wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether there were on foot any negotiations for the resumption of our diplomatic intercourse with Spain; and also, whether the consideration lately shown by Spain to the just claims of our merchants, would not, in his opinion, justify a conciliatory spirit on our part, in dealing with the apology and reparation which we had an undoubted right to claim from Spain?

said, it had been already stated in another place, that in the month of October last, a communication was made to the British Government on the part of the King of the Belgians, to the effect that a disposition existed on the part of the Spanish Government, to ask his good offices to bring about a good understanding between the Spanish Government and the Government of this country, and wishing to know if such would be agreeable to Her Majesty's Government. The answer given to that communication was, that Her Majesty's Government would be exceedingly glad to avail themselves of his good offices if he so thought fit to employ them. There had passed several communications, but chiefly verbal, since that time; but they had not, as yet, led to any result. With regard to the consideration shown by the Spanish Government to British merchants, he was not aware of the particular circumstances to which the noble Lord alluded. He had heard no complaints recently from British merchants, and, therefore, he was bound to suppose that the Spanish Government had not acted with injustice towards them; and yet there was no merit in that. But, as he understood, a modification of the tariff had been proposed by the Spanish Government to the Cortes—not, however, as a concession to England, or as a favour to the British Government or nation, but, he had no doubt, it was proposed with a well-considered regard to the interests of Spain herself. And he was sure that anybody who knew anything of the condition of Spain, must only marvel that the different Spanish Governments had not sooner seen how much their own interests were injured and sacrificed by the continuance of that most absurd system of tariff which had so long prevailed, to the impoverishment of the revenue of Spain, and to the detriment of her national industry. Yet these were Spanish affairs, with which we could not interfere. But if the noble Lord meant to say, because the Spanish Government had taken steps dictated by a regard to Spanish interests, but which, whatever they might be, had not yet brought any practical result, that on that account the British Government should show any less regard than it otherwise would do to the honour and dignity of the country, he (Lord Palmerston) was certainly not prepared to acquiesce in such an opinion.

requested the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements) to postpone moving his preamble to the clause, until his own clause was proposed at the end of the Bill.

proposed his Amendment, which was negatived without a division.

On the Question being put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"

intimated that he intended to move an Amendment for the restitution of words in a former Act. He called attention to the fact that they were then approaching the real amendment of the poor-law, for this third clause might well be considered as the first clause of a separate Bill. What he now asked was, that where the boards of guardians had properly and fairly discharged their duty, they should not have the insult and injury inflicted upon them of being compelled to give up the exercise of their power in a district where they had exercised their arduous duties wisely. What he wished to obtain was a provision that the money to be raised for the erection of additional workhouses, should be raised according to the discretion of the boards of guardians. If the boards of guardians, then, voted the sums for that purpose, they would have only to blame themselves if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very severe and hard with them. He contended, that as the Poor Law Commissioners of England had no power to create new unions in Eng-land, and as the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland had never exercised the power bestowed upon them, it would be most desirable for the Government to evince some feeling of encouragement to, and confidence in, those boards which had conducted the affairs of their unions in a satisfactory manner. He was far from saying that no new unions were necessary in Ireland. On the contrary, he believed that in the west of Ireland they were most urgently required; but in that part of the country boards of guardians were already appointed. It was most unjust to refuse to boards of guardians in Ireland the same local self-government which was enjoyed in England. He should conclude by moving the following proviso, as an addition to Clause 3:—

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause to add the following Proviso:—

"Provided always, That no such dissolution or alteration shall take place or be made, unless a majority of the Guardians of the Unions affected by such change, shall also consent thereto in writing."

