moved as an Amendment that in Clause 1, after the word "shall" in line 16, all the words to the end of the section should be omitted, and that in lieu thereof there should be inserted the following words:—

—"prevent the making in any electoral division of any rate or rates for the payment of any expenses incurred on account of such electoral division before the said 29th day of September, or for the payment of any excess to be charged or chargeable upon any union at large as hereinafter mentioned, or for the payment of any sum or sums of money under the authority of an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, entitled 'An Act to make provision, until the 31st day of December, 1850, for a General Rate in Aid of certain distressed Unions and Electoral Divisions in Ireland.'"

objected, that it would be abandoning the principle of a maximum to levy a rate in addition to the maximum rate, for the purpose of paying off the debts of the unions.

asked if it would not be better to make this question of arrears a question for the Government to take up, so that in future the poor-rate could be collected in Ireland without those overwhelming debts? It would be better for the Government to advance the money for those debts, taking ample security for the repayment of the advances by the land being mortgaged to secure them.

was very much afraid that the Government had not well considered the proposed alteration. They proposed now to make a provision which, if put in force, would supersede and vitiate the maximum rate, for the principle of the maximum rate would fall to the ground in any place they applied it. By attempting to get the arrears in the way proposed, they would destroy the principle of the maximum rate.

said, that by a temporary law passed to relieve certain districts, it was proposed to make a serious change in the poor-law with respect to the rest of Ireland. They could only carry it out in places that were not greatly distressed; and in those places it would have a bad effect, because it would prevent exertion.

said, it was not proposed by the Amendment to touch the law as it now is, but merely to enact that the old rates levied be continued to be levied for payment of debts. Then for future charges they would make no rate beyond 5 s . in the pound.

said, if he understood the proposition, the rate for the debts was to be a separate rate. If it were made a separate rate, the chances of that rate being collected were absolutely nothing. The principle of the maximum rate had been asserted for the purpose of luring capitalists to invest their money; but before they had passed through the first clause it was announced from the Treasury bench that the maximum rate was a fallacy—in fact, that there is to be no maximum, and that the whole question is to be placed in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners. He had to congratulate the Government on the progress they were making.

remarked that by this new clause it was proposed to proceed on the original principle of the poor-law, whereas in the original clause it was proposed to introduce the newfangled principle of a maximum rate. Those two principles were as different from each other as could be possible, and he could not see how one Act of Parliament could proceed on two different principles.

said, that a maximum rate having been decided upon, the question was how they were to deal with an immense difficulty arising from the state of certain unions in Ireland. He held in his hand an account, applying only to thirty-two unions, from which it appeared that on the 25th March, in the present year, they owed 231,000 l , and there was an estimate as to how the account would stand on the 29th September, which left them in an additional deficit of 270,000 l . in those thirty-two unions—a debt amounting to about half a million. For those unions the rate required would not be 5 s . in the pound, but 25 s . in the pound; and even by that rate they would not he able to raise that sum. It would be very desirable to understand from the Government how they proposed on the 29th September to meet this debt of half a million in those thirty-two unions. It was quite certain that unless some provision was made for the payment of the debt, no contractor would supply them with a pound of meal.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not taken into account the amount of rate that might be collected, or the advances from the Treasury. If he had done so, then he would find that the amount of the debt would be diminished by the rate collected in the interval and the advances from the Treasury.

The account certainly does exclude the advances to be made by the Treasury, but it includes the rate that may be collected.

The advances from the Treasury will go to reduce the amount of the debt.

As to the 270,000 l ., the account certainly excludes that advance from the Treasury.

If the Executive Government said there were distressed districts in Ireland in which the poor-rates could not be collected, it rested with them to advance the money, and wait for repayment until the expenditure was so far below the maximum as to leave a margin for the payment of the debts thus contracted. He did not wish to see the philanthropic individuals who had, however unwisely, advanced money to prevent the poor from starving, cheated or wronged out of their money.

said, it appeared that by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a power was given, notwithstanding the maximum, of levying new rates for the discharge of debts still existing; and those properties which had already paid their quota would have to pay again on account of the insolvent properties, the owners of which were not able to discharge their arrears.

considered that the Government clearly destroyed the maximum by this Amendment. There was now a maximum of 7 s ., with an indefinite amount of arrears also to be met.

