said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the recent riots at Birmingham, Whether he believes or has reason to know that the pamphlet to which his attention has been called by the Mayor of Birmingham contains correct translations from the works of Liguori, Deus, and other Roman Catholic authorities, as supplied to the Royal College of Maynooth and other Roman Catholic schools; and, I assuming the same to be correct translation, whether it is his opinion that the public should be kept in ignorance of the doctrine and practice of auricular confession as the same are set forth and taught in such books?

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had a great many disagreeable duties to perform, and if he had to verify the translations contained in the most offensive book ever put into his hands, he should certainly, for his part, decline the office altogether. He did not see that his opinion on the Question raised by the hon. Member would be of much value, and he must therefore, with great respect, decline to offer any.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Fulford and Well-stead have been released from their bail; and, if so, whether they ought not to have been thereof informed by the magistrates who convicted them?

said, he was very much surprised the other night to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the bail had not been discharged, which he found was not the case. A free pardon had been granted to Wellstead, who was immediately discharged without bail. With respect to Fulford, a letter was, at the same time, addressed to the Treasury, that they should discharge him from his recognizances and free his bail, which was the ordinary course.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in his opinion, the prospect of passing the Bill for amending the Representation would not be greatly increased if the provisions relating to the Re-distribution of Seats were deferred to the next Session, whereby also the further advantage would be secured of the discussion of such provisions after the settlement of boundaries?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I would say that I have no wish to increase the prospect of passing the Bill for the Representation of the People this Session. I am perfectly satisfied with that prospect.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the revised elevation for the façade of the London University, to be erected in Burlington Gardens, now exhibited in the Library, will be adopted?

said, that the elevation had been for some time in the library. Some alterations had been made in the details in accordance with the views of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite.) He had not heard, either in public or private, any hostile criticism of the design, and he presumed he might consider that it met with the approbation of the Building Committee. He should therefore instruct Mr. Pennethorne to carry it into effect.

moved the following clause:—

"Where any poor rate due from any occupier in respect of any premises within a Borough on the 5th Jay of January in any year shall remain unpaid on the 1st day of June following, the overseers whose duty it may be to collect such rate shall, on or before the 20th of such month of June, give a notice thereof in the form set forth in Schedule (X) to this Act to every such occupier as would on payment of such rate be entitled to vote in the election of a Member or Members of Parliament for the Borough in respect of his occupation of the said premises; the notice shall be deemed to be duly given if delivered to the occupier or left at his last or usual place of abode, or with some person on the promises in respect of which the rate is payable, or the notice may be sent by the post, free of postage, or the sum chargeable as postage for the same being first paid, directed to the occupier fit his place of abode as described in the rate-book; any overseer who shall wilfully withhold such notice with intent to keep such occupier off the list or register of voters for the said Borough shall, on conviction thereof before two Justices of the Peace, forfeit for every offence a penalty of twenty pounds."

The hon. and learned Member said, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that there was considerable discussion upon a clause introduced by the Attorney General, at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), and that that clause was, after long debate, ultimately negatived, as it appeared not to give that satisfaction to the Committee which they had a right to expect. That clause was, in his opinion, in many respects exceedingly defective. It did not distinctly state what rates were to be the subject of demand. It left that question open; and, consequently, any rate made subsequently to the 5th of January—which was the date up to which rates now had to be paid in order to entitle any person to be placed upon the register—might or might not be claimed by the overseer. That was a very great omission. Probably it would be said that the 3rd clause of the Bill explained it; but, as to that, there was a great difference of opinion, and therefore it was not a clause which the Committee could adopt. Another very serious objection to it was that the overseer, by not giving notice to pay the rates, would, by that misconduct, place persons upon the register, while those to whom he had given notice, and who had not paid, would be disfranchised. He had been induced by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton to frame this clause, and there it was for the consideration of the Committee. He thought there could be no objection to it. In the first place, it distinctly designated the date I up to which the rates must be paid—namely, up to the 5th of January, and, if those rates should not have been paid previously to the 1st of June following, then the persons should not be entitled to be on the register. He would next refer to the notice of demand, and it was as follows:—

"To A.B., City (or Borough of) . We hereby give you notice that you will not be entitled to have your name inserted in the list of voters for this City (or Borough) now about to be made, in respect of your occupation of premises up to 5th January last, unless you pay, on or before the 20th day of July, all the poor rates which have become due from you in respect of such premises up to the 5th day of January last, amounting to £ , and, if you omit to make such payment, you will be incapable of being on the next register of voters for this City (or Borough)."

That notice was clear and well defined; for it stated that, unless persons paid the rates, they would not be placed on the register. He could not conceive that any objection whatever could be made to that notice. He then came to the mode in which that notice should be given; and, as to that, there had been considerable difference of opinion. He thought he had embodied in the clause every ordinary mode of giving notice; and therefore he had left the overseer to take his choice. The noble Lord the Member for Mayo had suggested that a fine should be imposed on the overseer for every act of neglect in giving notice to the ratepayers; but it was thought it would be extremely hard that a fine should be inflicted on that officer in every instance for a mere mistake or inadvertence. He now, therefore, proposed that any overseer who should wilfully withhold such notice with intent to keep any ratepayer off the list of voters should, on conviction before two Justices of the Peace, forfeit a penalty of £20. That would give a check upon the overseer; and the clause, he thought, would, in every respect, answer its purpose. If this clause were adopted, it would be necessary to strike out certain words referring to a demand in the 3rd clause upon the Report.

said, the necessity for any clause of that kind had entirely arisen from the insertion of the words proposed in the 3rd clause by the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Donman). Under an Act of 6 Vict., all overseers were required to give public notice on the church or chapel doors of the making of the rates, and that in default of due payment of their rates persons would be unable to vote; and in all the local newspapers announcements appeared that people must pay their rates by the prescribed time or their names would not be included in the register of electors. It was a question, therefore, whether, in addition to that public notice, they should impose the further duty on the overseer of giving, at the end of six months, specific notice to every ratepayer who was in arrear? That was a matter which could be better dealt with on the Report than at the present moment; but if the words "which have been demanded of him in the manner hereinafter mentioned" were struck out of the 3rd clause he believed the general public notice to which he alluded would be quite sufficient. It was very questionable indeed whether a special notification to every ratepayer in arrear should be required from the overseer, because in the large parishes it would entail an enormous amount of trouble. The penalty proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) was so large for any failure on the part of a clerk or an errand boy in delivering the notice that it would be impossible to enforce it.

called the attention of the Committee to a letter which he had received from a gentleman in Bath, a former constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, in order to show how the present system of merely giving a notice on the church doors that a certain rate had been made of so much in the pound worked. The writer stated that the overseers, wishing to disfranchise a part of the community, used to "figure the rates," as he expressed it in the case of their own political friends, so that they might get a knowledge of the rates having been made, and also of the specific sums due from each of them, while in the case of their political opponents they omitted to give them notice of the amount due, until it was too late for them to pay in time to be placed upon the register. The result of the course pursued was that many persons who would have voted for the present hon. and learned Member for Sheffield were disfranchised. Under all the circumstances of the case the Government were, in his opinion, as much bound as ever to apply their minds to the task of endeavouring to remedy a state of things which was calculated to give rise to great mischief; but if they should not feel called upon to do so he was perfectly ready to support the clause which was proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark.

contended that the elector would have no difficulty in going to the overseer and ascertaining from him after the 5th of January whether any rate had been levied which he was called upon to pay. He would add that if the franchise was of any value to him it was his business to make the inquiry.

said, the necessity for some clause such as this was shown by something that had occurred in Bradford. In 1863, a rate was levied in October, and no stops were taken by the overseers to collect it until the following May. The result of that state of things would have been that 2,000 electors under the present qualification would have been precluded from voting for non-payment of rates, for the simple reason that there was not sufficient time between May and July for their collection. As it was 300 or 400 voters were disqualified, and the sole reason the number was not greater was that the electioneering committees on both sides took steps to induce their friends to go at once and pay their rates to the collector without waiting to be called upon. They might be sure that when they made payment of rates a condition of the franchise it would be absolutely necessary to take precautions respecting notice and payment. If they did not they would only cut out more work for the election agents, who would take care that the rates of their friends were paid. If they made the vote dependent upon the action of the overseer, they would have not only the evil of the overseer interfering with elections, but they would have politics interfering in the election of overseers. It was necessary therefore, as they had made the payment of rates the condition of voting, that they should take some steps to secure that the rate was demanded; and he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) to make the penalty fall upon the parish rather than upon the overseer was in some respects better than that of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark. He had a strong suspicion that if a future Parliament should adhere to the principle of the payment of rates as a condition of the franchise, it would be necessary to appoint special persons to carry it out in place of the overseers, but the House would not listen to such a proposition until it was manifest that the best use had been made of the present machinery.

said, that as far as he understood the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, a man's vote was to be made dependent on the payment of rates, and not on what might be done or left undone by overseers. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) held that the clause proposed by the Attorney General would have left too much power in the hands of the overseers. For his own part he (Mr. G. Hardy) thought a notice specially made known throughout the borough would be a better plan. It would save expense, and would obviate difficulty; and if the notice appended to the doors of churches and chapels were not enough, advertisements might be inserted in the local newspapers—and nearly every small borough had now a newspaper—for three weeks at least previous to every 20th day of July, so that hardly any one could say, with justice, that he had not received notice to pay his rates. He proposed that, in addition to the notice now given by the overseer, the town clerk should make this publication. With respect to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, he thought that it went too far, because where everything had been done in order to collect the rate, and even supposing a person had been summoned for non-payment, it would still be necessary to give the notice; and he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that they ought not to take extra pains to bring upon the register persons from whom there was great difficulty in collecting rates. If then they were to adopt the principle of the clause, it would be necessary so to amend it as to remove the necessity for giving the notice to those who had had a demand made upon them previously, who had been summoned before a magistrate for non-payment of rates, or who had been excused payment of rates on account of poverty. He thought also that the penalty was too heavy for it ever to be enforced, and he should propose that, instead of being fined £20, the overseer neglecting to make the demand should be deemed guilty of a breach of duty under the Registration Act, which would subject him to a penalty not exceeding £5, and not less than 20s. This would be a fine levied by the revising barrister, a man perfectly disinterested, and who at present had the power of dealing with overseers under the Act of the 6th Vict.