opposed the adoption of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire endeavoured to induce the House to return to a state of the law that had been found to work inconveniently and mischievously, and had offer-ed no valid reason why the House should return to such a state of things. He wished to know whether it was right to place an executive body, like the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland, in such a position as that the public could have it in their power to say that the Poor Law Commissioners took advantage of some default on the part of the guardians, and that, having dismissed them, they proceeded to divide the union. Let the House suppose a case where the division of a union was absolutely necessary; take the Ballina union, which was to be divided into four unions, by the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners. Suppose that the guardians of the Ballina union were, from motives of economy, or any other reasons, to refuse to divide that union—ought there not to be, somewhere or other, a power to carry that division into effect? At present, paupers seeking relief in some of these unions, had to walk 20 or 25 miles to the workhouse. Was not that almost a denial of relief, and an unfair application of the workhouse test? It was necessary to confide to somebody the power of dividing these unions in cases where the guardians refused.

said, that it was in consequence of the almost total failure of the present Act that his hon. Friend had proposed his Amendment, by which he merely proposed to revert back to the Act of 1834. All that was sought by his hon. Friend was, that those boards of guardians who had faithfully discharged their duties, should have some concern in the management of their own affairs. The opposition on the part of the Government to the Amendment now before the Committee, arose from an obstinate adherence to the baneful system of centralisation, and a total disregard of all local representations on the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated, that every consideration had been paid to local representations by the Boundary Commissioners. It would not be difficult, however, to show that such was not the case. In the county which he had the honour to represent (Kerry), the commissioners had proposed to create two additional unions, and sent down a list of queries on the subject to the boards of guardians of Tralee and Killarney. Those guardians having considered the subject, came to an unanimous resolution, a copy of which they forwarded to the commissioners, to the effect that they viewed with regret the adoption of any such step as the creation of those additional unions. Those remonstrances were, however, totally disregarded. It might probably be said that those representations were not worth alluding to; but in answer to such an objection, he needed only to refer to the reports of the Government inspector, who had stated that the board of guardians of Killarney was, perhaps, the most efficient of any in Ireland, and that in no part of the country had the poor-law been more effectually carried out, owing to the exertions of both landlords and tenants manfully to do their duty under the trying circumstances in which they had been placed.

begged to say, that he had never meant to hold out an expectation that the representations of parties locally interested would be attended to in all instances, but simply that they would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions, which would be taken into consideration by the commissioners. He had no doubt that the eulogium pronounced on the conduct of the Killarney guardians was very well deserved; and, from all he had heard, he believed that no one better discharged his duties as a guardian than the hon. Member for Kerry himself; but he protested against the inference which was sought to be drawn, that guardians of unions were better qualified to decide upon the propriety of dividing unions than the commissioners. He believed that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the divisions of unions when they were too large.

remarked that there were two parties in Ireland, the destitute and the ratepayers. He believed that the anxiety of the board of guardians to economise the funds provided by the ratepayers, was greater than the anxiety which they ought to feel to relieve the destitute poor. The reason why so many boards of guardians had been dissolved in Ireland, was that they had refused to strike a rate. He should, therefore, vote with Her Majesty's Government, considering that if the Amendment were adopted, there would be no security for a proper division of unions. In the union of Tralee, paupers had to walk forty miles before they could get relief.

explained that the union of Tralee had been recommended for division by the guardians, upon the ground that it was too extensive.

felt bound to support the view taken by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, not for the purpose of controlling in the abstract the powers of the commissioners, but to prevent, on their part, inattention to the memorials addressed to them.

said, that the old law had been in operation from 1839 till 1847; that the present plan had been tried only during the last eighteen months, and he really thought that they ought not, upon slight grounds, to change a law that had been such a short time in operation. He thought it too bad, after seven years' experience of one law, to give up another after only eighteen months' trial. He quite concurred with his hon. Colleague in the eulogium pronounced upon the guardians of the Killarney union, and he thought that their representations had not been received with the deference to which they were entitled.

wished to remind the House that the question was whether the division of unions, or the formation of new unions, should be left to the guardians, or intrusted to the commissioners. Now, he should follow the hon. Member for Northamptonshire in requiring the consent of half the guardians.