said, the present position of this question was extremely puzzling to English Members. The Government had adopted a maximum rate for all Ireland, and with respect to the existing debt they must adopt one of three courses. They must either repudiate the debt, or advance money and take the debt upon themselves, or else the maximum rate could not he applied in those portions of the country in which these debts existed. It was clear that if the Government did not make some provision for the payment of these debts, their maximum rate at once fell to the ground. Besides these specific union debts, the poor-rates of Ireland were chargeable to the repayment of 3,000,000 l . which had been advanced from the public Exchequer. If there ever was any security for the repayment of this money, the proposed limitation in the amount of rates to be levied was, pro tanto , a diminution of that security.

was anxious the House should consider the question, for the purpose of seeing what was to be done. He had supported the Government in their proposition for a maximum rate, and he was greatly surprised to find them now making a proposition that would do away with that maximum rate.

wished to know whether, if the proposed Amendment Were agreed to, the effect of it would be that in no electoral division a larger sum than 7 s . in the pound should be collected?

said, the position in which matters stood had been aptly described by one of the Government inspectors, who said, "Everything appears to be going on satisfactorily with the exception of"—what?—"the state of bankruptcy to which the vice-guardians are reduced. Every union is in a satisfactory condition except that it is utterly bankrupt; they have neither credit nor funds."

said, that the whole difficulty arose from applying a poor-law to a state of famine.

stated that the object of the Bill was to impose a maximum rate, and it would leave untouched the liabilities already existing. If the uncollected rates were sufficient to discharge the debts, they would be paid from that source; if they were not sufficient, the proposed Amendment would come into operation. With respect to all future liabilities, whether for the maintenance of the poor or for the repayment of advances charged upon the unions, which might become due and payable from the poor-rate after the 29th of September, a 5 s . rate upon the electoral divisions, a 2 s . rate upon the unions, and the 6 d . rate in aid, would be all that would be levied.

said, he was sure that there was no hon. Member in that House who would not most cordially join with Her Majesty's Government in removing any impediment to the influx of capital into that country. Nothing could be clearer than the statement just made by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the state of the law after the 29th of September—that thenceforth the principle of the maximum rate would be strictly carried out, and that no annual charges for any debt, or any current expenses for the maintenance of the poor, should then exceed the amount to be collected from a 5 s . rate in the electoral divisions, a rate of 2 s . in the unions, and the rate in aid. But it was important that they should come to a clear understanding as to what was the liability of property in those thirty-two unions to which he had referred. They had already come to a pretty clear understanding that with respect to the debts contracted on account of the maintenance of the poor up to the 29th of September next, it was possible that a sum of nearly 500,000 l was due; making the abatement from that amount of the sum suggested by the right hon. Baronet to be advanced on security of the rate in aid between the present time and the 29th of September, it might probably he reduced to about 400,000 l . He wished, then, to know whether there was not, in addition to that sum, a still further amount due from those unions? He held in his hand an account of the sums paid by the unions in Ireland towards the repayments of advances made under the Temporary Relief Act, from which it appeared that on the 5th of April last there was due from the whole of the unions in Ireland a sum of 835,000 l . There was included in that sum the debts due from those thirty-two unions on that account, which was to be added to the other amount to which he had previously referred. He had not had sufficient time to take from the return the amount due by these unions; but there was no doubt that it was a considerable sum. There was clearly, on account of the poor-rate, a sum of 400,000 l . due; and there was also their share of the debt due to the public, for advances made of 835,000 l . What he wished to understand was, the position of a capitalist about to invest his money in any one of these thirty-two unions having the security of a prospective maximum rate, by which, if it became law, he would be secured from all future debts, and any share of future repayments to the Government. What would be the position of a purchaser of property with respect to the present very large outstanding debt? He was opposed to the maximum rate, he was not opposed to the Amendment, because the effect of it would be to set aside the principle of the maximum rate. He, however, wished to know from the Government how they proposed to deal with these large outstanding debts upon the two accounts, and what would be the position of a purchaser with respect to arrears due, and whether they would be charged upon the land which he might purchase?