said, the ultimate result of the discussion in which they had been engaged with reference to personal rating would probably be something which would deprive the subject now before the Committee of a good deal of its importance. What he understood was intended by the Government as the principle of the Bill was not that the rate should actually be paid by the ratepayer, but that the rate should be actually paid, and that the ratepayer should be personally liable. The ultimate result of all this must be that the House must consider, if not now, yet at a very early period, what facilities and encouragement Parliament could give compatibly with the fair liability of the ratepayer and with the actual receipt of the rate from the owner for the enjoyment of the franchise by the occupier. The payment of rate by the owner was accompanied by such convenience and advantage to nil parties, and there would be such an anomaly in constantly levying from weekly occupiers three or six months in advance the sum due, that he was convinced that they would have to consider that point without much delay. However, with respect to the question immediately before the Committee, he assumed that they were all of opinion that, as the House had thought fit to confer household suffrage in boroughs, the boon should be given in perfect good faith, and that no man should be placed at a disadvantage in respect to the payment of rates on account of his poverty. The importance of this question was enhanced since the discussion on the 3rd clause by the enormous change made in the Bill by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newark, which converted half a million of persons who had never paid rates into ratepayers. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. W. E. Forster) said, with perfect truth, that none of them paid their rates till they were demanded. If his own franchise in any particular borough depended upon his hunting up the overseer and inquiring how much he had to pay in order that he might go back and get the money, or write a check for the amount, he was afraid he should undergo the unfortunate destiny of being disfranchised. It was most important that they should seriously consider how they could best give fair play to parties with regard to the payment of rates. The spirit of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) left nothing to be complained of, for he had accepted the principle that fair play ought to be given to all classes with respect to the payment of their rates, and he (Mr. Gladstone, agreed that it was not desirable to impose unnecessary labour upon public officers, and above all to subject overseers, who were unpaid officers, to penalties so heavy that they would never be levied. On the other hand, however, he did not think that a general notice would suffice, because it would not tell men what they had got to pay. There was a great deal of force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the particular form of the clause, and perhaps the better course would be to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham, that if the rate was not demanded by a certain time it should not be recoverable at law. There should be some efficient mode of making a man aware that he was liable for a certain sum, and that having been done, if he neglected to pay let him be disfranchised.

said, the more this question was argued the greater its difficulties appeared. The hon. Member for Bradford had brought forward the most exceptional case that could be found in the kingdom, where a rate was made in 1863, and though it must, if it had any application to this matter, have been made before the 5th of January, so flourishing was the community in which it was made that it was not thought about being collected till the following May. Besides, at the end of March the parochial officer went out of office, when the accounts were obliged to go through the ordeal of the auditor; and if the overseer did not give a satisfactory reason why the rates were not collected what did the auditor do? The auditor charged him with the amount. And with respect to those who were too poor to pay, the only mode in which the overseer could escape being charged with the amount, was to produce the magistrate's certificate that those parties had been discharged from liability to pay. Surely, there was here security enough, almost a certainty, that within three months, between the 5th of January and the following April, the rates would be demanded. With regard to the observations of the previous speaker, he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the compounding of rates was quite a modern device, so that the great majority of the people who had been living under that system should not be quite in that happy state of ignorance as to the payment of rates which had been described. He rather thought this clause calculated to delude people. The humbler classes were not always informed, and the only way to enable them to pay on demand was to take the rates in the regular course when they had received legal notice. Those who had not plenty of money were always anxious to put off the evil day of payment, and when the time came that they must pay they were generally unable to do so. It would be far better to leave such persons to the ordinary operations of the Court. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the bulk of these people did not know what they had to pay, as the amount of the rates due was always demanded before the end of March.

said, that the very poorer classes were scarcely, if ever, called upon to pay rates, and he thought it of vast importance that the next class above them should receive notice that if they did not pay their rates by a particular day they would lose their vote. He thought, however, that the penalty imposed upon the overseers for neglect of their duty was excessive.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark and the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton had consulted him as to this clause. The number of persons upon whom the notice would have to be served would be comparatively small, seeing that they must be five months in arrear before it would have to be served. The question was whether sufficient notice would be given to such persons by the notice being affixed to the church doors, or whether they ought to receive personal notice. The hon. and learned Member proposed to correct the error which existed in Clause 3, which put the power of giving or withholding the right of voting in the hands of the overseer, by striking out the words giving the overseer such power; and in order to protect the ratepayer he proposed that be should receive a special notice, so that he might not be deprived of his vote by the neglect of the overseer. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought it would be sufficient if the notices were published in a newspaper; but it was very unlikely that persons living in houses under £10 a year would look through the advertisement columns of a newspaper for a notice of that kind. He thought that the Government, in order to carry out the effect of their own agreement, should assent to the notice being served upon the ratepayer personally.

I think it would be better, in the first place, to read the Clause of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark a second time, and then to consider, and I hope agree to, the Amendment of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

proposed a clause to the effect that the borough of Hertford should comprise the towns of Ware and Hoddesden. The right hon. Gentleman said that though this proposal only applied to one locality, it was founded on considerations of general policy, and met with the approbation of both parties in the district. Ware was within half a mile of Hertford; its history dated back to the time of the Saxons, and it was known in modern times as the greatest seat of the malting trade in the kingdom. On the other hand, Hoddesden was within three miles of Hertford, and was a place of great enterprize and commercial activity. Although one third of the population of the county was urban there was only one Parliamentary borough within it, and he believed that great public good would arise from joining these two towns to Hertford.

, in seconding the proposition, said the circumstances of Hertford were very peculiar, and it presented special grounds for the consideration of the Government. The largest of the towns in the county contained a population of 7,625. The town of Hertford contained only a population of 6,873, Ware 5,137, and Hoddesden 2,500, making a total of about 15,000. This was a proposal which could not interfere with the scheme of the Government. The population of the county was 173,000, and to be represented by four Members. He hoped that the clause proposed by his right hon. Colleague would receive the patient consideration of the Government.

thought these discussions only showed that the Committee were not sufficiently aware of the powers of the Boundary Commissioners, who would be enabled to deal with cases like the present one. He did not suppose they would recommend that Hoddesden, which he believed was five miles from Hertford, should be comprised within that borough; but Ware was very near to Hertford, and there was a population rising up between those two places. If, therefore, the enlargement of the boundaries of the Borough of Hertford was deemed desirable, the Boundary Commissioners would probably recommend the House to adopt it.

, who had a Notice of an Amendment on the Paper for uniting the towns of Shepton Mallet and Glastonbury with Wells, said that what had just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly satisfactory to him, and he desired to withdraw his Amendment; the point raised by which was one that be should wish the Boundary Commissioners to consider.

asked whether they were to understand that the Boundary Commissioners not only might recommend the extention of the limits of boroughs, but might go further, and recommend the grouping of unrepresented towns, perhaps ten miles distant, with Parliamentary boroughs.

had no intention in what he had stated to express his opinion to the Committee that the powers of the Commissioners would extend to grouping. If the case just brought forward involved grouping, he would give no opinion upon it; but he had thought it referred to a very different state of affairs, His impression, however, certainly was that the Boundary Commissioners would not have power to group.

moved that the county of Kent should be divided into three divisions, and each division return two Members to Parliament. The proposal of the Government was not to divide the whole county equally, but only to divide West Kent into West Kent and Mid Kent, thereby totally ignoring any claims East Kent might have to additional representation. He was quite aware that the population of West Kent exceeded that of East Kent by 110,000, but when Gravesend with Milton and Northfleet were taken out there would still be an excess in West Kent of about 80,000 inhabitants, and it was to that small excess that it was proposed by the Schedules of the Bill that two additional Members should be given. Now, what he asked for was not any additional representation beyond that which the Schedules conferred for the county, but that the Boundary Commissioners should have power to act in its case as with South Devonshire, South Lancashire, and South Staffordshire, and that their discretion should not be fettered.

, as a resident of the eastern division of the county of Kent, and without inquiring into the political bearing of the question, considered the proposal of the hon. Baronet a very fair one, and one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very fairly concede.

said, the county of East Kent had a population exceeding 160,000, and that it was originally proposed by the Government that it should be divided. Ultimately, when the Schedules had to be modified, in consequence of the decision at which the Committee had arrived on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wick, it was determined that Kent should return six Members, as at first intended; but it was not deemed desirable to interfere with East Kent, inasmuch as the population of the county, as a whole, was pretty fairly divided, and it was thought important that the boundaries of the county should not be unnecessarily disturbed, The county of West Kent was divided, there being in one division 150,000 inhabitants, in Mid Kent 130,000, while the number in East Kent was 160,000. That seemed to be a very just division, involving no disturbance of the population of East Kent, and he should have imagined that any one representing it would have been desirous that the boundaries should not be unsettled. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not consider it necessary or desirable to press the Amendment.