believed that the board of guardians would be likely to act more fairly than the commissioners, and he thought that the latter had already too much power.

was of opinion that, if the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire were to pass, they would never be able to form new unions out of the fragments that would be left.

supported the Amendment, as he thought it the safer course to give the power to boards of guardians who would be best able to judge of the ability of their respective unions to support additional taxation, than to place it in the hands of the commissioners. It had been said that the boards of guardians were generally disposed to regard the interests of the ratepayers rather than the interests of the poor; but he could state that the board with which he was connected, had taken precisely the opposite course, and had afforded outdoor relief to an almost unlimited extent.

said, that from the excessive size of some unions in Ireland, and the distance the poor had to go in order to obtain relief, it would be greatly to their advantage that the unions should be divided; while it had been stated, on the other hand, that it was the interest of the boards of guardians that the unions should not be divided. If the matter was left to the guardians, the probability was, that in very few cases would any division be made; he would, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

preferred that responsibility of almost every kind connected with the administration of the poor-law should rest with the local authorities rather than with the commissioners, and would give his vote for the Amendment. It must be remembered that if the guardians in Ireland refused to divide the unions, there was a remedy in the hands of the commissioners, who had the power to dismiss them.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 68: Majority 44.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 4.

On Clause 5,

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, namely, in line 9 to insert after the word "annuity," the words "as also every interest payable on any mortgage, judgment debt, or family charge." The object of the Amendment was to fix mortgagees, judgment creditors, and the recipients of family charges upon land, with deductions on account of rates, in proportion to the amount of their receipts from the estate. The hon. Member argued in support of his Amendment, that all money invested in land in Ireland ought to be charged, and not annuities and rent charges alone. He said that in England money invested in land would not produce more than 4 per cent, while in Ireland it commonly produced 5 per cent, On the average, at all events, money laid out on land in Ireland would give I per cent more than in England. Suppose, then, 2,000 l . upon a mortgage, or family charge, in Ireland produced 5 per cent. or 100 l. a year. It would be difficult to get 80 l . a year in England for the same sum upon land, and if it were put into Consols it would yield at the present price only about 65 l . Thus the sum invested in Ireland produced 20 l . a year more than in England, both being in land, or 35 l . a year more in Ireland than would be got for it in the funds in England. If, therefore, that sum were taxed in Ireland to the extent of 10 per cent, or 2 s . in the pound, still the advantage would remain greater in investing it in Ireland than in England. These charges then ought to be subject to the deductions for the rates. The same reason that impelled the promoters of the Bill to charge annuities with poor-rates, ought to impel them in justice and common sense to fix those rates upon all other charges upon the land in Ireland. There was a strong additional reason for doing this in the fact, that in Ireland, unfortunately for the proprietors, large sums were chargeable in various ways upon the landed estates, and which paid nothing at present towards the support of the poor. Why should not a mortgage secured upon and deriving all its value from Irish landed property, be subject to contribute to the support of the poor, as well as the fee-simple? Why should a man, nominally of 10,000 l . a year, but paying 5,000 l . for these charges, be made to pay in full, as if be were putting the 10,000 l clear into his pocket, while those who received the other 5,000 l ., secured upon that very estate, were not to pay a single shilling? He denied that such a procedure could stand the test of reason, justice, honesty, or charity.

Amendment proposed, page 4, line 9, after the word "annuity," to insert the words, "as also every interest payable on any mortgage, judgment debt, or family charge. "

said, it would be desirable to know from the Government upon what principle they proposed to make the deductions from jointures and annuities; and, secondly, upon what principle, if those reductions were made—upon what principle they stopped at that point, making no deductions from mortgages and other charges upon the land. It appeared to him, also, that there was nothing in the clause by which the intention could be carried out. How was a reduction to be made from jointures or annuities when extending over various properties in different districts?