said, that upon reference to the account referred to by the right hon. Baronet, he found that, after deducting the amount standing to the credit of those thirty-two unions, and the amount expected to be collected in the course of the half-year ending the 29th September, 1849, the probable deficiency would be about 270,000 l . The sum which it would be necessary to furnish from the Treasury, on the security of the rate in aid, would probably amount to 220,000 l . He had already taken a vote of 100,000 l ., and he intended to take an additional vote of 120,000 l . Those two sums would have to be deducted from the sum of 270,000 l . With respect to the other debt of 231,000 l ., a large portion of that had been paid off, and the remainder would be a charge upon the unions, which it was intended to cover by the rate in aid and the present uncollected rates. Those being debts principally owing to contractors, they did not propose to affect the chances of recovering them by any measure which they proposed.

said, that he thought it most important that the claims of the contractors should be satisfactorily disposed of. It appeared to him that there were only two courses open for doing so, either to sell the land in order to obtain the required funds, or to advance a sufficient sum from the Treasury to enable the bankrupt unions to clear off their debts.

said, that the question raised by the proposed Amendment was simply whether they would adhere to the principle of the maximum rate or not. In the present instance there were a number of distressed unions in which they wished to see capital invested. A few days since the House agreed to the principle of a maximum rate, and the Government now came forward to ask the House to assent to a principle by which, instead of a maximum rate of 7 s . in the pound, they might be called upon to pay a rate of 30 s ., thereby perfectly vitiating the principle already adopted.

wished to know whether, in the case of a union consisting of twenty electoral divisions, five of which were insolvent, and the remaining fifteen in a position to contribute their fair quota towards the repayment of the advances made from the Treasury, the Government would receive such portion as might be so contributed, or whether they would insist upon compliance with the orders of the Treasury, and require the full amount of the instalment to be paid?

said, that in such a case he might perhaps reconsider what he thought not a very wise resolution, and take as much as he could get.

Amendment agreed to.

then moved the following Proviso to the Clause:—

"Provided always, That such yearly limit of Poor's Rate specified in this Act, shall be in force for the period only of five years from the passing thereof, and thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament."

Unless this proviso were adopted, if Parliament thought fit to alter its course of legislation on a future occasion, that could not be done without considerable disadvantage and discredit to its character for foresight and perspicacity. He proposed that a maximum rate should be temporary only, thinking that a period of six years would be quite long enough for its positive continuance.

must say, that all the arguments on which a maximum rate had been recommended to and adopted by the House, were inconsistent with the proviso moved by his hon. Friend. The House might be taken to have agreed to the principle of a maximum rate, and to adopt the proviso would undo all that had been done.

could not at all agree with the view of the case taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The adoption of the proviso would give confidence to capitalists and proprietors, because no one would attempt the repeal of the law when the duration of a maximum rate was limited to a definite period. It was quite clear, in his opinion, that a maximum rate could not be adhered to for any length of time. In some places in England the poor-rates amounted to 10 s . or 12 s . in the pound; and he did not see how they could long maintain a law which enacted that only 7 s . in the pound should be levied for poor-rates in Ireland.

Question put, "That the Proviso be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 66: Majority 55.

declared his intention of dividing the Committee against the clause. If the maximum rate were levied, there would be no reserve fund for the poor to fall back upon in case of necessity. He could not understand how any person who was in favour of the principle of a poor-law in England or Ireland, could sanction the principle contained in this clause; and he was particularly surprised at seeing the representatives of towns supporting this principle of a maximum rate. Being desirous of putting his opinion upon record, he should take the sense of the Committee on the question.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 24: Majority 32.

On Clause 2,

proposed, as an Amendment at line 5, to omit the words, "on the 29th day of September in each year," and to insert in lieu thereof, "as soon as possible after the 25th of March, which shall be in the year 1850, and in each subsequent year."

said, it would be more convenient to the ratepayers to have the rate collected in winter, rather than in summer; and if the 25th of March was substituted for the 29th of September, the rate must necessarily be collected in the summer months, when the ratepayers would be less able to pay.

inquired if the proposed alteration applied to the maximum rate as well as to the union rate?

