by the law with the duty of instructing, controlling, and maintaining their offspring, and, failing their ability to do so, it devolved upon the parishes to which they belonged. Instead of passing laws to degrade children by flogging them by the hands of the executioner, the Legislature should provide places for their reception, where they would be instructed, and compelled to work; and the law should rivet upon the parties liable for their maintenance, if in a state of destitution, the obligation to pay for them while under-going reformatory and corrective treatment under the discipline of the law. Such an enactment would teach parents and parochial authorities to be more careful in correcting, instructing, and reforming the morals and habits of those whom God and the law had cast upon them for protection and support. When the Bill went into Committee, he would propose clauses to carry out these opinions, and he would take the sense of the House upon them. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether it was the intention of the Bill to throw upon the counties, or (as at present) upon the Consolidated Fund, the expense of maintaining prisoners under it?

said, that the questions alluded to by the hon. Gentleman were purely matters of detail and not of principle. The Committee could deal with them all. As to the last he should say that there was no legal obligation at present to supply those prisoners out of the Consolidated Fund. By the Act of 7 George IV., c. 64, the county was bound to support them, and it was only and that was given to the county out of the Consolidated Fund.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had already passed one Bill this Session with regard to the criminal law, on the subject of transportation. That Bill prevented the Judges from transporting persons unless they had been twice convicted of a certain class of offences, but gave them the power of transporting in cases where the parties had been twice summarily convicted. They were now about to take out of the category of indictable offences a large class of larcenies, and it would be necessary for them carefully to consider what effect those changes would have upon the law of transportation.

said, the important object of this Bill was to save prisoners of tender age from long imprisonments before trial. There could be no doubt that if the limitation of five shillings were adopted in the Bill, the effect would be to remove a great number of offences at present tried at the quarter-sessions.

was anxious to guard the House against the notion that the Government gave any pledge as to an alteration in the principle of charges at present made to the Treasury for convictions. It might be a question hereafter, whether the limitation of five shillings should be fixed in the Bill.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.