was understood to say that the clause was founded upon a resolution of the Committee upon the Irish Poor Law. The clause had been made prospective in its application, on the ground that these annuities had been granted when there was no poor-law, and that an entirely new charge upon property was imposed. He apprehended that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would lead to foreclosures, and that the consequence of it would be that the money lent upon land in Ireland would be called in.

thought the clause equitable, but wished to know how the Attorney General proposed to carry it out—suppose a jointure or annuity charged partly upon real and partly upon personal property, or partly upon property some of which was in Ireland, and other portions in England?

said, it was plain that an annuity or rent-charge would be a fixed charge issuing out of the land. Suppose an estate worth 1,000 l . a year situate in three different unions or electoral divisions, and that one of them, called A, paid 5 s . in the pound, while B paid 3 s . and C paid 2 s ., the aggregate rateability of the three farms would be 3 s . in the pound. As to the difficulty supposed to arise in the event of a charge upon property partly in England and partly in Ireland, he knew of no case in his professional experience of a man charging a jointure upon his property issuing generally upon estates in England and Ireland. The usual course was to charge it specifically upon certain lands. He (the Attorney General) could not consent by a side wind to make personal property liable to the support of the poor in the way proposed.

denied the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was by no means uncommon for a man, having estates in different parts of the kingdom—England, Scotland, or Ireland—to vest them generally in trustees charged with the payment of certain annuities. He considered there was an evident distinction between jointures and mortgages, which made it improper to tax mortgages while the rate, in his opinion, ought to fall upon jointures.

said, he was opposed to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; but he was at the same time clearly of opinion, if they imposed a rate upon jointures, they ought to lay it also on mortgages. The principle, if good, ought to be fully carried out, as any poor-law, to work well, must be placed on an impartial basis. The clause in the Bill, therefore, either went too far, or did not go far enough. They said, however, they would except mortgages, lest the mortgagee should come down upon the land. In all probability, too, the mortgagee was English, and they said they would protect him. But in the case of jointures, because the holder had no such power over the land, and was also of the weaker sex, therefore they said they would rate jointures.

thought it great injustice to impose a tax on jointures, thus affecting the income of the poor widow, and the injustice in most instances would be the greater that the settlements were made previous to the change in the currency, which alteration reduced the income 8 per cent.

said, the essence of a mortgage was, that it was a contract, or, to speak more distinctly, a bargain, between two free agents. If an individual bought a property, or a horse, under a stipulation to pay for it by certain fixed instalments, it would never do for him to plead that he heard of a tax to be laid on land or on horses, and therefore he must beg to make deductions from the instalments. When an Irish proprietor obtained a hundred thousand pounds and spent it, under a stipulation to make payment by delivering over four thousand pounds a year, the case was of the same nature.

maintained that there had also been a contract in the case of a widow when she was married. The contract was the same as regarded the annuitant, and yet it was said that an annuitant and widow must pay, but not the mortgagee. This was an ex post facto law as regarded Irish proprietors. It was a new law inflicting a grievous tax on Irish proprietors; they never supposed, when they charged their estates, that they would be called on to pay this grievous tax; if they had, the charges would never have been made. When the hon. Gentleman said that the danger would be that the mortgages would be called in, he said that a tenderness for the landed proprietors was what they disclaimed; they could make their own arrangements with the mortgagees.

said, that a tax upon lenders would make it more difficult to borrow the money. There was no doubt that the properties had been diminished by the amount of the poor-rates. He held that the charges arising from borrowing money and from family arrangements stood upon a different basis. Instead of talking of unfortunate jointures, they might talk of the unfortunate possessors of the property, who were obliged to meet these charges out of the produce of the land. It was most unjust upon him that he should be charged on his gross income, and not be allowed to make any deduction from the payments he had to make. In many cases the possessors of property were in a worse condition than the widows who had a charge upon the property.