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman looked to the clause, he would see that it applied to the union rate only.

said, that as the clause stood, the accounts were to be made up on the 29th of September, and if on that day it was found that the maximum rate was not sufficient, the union rate of 2 s . was to be imposed, and would be continued for a year.

said, that if the clause was allowed to remain as it was, it would be necessary on the 29th of September that a prospective estimate should be made of the union rate, and therefore, as a choice of evils, they thought it better to alter the date, so that when the rate was made, it should be a positive and certain one, and it was for that reason they had proposed the Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted, the accounts would be made up on the 25th of March next, and then submitted to the Poor Law Commissioners; but as a few months would elapse before they sanctioned the rate, the collection would take place in the beginning of autumn.

was of opinion, that the great probability was that the 5 s , rate would be found insufficient; and if the striking of the additional rate were postponed, as proposed by the Amendment, those electoral divisions in which there would be an excess over the 5 s , rate would be obliged to go in debt.

said, it was perfectly true that some of the electoral divisions would go in debt; but his great object was that the rate should be struck in the summer and collected in the autumn, which could only be done by adopting the Amendment.

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proceeding on the right principle.

thought they were going entirely contrary to the whole principle of the poor-law by the Amendment they proposed. He would suggest that upon the 25th of March they should ascertain the expenditure of the half-year then ended, and make an estimate for the next half-year, and authorise the amount of that estimate to be levied and collected; and if they did not do so, the result would be that some of the districts would go in debt.

considered, that nothing would be more unjust than to make the accounts up to March, and then make an estimate for the next half-year.

observed, that the proposed words would have a retrospective effect, as the law would be made after the expenditure for the year had been incurred. This was palpably unjust, and he would suggest the substitution of the words "29th day of September" for the "25th day of March."

said, that his hon. Friend's Amendment would delay the levy for the union for twelve months; and this fact, he apprehended, would counterpoise the inconvenience complained of.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "25th day of March," and insert the words "29th day of September."

Question put, "That the words '25th day of March' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 18: Majority 22.

then proposed the Amendment which he had placed upon the Notice-paper, as follows:—"To leave out all the words after 'electoral division of such union,' in line 9." The principle to be decided by this Amendment was, whether the question of a union rate should be negatived or affirmed; and, after the full discussion which had already taken place on that principle, he would not now trouble the House with any arguments.

Amendment proposed, line 9, to leave out from the words "such union" to the end of the Clause.

Question put, "That the words 'and if upon an examination of such account' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 18: Majority 25.

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice in the event of the former one being rejected, and which was "to omit the words, 'or so much thereof as with due diligence it has been practicable to levy.'" He said, there was not a point in the Bill of greater importance than that involved in those few words. When a maximum was proposed, it became a question as to the period when the power vested in the commissioners should be brought to bear. If any license were left at all, it would be as well not to establish a maximum rate. It was proposed to invest the commissioners with the power of deciding at what moment the maximum rate should cease in the electoral district, and the union rate should commence—a proposition which struck at the root of local self-government and dependence in Ireland. If a rate of so many shillings were struck, and only one shilling was collected, the Poor Law Commissioners, who might be at the other end of Ireland, who were without local knowledge, irresponsible, and from whose decision there was no appeal, might impose a rate of 10 per cent upon the whole property of the union. This was a violation of the first principle of the connexion between representation and taxation which they would not dare to commit in England. And why did they violate those principles in Ireland? On the tyrant's plea of necessity. Under the guise of liberalism, they were violating the great constitutional principle of liberty. However, this proposition of imposing a tax at the discretion of one or two persons, was not altogether without precedent even in England, for the present case was analogous to that of ship money, when the king propounded the questions whether he might not impose a tax upon the country in a case of necessity, and whether he was not the judge of the necessity of that tax? So now the noble Lord proposed that the Poor Law Commissioners should impose a tax of 10 per cent upon Ireland in a case of necessity, they being the sole judges of that necessity. If these words were allowed to remain in the Bill, great injury would be inflicted upon the rights of property. While they talked about making the poor-law the means not only of relieving pauperism, but of instructing boards of guardians in Ireland in self-government and in the administration of local affairs, what was the practical course they took? They went on centralising more and more, and by successive alterations in the poor-law diminishing the power of the boards of guardians, and increasing the power of the central board in Dublin. Thus they gave less and less encouragement to those who resided in their localities to fulfil their duties on the spot. He did not now speak of the poor-law in Ireland or in England, or of union rating, or electoral rating; but he declared that these words involved a wanton and gross injustice, attempted to be perpetrated by this Government upon their fellow-countrymen, no matter where. He took his stand against these words upon the broad ground of the connexion between representation and taxation.