It is under a sense of some discouragement that I venture to bring before the House the clause which Stands in my name, not only from the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government would resist all such claims, but from a conviction that at this time the temper of the House is not such as to afford a chance of fair consideration to a proposal such as this. By this time it is not surprising that this House should have learned to regard with not unreasonable impatience the Motions thus made, and should have ceased to discriminate between the real claims and those put forward for effect. The one I now make is no such, but rests on substantial grounds, as I hope to convince this House. Since I first placed this Motion upon the list some great changes have taken place in these Schedules, and I will not deny that among these changes there are some which weaken the claim I am desirous to make. By Her Majesty's Government it has been determined—I cannot doubt upon sufficient ground — to confer additional Members upon the large towns; that determination I will not dispute, nor have I any desire to do so, so long as the principle shall be fairly and justly applied and honestly carried out. But while thus far I concur with Her Majesty's Ministers, allow me to say this—that there are among the details of this measure some to which I must dissent. To these let me call the attention of this House. In this instance it is necessary to show not only the claims and the grounds upon which they are made, but also to proceed by comparison with some other places upon this list. Now, this is, perhaps, the most invidious portion of our task, and one which, in this instance, I am most reluctantly obliged to undertake. I must nevertheless direct attention to the county of Durham and the new boroughs I find scheduled upon this list. They are no less than three in number, by no means otherwise of considerable importance or wealth. Hartlepool, Darlington, and Stockton, each under 20,000 inhabitants. Now, proceeding by comparison, what I find is this—

	Population.
County of Durham (South)	170,412
County of Suffolk (East)	184,780
Hartlepool	12,245
Darlington	15,781
Stockton	13,359
Lowestoft	16,261

—One word upon this latter head, Hon. Gentlemen may be deceived about this, for referring to the Parliamentary Returns they will find the numbers set at 10,663. This, however, refers to the borough alone, with limits long since past; and between this town and its extra municipal parts there is now no more division than that of the parishes between here and Temple Bar. In fact no division exists, and the numbers I have given I believe to be correct. And as regards population we have had some interesting statistics as to increase. Let me call attention to one fact, that is—in this town of Lowestoft the increase has been far exceeding even that of the town of Luton during the last ten years, amounting to 63 per cent; Stockton, Darlington, and Hartlepool standing respectively at 33, 41, and 29 per cent. So much for comparison; and what is the position of this town in other respects? The number of vessels sailing from this port to foreign lands is 300 or thereabout; while of foreign ships about 1,000 annually put into the port. Nor is the trade unimportant. In fish alone about 250,000 tons are annually caught, the value of which is set at about £1,000,000 sterling. Now I think these are substantial considerations even if we take them apart; but my case rests upon broader grounds than this. When a special interest like this is concerned, we must consider it as one of a collective class, and as embracing all other local interests of a similar nature to itself. The Member representing one such interest must be considered, at least locally, to represent all similar interests of a given class. Now, in this division of the country there are seven ports unrepresented, embracing a total population of 31,000 souls—who enjoy, in respect of their special occupation, no direct representation in this House. Now of our population are these any unimportant part? These are no straw plaiters, but men the very pith and marrow of your strength. Why are these denied representation in this House? Is our trade of less importance, and our commerce and shipping less? In this instance I have shown that this is not the case. By the disfranchisement of Yarmouth you have made in our local representation a great gap. I ask you on no insufficient grounds to fill it up. In pursuance of my duty I have brought to your notice certain facts, these facts it will be for others to disprove. Should they fail in doing so, or to show reasons to justify the course it is now proposed to adopt, then I must hold that this Motion I have brought forward is worthy of the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, and the more careful attention of this House.

said, as the Committee were anxious to proceed with the Schedules of the Bill, and now that there was no longer any chance of further disfranchisement, he did not feel justified in going at length into the subject of the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper; but he must ask the Committee to grant him a very few minutes' indulgence while he stated very briefly, without going into minute details and statistics, the grounds on which he brought it forward. In the first instance he claimed more representation for the county of Suffolk, as one of the largest counties not included in the Schedules, on the ground that the counties of England and Wales were very inadequately represented in comparison to the boroughs; although a great concession, it might no doubt be said, had been made in giving twenty five more Members to counties by this Bill, yet he thought it was not asking more than in all fairness could be demanded in claiming still further representation for the counties; for on examination of the statistics it would be found that, with every addition and deduction made for the action of the Bill now before them, the boroughs with a gross estimated rental of £41,068,325, will be represented by 308 Members of Parliament, and in the ratio of one Member to every 29,437 of the population, while counties with a gross estimated rental of £69,010,393 will only be represented by 187 Members, and in the ratio of one Member to every 58,821 of the population. Despite what might be said as to certain boroughs representing indirectly the county interests through their representatives in Parliament, he could not but think that county Members could best represent county interests, and that by an addition to their number the representation of counties in the House of Commons would be more permanently secured. Under these circumstances he thought Suffolk, as one of the largest counties in point of population not included in the Bill, and proportionately, in point of wealth, he believed the largest, had a very strong claim for more representation. In the next place he would take the three Eastern counties, Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk; their interest were almost if not entirely identical; and he found that in point of population and wealth they were, taken together, much under-represented in comparison to the average representation of counties throughout England and Wales, added to which seven Members had been taken away from the boroughs in these counties; two from Yarmouth, two from Sudbury, one from Thetford, one from Harwich, find one from Maldon; only four Members had been given in return, although a very large population had been thrown upon them by the disfranchisement of Yarmouth. He thought, taking these points into consideration, the county of Suffolk, as the only one of the three counties not included in the Bill, ought to have more representatives given to it. In the last place he would take the case of Suffolk as a county by itself; its individual claim for further representation as an agricultural county, and one in which a very large maritime interest existed. Its sea-board was a very large one, and now that Yarmouth was disfranchised this important and increasing maritime population was for a very great distance along the coast entirely unrepresented by any borough; he for this reason had, in making as equal a division of the county in point of population as possible in his Amendment to the Schedule, divided the county so as to give an adequate proportion of representation to this interest. On going into the statistics he found that Suffolk, with a population of 277,939, taking in the population of Gorleston, returned only four Members to Parliament—or in the ratio of one Member to every 69,484 of the population, while counties throughout England and Wales were represented on the average in the ratio of one Member to 58,821 of population. He also found that in point of wealth Suffolk was in proportion much under represented. It must be remembered that four Members had been virtually taken away from Suffolk, two from Sudbury, one from Yarmouth, and one from Thetford, and that none had been given in return. He thought he had proved without going into many figures that Suffolk had a strong claim for more representation on the ground of its being one of the largest counties not included in the Bill, and that counties in general were inadequately represented; on the ground that it was one of the three Eastern counties, and that they had not their fair share of representation; and lastly, that it had a strong claim of itself, being much under-represented according to the average representation

moved an Amendment to leave out Lichfield. He wished to show the extreme inconsistency and injustice of partially disfranchising the city of Lichfield and leaving Tamworth untouched. The very close proximity of the two small boroughs rendered this inconsistency more apparent and this injustice more felt. Lichfield itself contained a larger population than Tamworth itself; but the parish of Tamworth contained a larger population than that comprised within the Parliamentary boundaries of the city of Lichfield. But if Lichfield were dealt with in the same way as Tamworth the population of Lichfield would be at least as large as, he believed larger than, the population of Tamworth; and he protested against the invidious distinction which had been drawn between Tamworth and Lichfield. He believed that he would not have done justice to the town of Lichfield, with which his ancestors had been connected for the last three centuries, if he had not made this statement. But after the decision the Committee had come to last night he had little hope that justice would be done to Lichfield; he should not, therefore, further press the Motion of which he had given notice.

Are there any other Amendments?

, who had given notice of his intention to move the omission from this Schedule of the town of Bodmin, would not trouble the Committee by making any formal Motion, having no doubt, after the decision the House had come to, that he

moved New Schedule (A) in lieu of Schedule (A) in the Bill.

said, that, considering that the Election Committee of the Session of 1866 reported that there was reason to believe that "corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last election for the Borough of Bridgwater," which would in the course which had been invariably pursued since the passing of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, have resulted in the issue of a Commission had not the Chairman of the Committee declined to move for the same, it would be desirable that Bridgwater should return only one Member in future Parliaments.

moved New Schedule (B), in lieu of Schedule (B) in the Bill.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to omit "Durham, Darlington," &c, and substitute "Surrey, Wandsworth, Clapham, Tooting, Streatham, St. Mary Battersea, Putney, and so much of the parish of Lambeth as is not included in the borough of Lambeth," but if it was the desire of the House to dispose of the Schedules that night, he would postpone proceeding with it until the Report was brought up. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.

remarked that West Hartlepool, being rather a larger place than Hartlepool, did not like being included in the smaller borough; and he was therefore directed to move that the name "Hartlepool" be struck out, and the name "The Hartlepools" substituted.

I have been in correspondence more or less since 1859 with the intended borough of Hartlepool, and this sentiment on the part of its inhabitants has never been expressed to me before. I do not think that we should accede to the Motion of the hon. Member without further inquiry, because he may have been misled by some morbid feeling expressed by those who have been in communication with him on this subject. I think it would be better if he were to postpone his Amendment, and when we report Progress he can telegraph to Hartlepool upon the subject for further information.

moved after "Seaton Carew" to leave out "Stockton," and insert under county of Suffolk "township of Lowestoft, with parishes of Kirtley, Pakefield, and Wessingland."

moved that the Parliamentary boundary of the borough of Staleybridge be confined to the municipal borough, and that the words "remaining portion of the township of Dukinfield, township of Staley, the district of the local board of health of Mossley," be omitted.

said, that this question was one that could be settled more easily by the Boundary Commissioners than in Committee. He thanked the Government for having entertained the claims of Staleybridge.

said, the population of Staleybridge by the last Census was 24,900, and it had since probably increased. The places proposed to be included within the Parliamentary borough were immediately contiguous; but this was clearly a case for the Boundary Commissioners. They were instructed to consider the situation, or other local circumstances, and if the proposed arrangement was not the natural one, they would recommend an alteration.

proposed that the description of the temporary contents or boundaries of the proposed borough of Middlesborough should be omitted, and the words "the municipal borough of Middlesborough" inserted instead. The borough of Middlesborough now contained 32,000 inhabitants, and 6,000 houses rated at £5 and upwards; and he could not understand on what principle it was proposed to include within its boundaries an electoral district six miles in length and three in width. The only result would be to take away a vast number of county votes. The proposal was one that had been unanimously condemned by the inhabitants of Middlesborough; and though he was unwilling now to press his Motion on the Committee, he trusted that the Boundary Commissioners would give it their best attention.

did not wish to interpose any obstacle to the withdrawal of the Amendment; but he thought the distinction should be clearly drawn between the boroughs now existing and the new ones. In the case of the old ones the Boundary Commissioners would have a clear starting point, and nothing could be added to them or detracted from them without some reason were shown. He wanted to know whether a similar authority attached to the new boroughs with their temporary boundaries. The understanding, he thought, was that no authority should attach to the temporary boundaries. He understood that it was the intention of Parliament to consider and define the proper boundaries of the places named in the Schedule quite irrespective of the temporary boundaries, and it was very desirable that no misunderstanding should exist on that point.