said, that a person who took a mortgage followed the fortune of the land, and if the land would not produce enough to cover the interest of his mortgage, he must also suffer. The mortgagee, if he could not recover the interest, foreclosed, and became the possessor of the estate, and became liable to the poor-rate, and it might happen that there was not enough to pay the interest of a former mortgage and the poor-rate. It appeared to him that the proposition of Ministers was a very fair one; and, therefore, he would give it his support; but he thought the case of small jointures deserved the consideration of the House.

thought the principle of this clause was perfectly just; and if they retained the clause, it must be carried to its full extent. He thought it most cruel and unjust that an owner of an estate should be charged poor rate on his own property, and that those various persons who were receiving incomes out of the estate should receive it without charge. That was evidently unjust: and therefore, he thought that every person who received payment out of an estate by jointure, rent charge, or any other form, should be liable to be charged. The House ought to subject every one receiving income out of the estate to a fair proportion of rate.

said, that it struck him as extraordinary, from the commencement, that the mortgagees were exempt from the charge for the support of the poor. It appeared to him that the only reason they were exempt was lest they should foreclose their mortgages. If the landlords were to work out their own salvation, let the mortgagees do it also. Ireland would never be brought into a proper state until the different mortgagees and landlords were in their proper position.

thought that the object of the hon. Baronet would be more effectually carried out if the clause were altogether omitted. A Motion with that object should have his support. One grave difficulty which would attend the working of this clause—and there were always difficulties in the way of an injustice—was, that many settlements, such as jointures, were made chargeable on various denominations of land.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 81: Majority 69.

then moved an Amendment to the effect that tithe rent charges should be liable to deduction on account of the poor-rate, in the same manner as any rent paid to any superior landlord. He considered that this was a property question, and not a religious question; and he deprecated religious discussions upon it. It was right, however, that the grievance of the clergy in this respect should be understood by the House. They were the only parties in Ireland rated upon their gross income, without a single deduction of any kind. The principle upon which their incomes was rated was most unjust. Their property was nothing else than a rent charge. By the Act of Parliament they gave up twenty-five per cent of the original tithe composition for a tithe rent charge upon the land. Previously to this, the number of small occupiers in Ireland made it very inconvenient to levy the charge for tithes. The Tithe Rent Act was then passed, the object of which was, that the charge should be paid by the superior landlord; and he, having undertaken the payment, was allowed an abatement of twenty-five per cent upon the tithe rent composition, so that the clergyman got seventy-five per cent paid by the superior landlord instead of the full tithe composition paid by the occupier. This arrangement, upon the whole, had worked beneficially for the landlord, the occupier, and the clergy. It was carried out in this way—in leases granted since the passing of the Act, the tithe rent charge was included in the rent, so that the tenant paid his rent to the landlord without reference to the tithe rent charge; and as to leases before the passing of the Act, the landlord was empowered to recover the tithe rent charge as so much rent. Any provision, therefore, which went to separate the rent charge from the rent, would destroy the policy of the Act which had worked so well. Now, the tithe rent charge was not directly rated to the poor. The principle was, that the occupier and the landlord should each pay half the rate, they merely taking the letting value of the land. The tenant paid the whole of the rate in the first instance, and he deducted half the poundage afterwards from the rent as the landlord's portion, and the landlord was obliged to allow it. The landlord thus received his rent subject to the deduction, and so did all the other persons who had claims upon it, including the owner of the tithe rent charge. His proposition then was why, after the landlord had been obliged to allow the half-poundage rate, tithe rent charge should, according to this clause, be again made liable to deduction for poor-rate? This being a rent charge, not exclusive of the valuation, but the valuation being the rent which the tenant paid, and all other rent charges being subject only to half poundage, upon what principle was it proposed to take from the clergy not only one half-poundage for the relief of the poor, but another which would not go to the poor? The University he had the honour to represent never deducted the whole poundage, nor more than half. The clergy were quite willing to submit to half the poundage on the gross income, but they objected to the present system, by which the landlord virtually escaped without paying any portion of the rate as far as the amount of the tithe rent charge was concerned. He begged to move that after the word "annuity," in line nine, the following-words be inserted, "including tithe rent charge."