said, the practical result of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to neutralise the adoption of the union rate. He said, if the hon. Gentleman meant to make it compulsory that every farthing of the rate struck, perhaps of five shillings, should be collected, all experience, both in Ireland and in England, would assure him that that was impossible. It would be easy to ascertain where due diligence had been used, without stipulating that every farthing of the rate struck should be raised. The Government proposed that it should be a bonâ fide rate, meaning thereby that due diligence should be used in the collection of it. The Amendment, however, went much further, and would have the effect of neutralising the adoption of the union rate. The hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that the commissioners were authorised to impose a tax. They were merely authorised to determine, under the circumstances, upon whom the rate should fall, whether upon the union, or the electoral division.

thought that the power would be much more safely entrusted to the guardians than the commissioners.

believed from the experience they had of certain unions in the north of Ireland, that no rate would be collected at all unless authority were reposed in some one extraneous to the nnions.

said, the power might be much better left in the hands of those who were entrusted with the property of Ireland, the guardians who were on the spot, and able to judge of the circumstances. He maintained, the Bill would virtually give the commissioners power to impose a tax; when they found that one division was broken down or negligent, they would lay an extra tax upon the rest to support that division.

said, the Bill as it stood specified no time within which the union rate was to be levied. He proposed that a percentage of the rate on the electoral division should be levied before they could apply to the union. Unless words to that effect, in some way modifying the Amendment, were adopted by his hon. Friend, he could not support him. The Amendment did not provide for the supposition of the people starving, whilst it forbade a rate in aid till the maximum of 5 s . was paid up. In fact, the Amendment would have the effect, by a side-wind, of getting rid of the rate altogether.

explained the effect of the clause to be, that some one must be satisfied that a bonâ fide rate had been collected to the utmost point that it could be collected, taking all the ratepayers into account.

wished to know, in case a rate in aid levied upon the union were paid over to an electoral division, and some time afterwards the arrears in that division should be collected, he wished to know to whom the arrears thus got in would belong?

replied, that arrears so collected would be repaid to the electoral divion, or go in diminution of some charge against it.

said, that on the 25th of March in every year there would be a statement of accounts published, which would include the uncollected portions of the 5 s . rate, and if any electoral division was in debt, there would be a union rate. If the arrears were afterwards collected, to whom would they belong? That was the question, and as the clause stood he had no hesitation in saying they would go to the credit of the electoral division upon which they had been levied.

asked whether in such a case the 2 s . union rate would not be part of the rate the following year?

replied in the negative.

pointed out the great differences between the collections in different unions, particularly between those in Galway and the poorer parts of Limerick; and suggested that, if 5 s . 6 d . or 6 s . were named as the maximum, with a provision that 5 s . should be collected, there would not be so much left, as at present, to the arbitrary power of the commissioners.

said, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to apply a general rule to all the different unions in Ireland. Something must be left to the discretion of those who were best able to judge of the circumstances of particular unions. It was notorious that in some unions it had been found impossible to collect the rates, and in others there had even been resistance.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had, in these observations, used the most conclusive argument against his own proposition for a 5 s . maximum rate all over Ireland.

said, the Government were forcing a Bill upon Ireland which was decidedly opposed by a majority of the representatives from that country, and a Bill which in many respects was not applicable to it. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had just declared that it was impossible to lay down a general rule. Under these circumstances, he suggested that the law should remain as it was in those unions where it had been found to work well, and that the distressed unions should be treated in a different manner. Let not those who had paid their way and kept their ground be treated the same as those who had done neither. A plan of this sort would get rid altogether of the difficult question of arrears.

denied that his observations were open to the construction of being opposed to the 5 s . maximum rate. He complained, however, that the principle of the measure should be discussed upon the clauses. The House had already affirmed the principle, and the Committee were considering the details, and he begged hon. Gentlemen not to reopen questions which had been already settled.

recalled the attention of the Committee to the question before it—namely, the tribunal which should have the power of saying whether due diligence had been used in the collection of the rates.

replied, he objected to a power of so much magnitude being given to the Poor Law Commissioners. They were already enabled to dismiss guardians and appoint vice-guardians, who could levy taxes without the shadow of representation.