said, that the language of the clause respecting the Boundary Commissioners appeared to him to be quite satisfactory—namely, that they should inquire into the temporary boundaries of the boroughs created under the Act, with the power to suggest such alterations therein as they might deem expedient. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Milbank), who seemed to suggest that the boundaries of Middlesborough had been drawn with a sinister design of affecting the county constituency, he could only observe that Middlesborough was first introduced to Parliamentary consideration in the Bill of last year, and he believed that the boundaries proposed in the present Schedule were the same as those proposed in that Bill.

inquired, whether the Boundary Commissioners would have the same powers in regard to the new divisions of counties as they had in respect of the boundaries of the newly-created boroughs?

asked, whether the Boundary Commissioners would have the power of omitting altogether a district included in the provisional boundaries, or whether they would only be enabled to enlarge or contract those boundaries.

said, that the Commissioners would have no power to diminish any existing boundaries, but they might enlarge them if they thought fit. The new boundaries they would be able to diminish, or to suggest, in fact, any alterations in them that they might deem proper. In reference to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Lawrence Palk), the language of the clause showed that they would be empowered to inquire into the divisions of the counties, to select the places wherein to hold courts, and to consider what alterations should be made therein; and he thought this quite sufficient.

observed, that some time ago he had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on the subject, and he then understood that the Government assented to the view that the provisional arrangements of the new boroughs and the new divisions of counties were to be considered as mere blank paper.

thought the presumption was that the Commissioners would adopt the arrangements of the Schedules, and would require cause to be shown for any deviation from them. He was of opinion therefore that in the case of places already having a separate municipal existence the fairer plan would be to adopt the municipal boundaries in the first instance. The start should be made with them, and then they could be modified, if advisable.

said, 1,000 acres of the area proposed for Middlesborough were at present under cultivation, so that the town must considerably increase before it extended so far.

desired to move that Rotherham be inserted in the amended Schedule. It had a population of 33,000, and was in the midst of a large and important mineral and manufacturing district.

supported the claim of Rotherham to have a representative. Considering that Sheffield was not to have a third Member, they might at least give Rotherham a representative, as it was in such near proximity to Sheffield, and was a most important town.

moved that Doncaster be added to amended Schedule B.

seconded the Motion.

moved that Keighley be placed in Schedule B.

then moved new Schedule (D) in lieu of Schedule (D) in the Bill.

CHESHIRE.—Division: North Cheshire.—Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundred of Macclesfield.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Macclesfield.

Division, Mid Cheshire.—Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundreds of Bucklow, and Northwich.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Knutsford.

Division: South Cheshire.—Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundreds of Broxton, Eddisbury, Nantwich, and Wirrall; and also the City and County of the City of Chester.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Chester.

DERBYSHIRE.—Division: North Derbyshire.—Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundred of High Peak, and the Wapentake of Worksworth.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Bakewell.

Division: South Derbyshire. — Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundreds of Repton and Gresley Morleston and Litchurch, and Appletree.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Derby.

Division: East Derbyshire. — Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundred of Scarsdale.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: Chesterfield.

DEVONSHIRE.—Division: North Devonshire.—Parts comprised in such Division: The Hundreds of Bampton, Braunton, Crediton, Frenington, Halberton, Hartland, Hayridge, Henyock, North Tawton, Shebbear, Sherwill, South Molton, Tiverton, Winkleigh, Witheridge, and West Budleigh.—Place for holding Courts for Election of Members: South Molton.

Division: East Devonshire. — Parts comprised in such Division: the Hundreds of Axminster, Cliston, Colyton, East Budleigh, Exminster, Ottery

moved new Schedule (C) in lieu of Schedule (C) in the Bill.

, remarking upon the absence of anything in the Schedule descriptive of the temporary character of the division of the counties, moved the addition of the word "temporary" before the words "parts comprised in such division," in the heading of the third column, and the words "temporarily appointed places for holding courts for election of Members," in the heading of the fourth column.

asked if there was any objection to designate the divisions of Somersetshire as East Somerset, Mid-Somerset, and West Somerset, instead of Somersetshire North, South-West, and South-East?

said, he had no objection.

moved Amendments in the proposed divisions of Staffordshire (Schedule D), with a view to divide the county into North, Middle, and South Staffordshire, and to effect certain consequential re - distribution of districts. He should be content if the Boundary Commission were empowered to deal with that matter.

said, that as far as he was aware, the hon. Baronet was the only advocate of the division of Staffordshire in the manner he had suggested, and that the proposal of the Government was far better and more satisfactory.

also thought it was impossible to divide the county in a more appropriate manner than was done in the Schedule of the Government.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

withdrew his Amendment, on receiving an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the words of the Act were intended to authorize the Boundary Commission to consider the question.

moved an Amendment in the Schedule, with a view to divide the county of Suffolk into the three divisions of North-East Suffolk, East Suffolk, and West Suffolk, with a consequential re-distribution of districts.

said, he wished to make a suggestion with regard to the printing of the Bill. It was usual at this stage to re-print every Bill; and on a measure of this importance he wished to suggest that there should at the same time be printed the Bill as it was originally introduced, so as to show the various omissions, erasures, additions, and alterations that had taken place; — that they might see how much of the Bill was the original proposition of the Government, and how much had been added by the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Such an edition of the Bill would be a very curious historical and literary document; and though he did not know that he could make a Motion to that effect, he would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put himself in communication with the highest authority in the House to ascertain whether it could be done or not.

thought that great injustice had been done to his borough (Poole), and he hoped that the Boundary Commissioners might be empowered to inquire into its present population before it was disfranchised.

asked whether the Bill would be printed and delivered into the hands of Members to-morrow morning?

I understand that if hon. Members should not have it to-morrow morning, they will be able to procure it in the course of the day at the Vote Office.

asked when it was proposed to take the Report?

On Thursday.

had no objection that the Report should be taken as soon as possible, it must, at the same time, be borne in mind that the Bill involved a great many local questions which could not be duly considered without communication with the country, and, as the Bill could not be sent down into the country until to-morrow evening, it would be difficult to receive the information which might in some instances be requisite if the Report were taken on Thursday.

I do not know what the "local questions" to which the right hon. Gentleman refers can be; but a great deal may be said upon the Report. We might sit on Friday morning; and, from what I hear, there will be no difficulty in sending off the Bill by post to-morrow afternoon.

The chief difficulty will be in giving notice of the Amendments which may be proposed.

That would be removed if the Bill were ready the first thing to-morrow.

We should understand either that the Bill shall be delivered to-morrow morning, or that the Report shall not be taken until Friday morning. The Amendments on Report are not discussed unless all the Notices are given on the Paper. If the Bill be not in the hands of Members until the afternoon to-morrow, or Thursday morning, it will be impossible to give the necessary Notices for Thursday evening. I cannot see why the saving of one day should be considered of so much consequence in a measure of such importance.

I desire, as far as possible, to defer to the wish of the House, and, at the same time, to do full justice to the matter we are upon. I think, after all that has been stated, and having given it the best consideration, the best course will be that the House should meet on Friday next at two o'clock to receive the Report, with the understanding that, if necessary, we should continue our labours that evening. I should hope that that would lead to a satisfactory result.

I presume that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman is that hon. Members should not move Amendments on going into Committee of Supply. That however cannot be done without altering the Standing Orders.

We will take the Report on Friday at two o'clock.

said, there were many matters on the Paper for Friday at nine o'clock, and it would be desirable to ascertain whether hon. Members would give way.

It is natural that the right hon. Gentleman should be anxious to get the Bill to the House of Lords in time, and perhaps he looks forward to reading the Bill a third time on Monday. If the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary, he may move to suspend the Standing Orders. This is a thing which occurs only once in a generation, and therefore we should not be in a hurry to get rid of it.