considered that the hon. and learned Gentleman had opened up the whole question of the Irish Church by his Amendment. The hon. and learned Member stated that the Church had given up twenty-five per cent of its revenue to the landlords; but he had overlooked the fact that, in return, they had got the remaining seventy-five per cent secured on the fee-simple of the country, instead of their former unsafe and unattainable property. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the Church ought not to pay its portion of the poor-rate; but he seemed to forget that formerly one-fourth of the revenues of the Church wont to the support of the poor, and that it would not therefore be at all unreasonable if the entire poor-rate on the tithe rent charge were deducted from it. In fact, he believed that this was the rule in England, and that the entire of the poor rate on the tithe was paid by the clergyman. If the Committee assented to this Amendment, they would be altering the whole principle of the poor-law in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given them a single instance where the law now worked unjustly. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say that, taking into account the services rendered by the Church, that it paid more than a just share of the burdens of the poor? That 75 per cent was the only income regularly paid in Ireland at present, because though the landlords did not receive their rents, and though the tenants did not receive value for their produce, the rent charge was always paid punctually to the day, and, in fact, the facilities for enforcing payment were greater than in the collection of any other debt. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely overlooked the fact that property in Ireland had very materially fallen in value since the tithe rent charge was imposed. He did not think that the proper occasion for moving the exemption of Church property from poor-rates, was in a clause which went to make other property liable that before had been exempted.

objected to entering upon a discussion on the state of the Irish Church in an Amendment to a clause in a poor-law Bill; but at the same time he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Cork in opposing the Amendment that had been proposed. Without entering into any of the points to which his hon. Friend had reverted, he would say that he did not think it was a reasonable proposition to attempt an alteration in the law to the extent proposed in the manner which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin proposed. If the clergy in Ireland wished to be put upon the same footing as the clergy in England, he believed there would be no objection to such a course; but for the present he thought that they had a right to have this proposition brought before them in a more tangible and intelligible form than it had been in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, the clergy had given up 25 per cent of their incomes, on the clear understanding that the remaining 75 per cent should be secured to them. He thought it was manifestly unjust, that one-half more of the rates should be stopped from clergymen, than from any other persons.

said, he wished to correct a misstatement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made. It was not the case, as he had stated, that the clauses to remedy the hardship complained of, were struck out last year in the House of Lords. On the contrary, they were withdrawn by his Colleague and himself, on an understanding with Her Majesty's Government, that the subject was to receive consideration, with the view of applying a remedy; and he felt bound to say, the hon. Under Secretary of State had, on that occasion, showed an earnest desire to meet the views of the clergy. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to the form of the Amendment as unintelligible; but if he had listened to the speech of his (Mr. G. A. Hamilton's) Colleague, he could not have failed to understand the nature of that Amendment—which was to place tithe rent charge on the same footing with all other rent charges, and make it subject to the deduction of half poundage only. The hon. Member for Cork had stated, that the question went to the root of the whole Church question in Ireland. He (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) denied this. It was a question of property, and applied equally to lay and clerical rent charge. And he would like to know whether there was any one in the House, who could deny that it was not unjust, that while every other species of property paid upon the net valuation, the deduction from tithe rent charge was on the gross, and that while all properties were rated on a low valuation, the deduction from tithe rent charge was on an extreme valuation. Neither could it be denied, that the landlord had the advantage of the half poundage, which he thus unfairly put into his own pocket. Moreover, the whole poundage was deducted by the landlord, whether the rate was paid or not. Last year, out of 1,500,000 l , only 798,000 l . had been paid when the report of the Poor Law Commissioners was made. But the landlords had deducted the poundage from the owner of rent charge upon the whole 1,500,000 l ., though a considerable portion of it might never he collected. The hon. Member for Cork county had stated, that in consideration of the 25 per cent, the clergy had ensured for themselves prompt and certain payment. But he (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) would show that this was not the case. He had received many communications on the subject, but would only trouble the House with two extracts, which would illustrate what he had been stating. The first was from a clergyman in the west of Ireland, as follows;—