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 23, to leave out the words, "or so much thereof as with due diligence it has been practicable to levy."

Question put; "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 23: Majority 56.

moved the omission of words from the latter part of the clause, declaring that the guardians might apportion the excess of charge over 5 s ., and pay it out of any money standing to the credit of each electoral division with the treasurer of the union. He thought this provision unjust, and referred to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the difficulty of collecting rates in some unions.

denied, in the strongest terms, that he had said anything whatever to justify the supposition that resistance to the rate was any ground for exemption.

had never said so. He only referred to it as an exemplification of the difficulty of collecting rates.

was satisfied with the explanation. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were carried, it would be necessary, in some instances, to strike an additional rate upon the electoral divisions, although there might be money in hand for the purpose of making payments. However, he had no objection to add the words "as they might think fit," to the clause, which would leave the matter at the option of the guardians.

wished for some guard against surpluses being appropriated to purposes for which they were not granted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

complained that no provision was made for the expense of relieving the poor in cases where more than a 2 s . rate would be necessary. In such a case the expense would have to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, and paid by the overtaxed ratepayers of this country. He thought that 5 s . should be substituted for 2 s . in the proviso.

proposed to add a proviso to the effect that the commissioners should not levy the additional rate on any union, until after they received a certificate from the board of guardians that due diligence had been used in the collection of the 5 s . rate.

was of opinion that the discretion should be left with the commissioners rather than with the guardians.

said, as the commissioners must receive some information, all his noble Friend wanted was that the information should be authentic.

said, that the clause as it stood provided that a certificate should issue; and he thought it better that the commissioners should be at liberty to receive information from all quarters, instead of being bound by the acts of the guardians alone.

said, he had voted on all the other Amendments with the Government, but on this occasion he felt bound to vote against them.

Proviso proposed—

Question put, "That the proviso be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 88: Majority 40.

then moved the addition of a proviso, ralative to the striking of the union rate of 2 s .

Proviso proposed—

Question put, "That the proviso be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 103: Majority 65.

On the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill,

rose to move the omission of the clause altogether. The present rateable property of Ireland was totally incapable of supporting the poor, and those districts where it just managed to do so were already too much burdened in maintaining their own pauperism to be able to bear an additional tax as a rate in aid of the pauperism of other districts with which they had nothing whatever to do. A rate in aid no doubt was wanted, but let it be raised from an income and property tax upon Ireland; and then that species of property which was now entirely exempt from the fair share which all kinds of property alike ought to contribute for the relief of the poor, would be fixed with the new burden, as it ought to be; for it was unjust that one species of property alone should be crushed by the overwhelming weight of a tax that another species of property now totally exempt ought to bear in common with it.

said, that the question involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, had been previously discussed that evening, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to refer at length to the subject; but, in adopting that course, he begged it to be understood that he did not mean any offence to the hon. Member for Waterford.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided;—Ayes 108; Noes 52: Majority 56.

Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

objected to proceeding at that late hour with a measure which went to alter the whole tenure of land in Ireland.

After a short conversation,

moved that the Chairman report progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 105: Majority 76.

Preamble postponed.

House resumed. Committee report progress; to git again To-morrow.

moved the committal of the Palace Court (Westminster) Bill.

said, he had told his noble Friend, over and over again, that the Bill which he had brought in on this subject, and which stood for a second reading to-morrow, would abolish altogether the court from which his noble Friend proposed by the present Bill to remove causes. Under these circumstances, if his noble Friend persevered, he should move that the Bill be committed that day six months.