rose to call the attention of the House to the great and disproportionate increase of Irish taxation since 1841, as compared with the increase of the taxation in Great Britain during the same period, and to certain impediments to the material prosperity of Ireland which deserve the attention of Parliament; and to move a Resolution on the subject. The hon. Gentleman said—I will endeavour to treat this subject without the least admixture of party spirit, and certainly without the least recourse to exaggeration. I will endeavour to make plain the case of Ireland, and to submit that case to the House in such form that it may be judged according to the rules of true political economy. I say true political economy, because there are several economic maxims current which, when enunciated, sound to unpractised ears like the rules of political economy, but which are nevertheless simply the propositions of a narrow and spurious philosophy. There are some subjects in connection with Ireland on which one can scarcely touch before it is sought to stifle discussion by the mere phrase of "Interference with Free Trade." There are other topics on which discussion is sought to be precluded by such an utterly untenable dogma as this, "That the State is bound never to interfere with the progress and development of private enterprize." I make these few preliminary remarks, because I desire at starting to be understood by the House to have complete faith in political economy as a science, and in Free Trade as a development of political economy, but I deny that the true principles of political economy have been applied to Ireland, or that the advantages of Free Trade can exist for her until the Legislature has taken some steps to make up to Ireland for her backward condition, which few will deny is largely if not wholly due to centuries of mis-legislation. I do not accuse the present generation of politicians and statesmen of intentional injustice to Ireland. I do not endorse—on the contrary, I repudiate—the charges of tyranny which have been so freely made against England for her treatment of Ireland; but I state this to the House in, I hope, a good and loyal spirit — that the financial policy pursued towards Ireland within the last fourteen years has been seriously oppressive. I will now ask the attention of the House to two Returns obtained this Session on my Motion, setting forth respectively the taxation and population of Great Britain and Ireland for the Census years of 1841, 1851, and 1861, and the proportion of taxes raised in these years respectively for each head of the population. These Returns contain nothing absolutely new, but they nevertheless exhibit results which are nearly incredible. I do not need to demonstrate to the House what statesmen on both sides, with equal candour, admit—that the legislation for Ireland in past centuries has been unjust and is indefensible. I do not need to recapitulate the various Acts of Parliament which had been passed since the accession of William III. to crush Irish commerce and manufacture. I freely admit not only that these laws have been repealed, but that the spirit of adverse legislation has been succeeded and is re placed by positive good intentions on the part of England towards Ireland; but I refer to the unfortunate past of Ireland to account for the fact which is evident from these Returns—that in 1841 Ireland contributed only the sum of £4,158,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, as against £47,800,000, the quota of Great Britain; and whilst the pressure of taxes fell at the rate of £2 11s. per head per annum on the population of Great Britain, the total contribution of Ireland was at the rate of 10s. 1d. per head per annum. I will now pass from the Returns of 1841 to those of 1851. How far do these latter Returns show any improvement? We all remember that between 1841 and 1851 the memorable and disastrous famine fell upon Ireland—that between 1841 and 1851 the Corn Laws were repealed, and the great principles of Free Trade were irresistibly established in this Empire. Let me refer to these Returns in my hand and examine how the revenue and population of 1851 in Great Britain contrasted with the revenue and population of Ireland, and how both contrasted with the Returns of 1841. Between 1841 and 1851 the revenue of Great Britain increased from £47,800,000 to £51,800,000, an increase of £4,000,000, whilst the revenue of Ireland simply advanced from £4,158,000 in 1841 to £4,324,000 in 1851, an increase of £166,000; nevertheless the increased taxation of Great Britain, when compared with population, showed a decrease of 1s. 9d. for each head of the population; whilst the taxation of Ireland, almost stationary in total amount, showed, when compared with population, an increase of 3s. 2d. for each head. Do I complain of this? Is this the grievance to which I draw the attention of the House? By no means. That which all admit was partly due to a visitation of Providence, I will assume was wholly due to that visitation. I refer to the period between 1841 and 1851, with no desire to charge the results of the famine years on the Government or Legislature of the period, but I desire to bring back the consideration of the House to the ordeal through which Ireland passed. I wish to compare Ireland, populous and by comparison prosperous before the famine, with Ireland thrice decimated after it. On the 12th March, 1845—the year before the famine, in reply to Sir William Clay, who said he could not permit the imposition of the income tax on Great Britain without requiring to know why it was not extended to Ireland—the late Sir Robert Peel answered that he wished the hon. Gentleman would say what tax it would be desirable to extend to Ireland; and at any rate he declined to apply the income tax. That Sir Robert Peel was right in his view of the case of Ireland is abundantly proved by the fact that although he declined to apply any new tax to Ireland, the relative pressure of taxation on Ireland increased 3s. 2d. per head, whilst, notwithstanding new imposts, the taxation of Great Britain fell 1s. 9d. a head between 1841 and 1851. I should perhaps here observe that, in addition, on emerging from the famine Ireland found herself burdened with a new charge, being for the repayment of the advances made by the State for the relief of the Irish poor, and for extraordinary public works undertaken to give employment to the people. This charge amounted to about £250,000 per annum. I have nothing to say against this charge. There may be many arguments adduced to show that ab initio it was not the form in which re-payment for the relief expenditure should have been sought; but I refer to its existence because the remission of it in 1853 was made the excuse and the plea for the gravest injustice that was ever inflicted in this House against Ireland—an injustice which is at the root of all the subsequent discontent and disaffection—an injustice to which not all the genius of Liberal statesmen, nor all the platitudes of that spurious political economy to which I have referred, can reconcile any thoughtful Irishman. In 1853 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire introduced his famous Budget, extending to Ireland, or proposing to extend to Ireland, certain taxes not previously imposed upon her by the Imperial Parliament. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with intentional injustice towards Ireland; it may have appeared to his mind at the time that the shilling relief he gave with one hand would more than compensate Ireland for the pound of taxes he extracted with the other. But time clears all things up, and now, after the lapse of fourteen years, we see by the light of Returns which cannot deceive us, and by the light of experience which must undeceive the stanchest supporters of the policy of 1853, what the financial results have been for Ireland. The period between 1851 and 1861 was one of vast political importance to Great Britain. Between these years the Russian war had been waged and peace again established. War for political influence had involved the British Minister in the necessity of imposing new taxes or of increasing old, but this necessity arose subsequently to the famous Budget of 1853; so that the pressure of war expenditure was no feature of the unusual policy of that year. Now, let us turn to the Returns of 1861, and let us compare the revenue and population of Great Britain and Ireland with those of 1851. Accidentally the figures for Great Britain are easily remembered—the taxation of Great Britain in 1851 was £51,000,000; in 1861, it had risen to £61,000,000. And this time the taxation had risen in a more rapid ratio than population, and so the taxation per head advanced from £2 9s. 9d. to £2 13s., an increase of 3s. 3d. for each head of the population. Let us now examine the Irish Return. The taxation had increased from £4,324,865 in 1851, to £6,792,606 in 1861; and, spread over the reduced population in Ireland, this shows an increase of 10s. 2d. a head for Ireland, as compared to an increase of 3s. 3d. a head for Great Britain; and comparing back with 1841, the last Census prior to the famine, the Return shows an increase of 13s. 4d. a head for Ireland, as compared with an increase of 1s. 6d. a head for Great Britain, within the same period of twenty years. And now I will ask the House whether there is any necessity to analyze this further? Is there any fallacy latent in these Returns? I am not now trying to make out that this or that tax is more or less just, more or less oppressive than another, I am not objecting to any particular item of taxation. I am adducing what appears to me perfectly unanswerable evidence that since 1851 the total amount of taxation raised in Ireland has been unduly and disproportionately increased. There is only one answer possible to these Returns when adduced as evidence of unjust taxation of Ireland, and that answer would be an untrue one. I will, however, admit, if it could be truly stated, that since 1841, or since 1851, Ireland has progressed in trade, commerce, in manufacture, in agriculture, in some or all of these in a ratio far greater than that of the progress of Great Britain, so that the wealth of Ireland in 1861 was greater than that of Ireland in 1841, so as to have increased in a ratio about three times as great as the ratio of increase of Great Britain. I say, if this counter proposition could be sustained, it would be a valid answer, but the case is so coercive as to admit of no other. But, then, people will ask, how was all this done so lately as 1853? The Irish representatives have something to answer for. Was it not possible to have prevented it? Some of the Irish representatives who now sit on this side of the House, and some who sit on the other, did their best to prevent the injustice being carried out—notably the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), then Member for Dungarvan, opposed the measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In reference to the striking off of the consolidated annuities and the laying on of the new taxes—the income tax and the spirit duties—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan said—

"The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, which for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make was, he thought, one of the jauntiest he had ever heard, said that the justice of the tax was generally felt and acknowledged in Ireland. Now, if that were the case, such a feeling ought to have manifested itself in those parts of Ireland where the consolidated annuities were particularly oppressive, and where the income tax would be scarcely felt. But what was the fact? Why, it was from those portions of Ireland in particular where the consolidated annuities pressed heaviest, and the income tax would be felt the lightest, that petitions and remonstrances against the proposed tax were poured into that House. …. The attempt to gull the people of Ireland into an approval of this tax by saying that the present proposition was a good bargain, because they would have to pay £460,000 instead of £260,000, to which they were at present liable, was worse than a financial juggle; it was, it he might say so in Parliamentary language, an Exchequer swindle. The trick was so stale, the juggle so plain, and the real object so unconcealed, he could only express his wonder at any man representing an Irish constituency being gulled by it."—[3 Hansard, cxxvii. 530–1.]