"In reply to your question, what would be the value of my living annually if paid?—308 l . 17 s . 7 d. What has it produced annually the last two years? Up to last week I had received little more of the last eighteen months than 50 l. —of the previous half year more than half was due, but within the last week the agent of———has most kindly paid me 28 l . 18 s . 9 d . The receiver has paid me 6 l . 2 s . 7 d ., out of 10 l . 8 s . 8 d ., having deducted the large remainder, 4 l . 6 s . 1 d ., for poor-rates, although not one shilling of poor-rates has been paid on the property. Of course, if I were able to contest it, they could not stop it, not having paid it. But money, even at this rate of interest, is most acceptable. On one or two other properties a similar rate, never paid, has been deducted; for instance, a receiver paid a half-year, due November, 1848, 6 l . 2 s . 10 d ., deducting 1 l . 16 s . poor-rate. My case is, I believe, the case of very many. I perhaps only differ in having a large grown and growing family, and by having become a little more embarrassed, by foolishly, though I cannot say I regret it, having assisted, beyond my means, my perishing parishioners the last two years. There are sixteen rent-charge payers on properties in my parish; seven of those are in the hands of receivers. I was obliged to dismiss my governess, my housemaid, my man servant; withdraw one son from college, another from school—sell my gig, and thereby abandon a lecture I had carried on for nearly eight years, at a distance of thirteen miles from my home."

The other extract was as follows:—

"In this electoral division the people have successfully resisted the payment of poor-rates, and yet though none has been paid by the tenantry—the landlords, all absentees, have deducted the full amount of every rate ordered from my rent charge, and are now about to deduct 6 s . in the pound, though one sixpence has not been collected. They are thus the only persons benefited by a law passed ostensibly for relieving distress. I who reside, spending my income among the people, and give constant employment to several labourers, am forced to send out of the country what would enable me to do some good to those around me, and this out of a limited income of 170 l . a year, and from a parish in which the Roman Catholic clergyman and myself are the only persons above the rank of peasants."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer having objected to the form in which his (Mr. G. A. Hamilton's) Colleague had brought forward his Amendment, perhaps it would be better for him to withdraw it now, and bring it up as a distinct clause on the report.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman should either introduce a separate clause or a new Bill on the subject. At present the tithe rent charge was rated not for the benefit either of the poor or of the tenants, but exclusively for the landlords.

said, he was quite willing to introduce a separate clause on the bringing up of the report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to; as was also

Clause 6, with some verbal amendments.

On Clause 7, which provided that occupiers should not deduct from rent more than one half the amount of the rate paid,

hoped the Government would not force them to a division, by insisting upon retaining this clause, which would make the occupier of the land pay more than he was at present called upon to do. The Government, he admitted, had taken a very discursive view of the affairs of Ireland, and had proposed a great variety of remedies for her distress, which made it probable that they were not infallible in the whole of them. He opposed the clause as injurious to the landlords themselves, for many tenants who were now hesitating whether to leave the country or not would be decided in favour of emigration by learning the fact that under this Bill they would be called upon to pay more poor-rates than they did at present.

could not consent to withdraw the clause, which was, in fact, nothing more than a carrying out of the principle of the present law that divided the poor-rate equally between the landlord and tenant, but which was evaded in the following manner. The hoard of guardians, being composed principally of tenants, appointed valuators, who valued farms far below the veal value, the effect being that the lower the farm was valued the less the tenant had to pay. To illustrate this, he would suppose a farm for which the tenant paid a rent of 100 l , but which was valued to the poor-rate at 50 l . On a rating of a shilling in the pound, the tenant would pay 2 l . 10 s . on the 50 l . valuation; but as he was entitled to deduct 6 d. in the pound from his landlord, not upon his rate, but upon his rent, he would be entitled to receive back 2 l . 10 s . from his landlord, so that, in fact, the landlord paid the whole poor-rate, and the tenant none. He believed there had been instances in Ireland still stronger than this, and cases where even the tenant put money into his own pocket from the deductions made from his landlord for poor-rate.