observed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that when he opened his mouth, no dog might bark. His hon. and learned Friend boasted of having brought in his Bill, but he did not at all events do so till he (Lord Dudley Stuart) brought in his own. The object of the Bill was to get rid of an intolerable nuisance—to remove cases from a close court to an open one. He accused his hon. and learned Friend and the Government of dilatoriness, and he thought it reflected no credit upon them that they should have allowed such a place as the Palace Court to remain so long. ["Hear!" "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen might be impatient, but the country was more impatient to get rid of this nuisance. If he carried on his Bill, would it prevent the Attorney General from carrying on his Bill also? Not at all. But if anything should hinder the Attorney General from carrying his—should he change his mind from any cause, his (Lord Dudley Stuart's) Bill would go a long way, if not the entire way, to remedy the grievance of the Palace Court. He did not mean any disrespect to his hon. and learned Friend or the Government, but he put very little faith in the assurances of Government. He did not think that they ever gave an assurance that they did not mean to fulfil; but he had had such experience of their infirmity of purpose, that he did not put implicit confidence in their assurances. The burnt child feared the fire. He was sure there were no more honourable gentlemen in private life in any country than the Members of the present Government. But as a Government, in their collective capacity it was quite a different thing. He had known Government give assurances, and not fulfil them. He had known them give assurances of their intention to bring in a Bill, bring it in, read it a first and second time, and then at a late hour of the night abandon it. ["Name, name!"] He would give chapter and verse. The present Government did it only last year—in the year 1848. They undertook to bring in a Bill to relieve the metropolis from a great burden of police rate. Official letters were written to every parish in the county of Middlesex. The Bill was brought in, it received a first and second reading, and was then abandoned. And how did he know that something of the kind might not happen to this Palace Court Bill? Until he heard some better reason than had yet been offered, he should persevere with his own Bill; and he thought it would not do his hon. and learned Friend much credit if he were to put a spoke in the wheel of it.

said, that his noble Friend had given the House a proof that the Attorney General, if he had attempted to gag, had certainly not muzzled him. The noble Lord's Bill was before the House. The Attorney General's was not. They could judge of the one; they knew nothing about the other; and under such circumstances he thought his noble Friend was justified in persevering.

was sincerely anxious to promote the noble Lord's Bill, but he was still more anxious to promote the Bill which the Attorney General had promised. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord would consent to put off his for a few days.

finally consented.

Debate adjourned to Monday next.

moved the adjournment of the debate; and said, that when the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill recollected that when it was introduced it was so badly drawn that almost any school-boy could frame a better one—when he remembered that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that it was one, that if passed in its then condition, would bring disgrace upon the legislation of the country—and when he recollected that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had himself admitted its want of extensive amendment—he could not be surprised that, much as he (Colonel Salwey) wished to see the object and intentions of the promoters of the measure carried into execution, he was justified in opposing one so ill framed. What he wanted to see was a perfect Bill, and he should therefore move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 52: Majority 23.

Question again proposed,

said, it was most unreasonable, after what had taken place, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire should persist in going on with the Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General had described to them what the imperfections of the Bill were, and until the House was aware of the Amendments to be proposed to rectify those imperfections, he thought the Bill should not be proceeded with. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would give time to consider the Amendments which he intended to propose; and unless he did so, he (Mr. Milner Gibson), although he did not wish to give any factious opposition to the Bill, would move the adjournment of the debate. Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

had voted last night with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but he must say that it behoved that hon. Member to keep the promise which he had made to the hon. and learned Attorney General, that he would introduce such alterations into the measure as would make it a practicable one. The Bill had been described as a mere farce of legislation, and he did trust that until it was made more perfect, it would not be proceeded with.

said, it was not usual to propose Amendments to a Bill until after the second reading, and when the Bill went into Committee, where alone the opportunity would be afforded to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to propose his Amendments.

thought the Bill was so inefficient in its present state, that the House could not well proceed with it.

really hoped, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, as the Amendments which he proposed to introduce could only be made in Committee; and considering the period of the Session, and the little chance there was of the measure being carried if it was delayed, he trusted hon. Members would at once consent to the second reading.

was of opinion that time should be given to consider the Amendments which were to be proposed, the more especially as the hon. and learned Attorney General's words, describing the defects of the Bill, were very strong.

said, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire persevered, he would move the adjournment of the House.

said, the right hon. Gentleman could not do so, as he had already spoken.

would, therefore, move the adjournment.

The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 53: Majority 31.

then moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, that if hon. Members were in favour of the principle of the Bill, he was at a loss to know why they objected to the second reading, the more especially as 130 Members had last night recorded their votes in favour of it. But he would not any longer persist, but would consent to adjourn the debate.

Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.