Nor was it the Irish Members alone who recognized the injustice of the scheme of taxation of 1853. On the 28th of April, 1853, Sir Francis Baring demonstrated that the relief to be given to Great Britain by the Budget of that year would be £1,443,000, and the taxes imposed, new and peculiar to Great Britain, would be £403,000, making the amount less to be paid by Great Britain £1,040,000. Sir Francis Baring submitted for the fair consideration of his fellow-countrymen whether it was quite fair, when they would be immediately receiving a relief of £1,040,000, to place a new income tax on Ireland, and a whole amount of additional taxation of £413,000. I will not weary the House by recapitulating all that was said by way of promise or by way of prophecy in the debates on the Budget of 1853. I must observe, however, that so far as Ireland is concerned all the adverse anticipations have been more than realized. On the other band, a financial miracle has been accomplished. From an agricultural country whose population were flying because the struggle to live was so keen—from a country relieved at the same time and by the same act, of the charge of £260,000 a year—the residue of the dole of the State to save its poor from actual starvation—an addition of more than £2,000,000 annual taxation has been raised — a far greater sum than either the hon. Member for Dungarvan or Sir Francis Baring had anticipated. Without any very violent figure of speech, one may well call this a miracle. But here the wonder ceases. What has followed is natural enough — discontent, political disaffection, political complications, a smouldering rebellion—all, or nearly all due to the fact that the condition of the people of all classes in Ireland has been seriously impaired by the pressure of new taxes for which no return was made to Ireland—that is to say, for which no compensating duties were performed to the country. I wish the House to understand that I would have objected to no additional taxes which Parliament would have imposed in 1853, if the proceeds of these additional and disproportionately additional taxes were applied to develop the resources of Ireland; for instance, if they were applied as the taxes have been applied in India, to guarantee railway companies' dividends—and to enable them to adopt such a low scale of traffic charges as are found necessary to develope the traffic of a country in a backward state of trade, manufacture, and agriculture. I will now touch upon the second subject referred to in the Notice which stands in my name—I mean the impediments which exist to the material progress of Ireland, impediments which place her at a positive disadvantage. Since free trade with Continental ports was established most of the Continental railways have been formed, not merely under the direct sanction of the State, but if not directly with the monies of the State, either with a subsidy or a guarantee of dividend. The Continental railways which terminate at the great ports of Hamburg, Bremen, Rotterdam, Ostend, and Tonning, carry cattle for exportation to England at rates so much lower than those of the Irish railways, that the distance from which a beast can be carried to the London market, without depriving the producer of all his profits, is something, I estimate, at five to ten times the distance which suffices to prohibit production of cattle in Ireland for English markets. I wish particularly to direct attention to the very remarkable evidence of Mr. Hirschler, given on the 31st May last year before the Select Committee to inquire into the trade of animals by sea and railroad. It proves that the rates of transit which prevail in Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, and Germany are such as to enable beasts to be sent at a profit from these districts by rail and sea to London largely, viâ Vienna, although the journey from the last-named city occupies seven days. I believe Irish breeders of cattle will tell us that the rates which prevail in Ireland would absorb every penny of their profits were they to raise and forward cattle one-fifth of these distances to the English markets. This evidence of Mr. Hirschler's was obtained by the Committee in the course of their inquiries on subjects connected with the cattle plague, and to my mind it carries also this moral, that it might have been a truer economy for England to have established communication with the West and South of Ireland, even at a loss and cost to the State, rather than to draw her supplies from districts which are frequently stocked from the plague steppes of Russia. I refer to Mr. Hirschler's evidence, however, simply to show that for the purpose of trade with England the plains of Hungary, the valleys of the Danube, the Elbe, and the Theis, are, owing to our wretched railway legislation, more accessible than the plains of Mayo or Leitrim. But now I expect to be met with the dogmas of the spurious political economist; I expect to hear some one say, "All these conditions are governed by the laws of supply and demand. If Ireland can produce cattle in Mayo or Leitrim in sufficient quantity to make it the interest of railway companies to carry a large number at a low rate, rather than a small number at a high rate, the laws of self interest will compel the railway companies to lower their tariff in order to take in the larger traffic;" to all of which I reply, the low fare is requisite to develop the production; and however certain a railway company may be of the truth of the laws of development, they are seldom in a condition to act on their faith. Let me exemplify this. Suppose a railway company which owes a million of money, and pays £50,000 a year interest; at its highest rate of charges, it may realize only £50,000 a year profit after payment of working expenses. Convince the directors or managers of such a company that by reducing their scale of charges 50 per cent they will realize only £30,000 a year over working expenses the first year, £40,000 the second, £50,000 the third, £60,000 the fourth, £70,000 the fifth, and £80,000 the sixth year; and no doubt they would be willing to adopt the reduced scale if they had the power of doing so. But they will tell you surrounding circumstances are too strong for them; they will tell you first, that it is an imperative condition of their existence that they should find at least £50,000 a year for the next three years to pay the interest on their debt, and that if the money be not forthcoming consequences are likely to ensue from the pressure of creditors which would leave it of no advantage to the existing management, and possibly of none to the existing proprietary whether a future improvement took place or not. They will tell you that the maintenance of the present income is the one vital necessity of their existence, and that they have not the power to try even the most hopeful experiment. I see no practical answer that can be made to such, objections, but I know what is the practical remedy for the state of things which exists, and I believe that the remedy would cost the State nothing after the first five years, and would repay its cost within the ten following years. However these are details which it would be out of place to enter upon on the present Motion. I fear I have trespassed too long on the attention of the House. I have endeavoured to place in juxtaposition two subjects, which, although distinct in their nature, have an intimate relation, and to show that the actual ratio of taxation has been enormously and disproportionally increased for Ireland since the Irish famine and the establishment of Free Trade. I have endeavoured to show that it is the duty of the State to lend at least its temporary aid to place Ireland, as a producing country, in as favourable a condition for railway traffic and communication as that of the Continental States which trade with England. I submit to the House that the proportion which Irish revenue bore to that of Great Britain up to 1841 or 1851—say the twelfth, or the eleventh of the whole—should be taken as the fair proportion for Ireland to pay for purposes of the Imperial Government, but that the extraordinary amounts levied since 1853 should be reviewed, and that Parliament should consider whether the whole or a portion of this increased revenue should be applied, as the revenue of India has been applied, to enable the resources of the country to be developed by an adoption of a low scale of traffic charges on railways. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion. He thought that the hon. Member who had just sat down had not sufficiently taken into consideration the increase of armaments and of expenditure which had taken place since 1853, and which necessarily caused severe pressure upon the poorest portion of the kingdom. If this increase of expenditure had not taken place the income tax could, for instance, have been allowed to expire. The increased duties upon spirits tended, he believed, to effect the ruin of the small manufacturers and to increase more or less the distress produced by the bad harvests in 1862 and 1863. He was certain that the question of Irish railways must sooner or later be dealt with by the Government. The hon. Member for Youghal had in his opinion performed a good service in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House and the Government.

said, that political economists when reflecting upon this question must naturally ask why Ireland, which was governed by similar laws to those of England, was so poor whilst England was continually prospering? It was obvious that for the last sixty-one years England had absorbed a large portion of the revenue of the sister country. The taxation of Ireland was wholly out of proportion to her resources. His hon. Friend had shown that that taxation during the last ten years had been raised from 10s. to £1 a head. That he considered perfectly true; but it must be at the same time admitted that to calculate the severity of taxation by what each man paid per head of the population of a country was a fallacious estimate. The true measure of the pressure of taxation was the amount by which it diminished the capital of a country, and it did so the more when withdrawn from it and spent elsewhere. In England if taxation was heavy it was, except about £10,000,000, spent in the country, in Ireland much less was spent in proportion to the taxes raised. He must remind the House that a few years ago Ireland had a population of between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000, whereas in consequence of emigration and other causes the population had now dwindled down to about 5,500,000. The taxation, which, however remained the same, must necessarily be taken from the capital of the country, which had not increased. According to a Return presented at the instance of Sir Edward Grogan, when a Member of that House, every pound sterling of capital in Ireland paid 6s. 3½d. taxation, whereas it only paid in England 4s. 5d., so that Ireland paid more on her capital than England. Besides there never was a true account given by any Chancellor of the Exchequer in which there was a fair statement of the contributions made by Ireland towards the Imperial revenues. The average amount given was £6,000,000 to £7,000,000, whereas, independent of local taxation, above £8,000,000 were raised from Ireland. A large amount of Customs and Excise paid in England, for articles imported into and consumed in Ireland, were credited to the English and not to the Irish revenue, and credit for various miscellaneous receipts were equally withheld. No one could deny this—the amount might be disputed—but that from upwards of £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 were not reckoned to Ireland, was beyond doubt a fact. Another great cause of the poverty of Ireland—which, although not exactly taxation, equally diminished its capital—was the fact of a large proportion of the rents of Ireland being expended out of that country by absentee proprietors. Even Free Trade itself, however advantageous to the Empire at large, had contributed towards impoverishing Ireland, for until that time, as an agricultural country, she had enjoyed a monopoly which was then abolished. If English Members would only examine the figures that bore upon that matter they would find that there was no difficulty in accounting for the poverty of Ireland.

said, so far as he could understand the speech of the hon. Member for Youghal, his object seemed to be to show—first, that the taxation of Ireland was excessive, and secondly, that Free Trade had occasioned much injury to that country. The hon. Member then went on to argue that it was expedient the State should undertake to place £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 to the credit of the Board of Trade for the reduction of the rates of railways in Ireland. Now he (Mr. Monsell) had been principally concerned in the attempt to have the Irish railway system reformed. He maintained that it was not suited to the exigencies of Ireland, and that it had been adopted against the will of the Irish people; but he (Mr. Monsell) declined to rest the reasonableness of the alteration of that system upon anything but the simple merits of the case. He did not desire that the Imperial Treasury should be at a single halfpenny expense in the desired alteration of the Irish railway system, because that alteration could be made without any subsidy, and the people of Ireland were willing to bear nil the risk themselves arising from such a change. He objected to the question being placed upon the shifting basis upon which his hon. Friend had sought to place it. He desired that it should be treated on its own merits, and that by those merits it should stand or fall. His hon. Friend declared that the imposition of the Income tax was one of the gravest acts of injustice ever inflicted on Ireland by Great Britain, and declared that unjust taxation had produced political discontent, disaffection—he even added rebellion. He entirely differed from his hon. Friend; the income tax fell on the rich not the poor. In consideration of its imposition £240,000 a year Consolidated Annuities that fell on the poor in the poorest districts had been remitted. He considered the arrangement under which the income tax was imposed on Ireland a fair and a just one, and he should feel that the ground was cut from under his feet from urging justice to Ireland if he were to refuse to submit to the same tax as was imposed on the rest of his fellow-countrymen. Objection had been taken to the rate of spirit duties. That was not a party question; audit was based by all parties on the simple principle that spirits differed from all other articles in this particular, that it was desirable to obtain the largest amount of money from the smallest amount of consumption, instead of the contrary, as was the case with regard to every other article of consumption. The only limit to the amount of taxation on spirits was the temptation that high duties gave to illicit distillation, and it was not pretended that illicit distillation was increasing in Ireland. He should like to see fines imposed upon those who adulterated spirits, and also power given to the dispensary doctors, when called on by the police, to analyze all spirits sold for public consumption. The effect would be to benefit the people and decrease drunkenness. With regard to the other articles of consumption, such as tea, sugar, and other Customs articles, it was perfectly notorious that, although the revenue of Ireland in that respect had increased, the rates of duty had decreased. Whilst the consumption of tea in England had only doubled within twenty years, it had trebled in amount in Ireland, and that was a matter of congratulation, and not of complaint. He differed from the opinion that had been expressed with regard to the effect of Free Trade on Ireland. The average price of wheat in that country in seven years before 1846 was 30s. 11d. per barrel, and for the seven years previous to 1862 it was 30s. 9d. At Belfast oatmeal sold in 1844, from 10s. to 11s. per cwt. It was now from 15s. to 15s. 6d.: butter was 9d. to 10d. per lb.; it was now 1s. 1d. to 1s. 3d.: pork was 30s. to 35s. per cwt.; it was now 40s. to 45s.: meat was 3¼d. and 4d. per lb.; it was now from 5d. to 10d. and 11d. Therefore he was at a loss to imagine how the produces could have suffered from the operation of Free Trade. It was alleged that land had been thrown out of cultivation; but the number of arable acres had increased from by reclamation 13,451,301 acres in 1841 to 15,400,000 in 1866; and the acres under crops had increased from 5,543,745 in 1849 to 5,519,678 in 1866. He accepted for Ireland equal taxation; he demanded for Ireland equal rights. With equal taxation she must obtain equal rights and liberties. Instead of raising imaginary grievances it would be better if hon. Members would turn their attention to real grievances, because until they were redressed Ireland never would be tranquil. Ireland never would be contented until she was dealt with on the principle that Scotland had been dealt with on the question of religious equality. They might as well expect the Bay of Biscay to be tranquil when a south-wester was blowing as to expect peace in Ireland until religious equality was granted to her people. They had to compete with their fellow-countrymen of all denominations in the private and public arena. Until they had equal educational rights with those with whom they had to compete they never would be satisfied. Inequality of rights and liberties, not inequality of taxation, as the hon. Member had said, were the real causes of discontent and disaffection. Remove those causes and you would remove the real cause of our poverty. Justice would produce peace; peace would be followed by the influx of capital; the removal of those evils would cure also our material sufferings. He was in favour of equal taxation, because it afforded a just ground for demanding equal rights.