said, the remedy for this was, that the landlords should reduce their rents, and that there should be a new valuation. But he protested against this clause, which would practically throw an additional burden upon the tenants, and remove the discouragement given by the present system to rack-renting.

was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true the intention of the Legislature was that the tenant should pay half the rate when the farm was rented at a proper rate; but where the rent was too high, he maintained that the intention of the Legislature was to lay a heavier charge on the landlord who rack-rented his tenants. If the valuations were too low in Ireland, Government had the remedy in their own hands, for it was in their power to insist upon a proper and efficient valuation. He thought this clause ought to be prepared with a statement, that it was expedient to encourage the letting of land at rack-rents in Ireland. He should very cordially support the hon. Member for Cork county in opposition to this class.

said, as a man practically acquainted with the working of the present system in Ireland, he could state as a fact that the tenants would esteem it as a very great favour if they knew precisely the amount of the poor-rate which they had to deduct from their landlords, as under the present system they never knew how much they ought to deduct.

took a different view, and he believed that the clause would give rise to considerable opposition to the collection of the rate. He denied that the valuation was so low as represented, for in most instances it was higher than that of the Ordnance survey. He denied also that the principle of the present poor-law was an equal payment of the rate by landlord and tenant. The principle of it was to prevent the practice of rack-rents, and to make the tenant pay the rate only in proportion to his rent.

said, it was impossible to obtain anything like an equal and uniform standard of valuation upon the present system. He should support the clause as it stood, because it gave the occupiers a direct interest in the administration of the poor-law and the prevention of frauds.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 19: Majority 106.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 8.

On Clause 9,

said, he objected to this clause. It would be much better to make the arrangement prospective altogether, so as not to give this benefit of exemption from valuation to any improvements made before the passing of this Act, or else to provide that valuations should only be made at certain fixed intervals of time.

observed that the clause was analogous to clauses in other Bills. It was well known that reclaimed lands did not until after the lapse of a certain period become liable to tithes. The value of the improvements might be ascertained in the same way as that of improvements which had to be fixed as between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant.

complained that mills were not included in the exemption. It was of great importance that mills should be erected as near as possible to the farm.

said, the question involved was substantially decided when the Bill for making advances for the improvement of lands was under consideration. The obvious distinction was, that the millowner made an immediate profit.

did not consider his hon. and learned Friend's observation entitled to any weight. The view taken by him of mills was formerly taken by Parliament of agricultural buildings; yet the latter were now included in the proposed exemption.

said, that as a Member of the Committee, he was in a position to state that the distinction drawn by the Committee was, that in the one case there was, and in the other there was not, a prospect of immediate profit. That distinction he considered a valid one.

moved, as an Amendment, to substitute "twenty-one years" for "seven years," as the period of exemption. The hon. Baronet said that seven years would not be sufficient to encourage the outlay of capital. The entire valuation of the country would not be diminished by that, or be encouraged by a large investment of capital.

said, the reason why the clause had been framed as it stood was, that a period of seven years was supposed to be a reasonable time for the tenant to lay out his capital to advantage, and secure a return. A more extended period would involve injustice to other parties.

had also given notice of an Amendment, his object being to substitute fourteen years for seven years. His wish, in making the proposition, was simply to do equal justice to all parts of Ireland.

hoped the Government would accede to the very moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin.

thought it would be impossible to prove the value of a property or tenement fourteen years back. The Committee, composed almost entirely of Irish Gentlemen, had recommended the term of seven years, and he thought it would be better to adopt that period.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 11.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 postponed.

House resumed; report progress.

Committee to sit again on Saturday.

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.