was exceedingly sorry that the very important Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend, should have fallen on an evening when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who had taken their respective parts in the Committee on Taxation in 1865, had, owing to commands they could not disobey, been obliged to absent themselves from the House. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, threw out a suggestion that their absence was owing to indifference, and that when the people of Ireland learnt the fact that those who were officially and more immediately concerned in the discussion were not present, they would resent the occurrence. He was therefore anxious it should be known that their absence on this occasion was perfectly unavoidable. He regretted, also, that it had fallen to him, in the absence of his right hon. Friends, to make some observations on the question, because he felt how little qualified he was to take any important share in this discussion; and how little justice he was able to do to the question. His hon. Friend who introduced the subject had challenged anyone to detect any fallacy in his statistics; he ventured to think that the figures he had given to the House would not altogether bear out the conclusions he had deduced from them. He showed that the whole population of Ireland in the twenty years from 1841 to 1861, had decreased from 8,000,000 to 5,700,000, while the amount of gross revenue per head had increased from 10s. 1d. in 1841, to £1 3s. 3d. in 1861. But it did not at all follow because that was the case, that therefore Ireland was oppressed with a greater weight of taxation, relatively to its capability of bearing it in 1861 than in 1841. The amount of taxation which a people could bear was rather an evidence of wealth, than that they were being oppressed. If they looked at the taxation of the people of Great Britain, they would find that in comparison with Ireland it was very heavy in amount, In 1841 it was £2 11s. 6d. per head; in 1861 it was £2 13s. What did he deduce from that? That the population of this country was wealthy and able to bear that weight of taxation. So, in Ireland he thought the increase of taxation was an evidence of the increase of the material prosperity of the country. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had referred to the number of acres brought into cultivation as an evidence of increased prosperity; and he had given other statistics bearing out the same inference. With regard to the decrease in population and the increase of taxation per head, it must be obvious that a decrease in population owing to the emigration of the poorer portion of the population, who contributed little to the revenue, must involve an increased rate of charge as affecting those who did contribute. He did not think that increased rate very important; but it was important to see under what head that increase had taken place. He held in his hand a comparison between the gross receipt of Inland Revenue in 1841 and 1866 in Great Britain and Ireland. He found that in Ireland the amount received under the head of Excise in 1841 was £1,274,815, while in 1866 it was £3,533,991. Under what heads did that increase fall? There was an increase of £160,000 on hops, and on spirits of £3,028,000. Therefore, under the Excise, the great increase was due to the spirit duties. [General DUNNE: What is the increase in sugar?] He had not the figures relating to sugar, except as regarded home-made sugar, but he ventured to say that sugar would be a very fallacious test. It was wholly irrelevant, because much of the sugar consumed in Ireland, paid duly in England and Scotland. Under the head of Stamps there was an increase in the twenty years of £120,000. Under that of Income Tax to the amount of £370,000. Taking the whole receipts, the amount in 1841 was £1,736,950, while in 1866 it was £4,489,339. It became important to consider whether, although there had been a large increase of duty raised in Ireland, the relief to each consumer had not been very great within that period of twenty years. He should like to give the House a few figures on that point. He would take articles, not, perhaps, of prime necessity, but next to those—luxuries which were within the reach of almost all. In 1841 the duty on coffee was 6d. per lb., the produce of British possessions, and 9d. per lb., foreign. In 1867, the duty was 3d. per lb. on raw coffee, and 4d. per lb. on kiln dried, wherever it might come from. In regard to sugar, the duty in 1841 averaged 24s. per cwt., and 5 per cent; in 1867, it was about 10s. per cwt. The duty on tea was, in 1841, 2s. 2¼d., and in 1867, 6d. per lb.; the duty on tobacco and malt was nearly the same at both periods. Wine, in 1841, paid a duty of 5s. 6d. a gallon, or 11s. a dozen, while by far the larger part of the wines imported at the present time was only 1s. a gallon, or 2s. a dozen. All these alterations in the amount of the duties had been in favour of the Irish consumer, and therefore during the last twenty years the Irish taxpayer had been reaping the benefit of this improved state of taxation. What said the Committee of 1865 with regard to the taxation of Ireland? "It has not been shown that any tax exists in Ireland which materially interferes with her industry, except that on distillation." With the exception of the spirit duty, which was equal throughout the United Kingdom, the Committee said there was not a shadow of cause for saying there was any tax which was oppressive to Ireland. With regard to this latter duty, the House had of late years unanimously agreed that it should be kept at the highest point that could be attained without injury to the revenue, and he saw no reason why Ireland should be favoured in this respect above the rest of the United Kingdom. But the Committee went into another question as regarded Great Britain and Ireland; and they showed that while Great Britain received grants in aid of local taxation to the extent of £2,722,000, Ireland was aided to the extent of £1,297,000, the ratio in proportion to population being in favour of Ireland. Ireland at that time did not share in the grants made for medical officers; but during the last Session, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath, the House of Commons assented to this inequality being removed, and some weeks ago he had the honour of moving a Vote in Committee for £65,000 to be applied in grants to the Poor Law medical officers, in consequence of the Committee having pointed out that those persons did not share in the grant for that purpose to England. The Committee also referred to the amount of public money which had been lent on loan to Great Britain and Ireland respectively. The amount so lent between the years 1817 and 1863 was to Great Britain £13,959,125, and to Ireland £26,292,867, or very nearly double that which had been lent to Great Britain. It should also be remembered that Ireland was still exempt from the land tax, the assessed taxes, the horse duty, and railway taxation. Under these circumstances, he did not think that Ireland had much cause for complaint upon the subject either of taxation or of grants. So far from agreeing with the hon. Member that they ought to view the increase per head of the amount of revenue raised in Ireland, he thought that such an increase in the revenue was a sign of material prosperity, and showed that that country was gradually getting on a par with the sister country. He hoped that in the course of a few years confidence would be restored in Ireland, that the unfortunate disaffection which had disturbed that country would wholly disappear, and capital return, so that her resources might be developed and her prosperity go on augmenting. He hoped that the hon. Member would not think it necessary to force the matter to a division.

complimented the Secretary for the Treasury upon the clearness with which he had shown that the taxes of Ireland were, if anything, more favourable than were those of England, and expressed his great surprise that the right hon. Member for Limerick should have referred the recent disturbances in Ireland to religious inequalities in that country. He thought it scarcely worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's position in that House that he should attribute the disaffection in Ireland to the oppression which Ireland had sustained at the hands of the English since the reign of William III. But he wished to refer more particularly to the address of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick. The right hon. Gentleman said that religious inequality was the great grievance of Ireland. Now he (Mr. Whalley) denied the accuracy of that statement. He denied that the people of Ireland wished to interfere with the Established Church, or that they were emigrating in consequence of any hardships they were suffering from this country, and which it was in the power of Parliament to remove. They had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne that the question of education did not create any opposition among the people, but only among the priests. He would give some facts in proof of that statement. A large district in the West of Ireland had come into the hands of an English proprietor who wished to extend education and establish Protestant schools; and would it be believed that the priest in that district in order to prevent his congregation from sending their children to that school, announced that on a particular day he would turn all the children who might go to it into goats? The greatest alarm was created in the district, the people generally believing that the priest had the power to do so, and that he would exercise his power. A gentleman of high position in London was communicated with, and his advice asked as to what should be done. That gentleman, without expressing any doubt of the priest's power, wrote to inquire on what day the ceremony would be performed, in order that he might make a journey over to Ireland to witness it. He would give another instance—in the South of Ireland the people showed the greatest possible desire to receive an education beyond that given by the parish priests. On one occasion the priest told a man that if he would insist upon sending his child to a Protestant school—["Oh, oh!"]

said, that somewhat extraneous topics had been introduced into that discussion; but he thought the hon. Gentleman was rather exceeding the bounds usually accepted upon such occasions.

resumed: He would soon finish what he had to say upon that subject. The priest told one of his congregation that if he sent his child to the Protestant school he would change the child into a rat. The House should bear in mind that this was a matter of importance considered in relation to the enormous advantages which education would confer on Ireland. The poor man was some what intimidated by that announcement, and after consulting with his wife he said that he was resolved on sending the child to the school, but that for fear the priest would do what he threatened they had better kill the cat. ["Question!"] He did not know what hon. Gentlemen wanted, and he would sit down and let them state their objections to the course he was pursuing.

said, that the Secretary to the Treasury had argued that the increase in the taxation of Ireland was in proportion to the increase in her prosperity; but he had failed to give any proof that between the years 1841 and 1861 the prosperity of Ireland had increased in such a ratio to that of England as to justify the increase in the taxation. Whatever might appear to be the case, those who knew the two countries practically were aware that this was not so. The hon. Gentleman had gone on to show that a great part of the increased revenue came from the duty on spirits. But this was really no just cause for complacency. The duty might have increased, but what had become of the distillers? To go no further than the town with which he was connected (Galway), where were the distilleries that formerly were one of its most remarkable features? The complaint in Ireland was, that so high a duty had been imposed upon many of her manufactures as had crippled the energies of the people. It was true that these protective duties had been by degrees swept away, but while the spirit duty had been doubled, Ireland was also called upon to bear her full share of the other imposts placed upon the kingdom. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the income tax, he specially exempted Ireland, on the ground that she was too poor to bear it, and instead of it he raised the spirit duty, and imposed an additional stamp duty. Since then the spirit duty had been doubled, the stamp duty still remained, and they had got the income tax in addition. He was quite aware that this taxation had been imposed by the Liberal side of the House; but as the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had supported the policy, it was necessary to call attention to the real facts of the case. He should not recommend his hon. Friend to press the Motion; but it was to be hoped that the Government, when adjusting the financial burdens of the next year, would consider whether there were not some grounds for the complaints made of injustice and Inequality in the taxation of Ireland.

said, that the Report of the Select Committee on Irish Taxation would, if it were examined, disprove some of the statements made in the course of the debate. Mr. Senior had said that he did not believe that Ireland was a poor country because she was overtaxed, but that she was overtaxed because she was poor. The Committee reported—

"It is not surprising that the large increase which your Committee have noticed in the general taxation between 1852 and 1862, and again in the local taxation since 1845, should have given rise to complaint. Nor is it surprising that louder complaints should have been made by Ireland than by other parts of the United Kingdom. The pressure of taxation will be felt most by the weakest part of the community, and as the average wealth of the Irish taxpayers is less than the average wealth of the English taxpayers, the ability of Ireland to bear heavy taxation is evidently less than the ability of England."

It was conclusively proved before the Committee that Ireland enjoyed little exemption from taxation now, and, secondly, that she was far from able to bear equal taxation with England. She enjoyed no exemption now except from assessed taxes and land tax. No policy could be worse than that of equal taxation for Ireland. Every statesman had accepted the principle that it was wiser and better to lighten the burdens of the weaker kingdom, and the experience of the last few years had shown that the principle was sound. Ireland had become much worse to live in than it had been; and as Irish landlords were taunted with non-residence, he would ask what advantage there was to induce them to live in a remote part of the Empire, cut off from the advantages of civilization? In Ireland there was hardly any trade or profession to which landlords could bring up their sons. All the great rewards of the military, naval, and civil services, everything was centred in London; and yet when Irish landlords came to live here they were taunted with a want of patriotism. One circumstance which made equal taxation anything but equal in Ireland was the absence of a large middle class, which in England, in times of misfortune, came like a buffer between the poor and the rich. In Ireland the small farmer and the labourer constituted the only class besides the landlord class, and the landlord might have paid income tax upon the full amount of his income, and next year find it much below that amount. There was less saving of money and less accumulation of capital in Ireland than here. Hon. Members who believed that Ireland was exempt from taxation ought to read the evidence taken by the Committee on the subject. He commended the hon. Member for Youghal for having taken up the subject, which ought to be dealt with independently of party politics. He was glad that the leading question of the day as regarded Ireland—that of Irish railways—was under the calm and deliberate consideration of the Government, free from the outcry that prevailed in Ireland. It would be unwise to deal with this question as one connected with taxation. England owed a great debt to Ireland in respect of the railways, for if the plan of Lord Bentinck had been carried out Government would have done in Ireland what had been done in foreign countries; the island would have been properly surveyed, and the proper lines would have been constructed. The proposal to do that in Ireland having been negatived, this country was under some sort of obligation to deal favourably with Ireland. He believed that the Irish railways ought to be amalgamated for better management and control; and if a loss attended the necessary change, it was undoubtedly to the interest of England that it should be borne by the Imperial Government. He hoped the Government would inquire whether there was any mode of dealing with the railways other than the wholesale one of purchasing every line. If the lines were sold, they would fall into the hands of the great English companies, who would work them for their own advantage. If it was the interest of the country that the Irish railways should be taken up by Government, the cost of the operation ought to be borne by both countries.

, while in favour of a reduction of taxation in Ireland, so as to give that country an equality of taxation proportioned to her ability to meet it, also thought that every landlord and every other person of influence in that country had a duty to discharge towards her by residing and spending his income there. The Secretary to the Treasury attempted to reconcile the theoretical prosperity of Ireland with her practical misery. Like the patient who ought to recover and did not, Ireland, tested by her taxation, instead of being miserable ought to be prosperous. The hon. Gentleman said that the wealth of England was evidence of her capacity to bear taxation; but of Ireland he said her taxation was the evidence of her prosperity. In one case, he argued from the cause to the effect, and in the other from the effect to the cause. A poor nation might bear taxation and be crushed by it; a wealthy one became prosperous notwithstanding it. He quite conceded that capitation was not a true test of disproportionate taxation; the real test was the wealth of two countries; and he was astonished that the Secretary to the Treasury did not see the disproportion between the wealth of England and of Ireland and their equality of taxation. The disproportion was as 19 to 1. The savings banks deposits were as 18½ to 1; the Post Office was as 14 to 1; the receipts of railways were as 19½ to 1; Government Stock was as 19 to 1; and the probate and succession duty was as 16 to 1. Taking the average, the wealth of Ireland was as 19 to 1, when compared with the wealth of England, while the taxation was as to 9 to 1. Ireland therefore was, in proportion to her capacity, taxed twice as much as Great Britain, and here he might remark that the fact of the taxation of Ireland was no proof of the wealth of that country. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury had alluded to the amount of grants given to Ireland as compared to those made to England; but if the hon. Gentleman had investigated the matter more closely, he would have found that three-fourths of the amount granted to Ireland was granted for the maintenance of the constabulary, which was in reality, as recent events had proved, a military and Imperial body, kept up for Imperial purposes. Another argument which had been adduced was that the prosperity of Ireland was not in the least affected by her being taxed more in proportion than England; but he wished to point out that, whether the fact were so or not, it was entirely foreign to the present Resolution, which simply affirmed that there was a disproportion of taxation—and he defied any hon. Member to deny that proposition. With regard to green crops alone, he might mention that between the years 1860 and 1866, there had been a diminution to the extent of 150,000 acres, and other kinds of crops had diminished to a similar extent. To say that prices had increased, while the amount of produce had diminished, was no argument at all, because the one fact was perfectly consistent with the other. Then, again, no one acquainted with the country would set the increase of pasture lands against the diminution of that which was the source of the people's labour and the nation's wealth. As to the emigration, he begged to inform the House that it was taking away the real bone and sinew and the trained skill of Ireland, and was leaving behind it a weak and imbecile population, whose wages, indeed, might increase at certain places and dining particular seasons, though not on an average of twelve months. The pay of the navvies, for instance, which was at one time 1s. 2d. per day, had at one time increased to 1s. 10d., but at the present moment it was nothing at all. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the Resolution would be con firmed.

believed that he was the only English Member on the Committee referred to, and he must say that he regretted extremely that this subject should have been again brought under the notice of the House. That Committee had endeavoured to form an unbiassed opinion, and it came to the conclusion that the misery and wretchedness of Ireland was not owing to the taxation of that country. He objected to the unfairness of hon. Members in bringing forward Irish questions, as if English Members took no interest in the prosperity of Ireland. He firmly believed that the prosperity of Ireland was bound up in that of England, and that England's well-being was Ireland's also; the statistics which had been collated by the Committee upon which he had sat from time to time during two years bore out that statement, and he was sure that if English Members would trouble themselves to enquire into and discuss Irish questions the common object would be more efficiently secured.

was of opinion that the heavy duties upon spirits and malt in Ireland were matters worthy of the gravest and most careful consideration of the Government. Some small justice might be done to Ireland if these taxes were modified or reduced. The wealthy classes had it, however, perhaps more in their power than any body to improve the condition of that country. Ireland suffered much from "absenteeism," and she would still suffer until that system was abandoned. If those who drew large revenues from the country continued to live in another country and to spend there the wealth acquired in Ireland she would necessarily remain poor; but if they would spend their money where it was earned and reside on their own estates there would be more hope for peace and prosperity being restored.

asked hon. Members how they could reconcile the facts that the taxation of Ireland anterior to the Union was one-fortieth of the entire taxation of the United Kingdom, that it was a twelfth in 1853, and was now a ninth? How had this difference arisen, and was it justifiable? That was the question he propounded for solution; at the same time be was quite prepared to admit the possibility of Ireland's having increased to a greater extent in proportion than England had; his only object was to ascertain the facts of the case, and amend the law in accordance with those facts. He would not press his Motion to a division, as he felt that the discussion which had taken place would in some measure tend to the accomplishment of the object he had had in view.

rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill which proposed to make important alterations in the laws for regulating the District Lunatic Asylums in Ireland. For many years the officers and servants in those institutions had been appointed by the Government; he thought however that the time had now come when, with the exception of the two Chief Officers, the power of appointing all the employés of these establishments might be taken out of the hands of the Government, and for this the Bill provided. The second and more important part of the Bill referred to the custody of dangerous lunatics, under the provisions of an old Statute. For many years it had been customary in Ireland for magistrates to commit these persons to gaol—a barbarous system, quite at variance with every sound principle as regards the treatment of the insane. The practice arose from an attempt being made by a lunatic in 1800 on the life of the King, when an Act was passed authorizing the magistrates of England to commit dangerous lunatics to prison. That Act was made the subject of remonstrance on the part of various Commissions and Committees, and was subsequently repealed. In 1838, notwithstanding the experience which had been gained of the working of the former Act in reference to England, a similar measure was passed for Ireland, in consequence of the committal of an outrage in the streets of Dublin, and from that time to the present moment nothing in the working of that Act had proved that it was either beneficial or desirable, while several Committees had reported against it. It might perhaps be urged that the present system was required because there was so little accommodation to be found in the lunatic asylums of the country, but the objection was one, he was glad to say, which had been partially, and would soon be altogether, removed. On the 31st of December, 1866, the total number of lunatics in gaol was only 321. The unfortunate persons to whom it referred could be immediately provided with accommodation; and, therefore, as the new lunatic asylums in progress would provide accommodation for 600 or 800 patients ample room would be found without difficulty. It was impossible to overrate the evils of the present system. Not only was the practice exceedingly barbarous to the lunatics themselves, but the presence of a number of these prisoners rendered it impossible to carry out the proper discipline of the prisoners. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

thought that the great defect in the present system was that the medical men were not trained to the treatment of lunatics; and until that evil had been thoroughly remedied legislation of any kind would not, he believed, be productive of much benefit.

said, that the reason why the Act to which the noble Lord had referred was originally passed, was because these lunatics could not be otherwise provided for; and he should be glad to learn what course it was proposed to take should the lunatic asylums of the country at any future time become too full to receive any fresh inmates?

pointed out the importance of treating lunacy in its incipient stage.

, in replying, expressed his belief that sufficient accommodation, could easily be provided. No class had a stronger claim to consideration than dangerous lunatics, for if taken to an asylum they were often rapidly cured, whereas if sent to a gaol they might require confinement for months or perhaps for life. The governors, therefore, even at the risk of overcrowding asylums, would, he was sure, feel bound to provide accommodation for this class.