Motion were brought forward at an ear- | satisfactory, he should feel it to be his lier period or a later one I might state duty to divide the House on his Motion. what I thought ought to be done; but He did not ask the question with a view as it would be impossible for me to do so to its affecting the forthcoming Budget now I hope the hon. Gentleman will not in any way, but in the hope that the think it necessary to press his Motion. right hon. Gentleman would consider it sooner or later. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House on the question. At the same time he thought that the mere fact of the former reduction in the duty on fire insurance not having answered, so far as the revenue was concerned, could not fairly be looked upon as an argument against the present Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley. If, for instance, the rate of postage had been reduced to a considerable extent, but yet not to the amount at which it now stood, we should, in all probability, never have received the revenue which the country derived from the penny postage. If they had touched this subject boldly they would have increased their revenue much more. This course of proceeding reminded him of the lines "Gently, gently, touch a nettle, And it stings you for your pains; And it soft as silk remains." And if they touched this question boldly they would reap the benefit. MR. D. DALRYMPLE said, he would mention a single instance which was entirely opposed to the view taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Sir Robert Peel some years ago entirely abolished the duty on agricultural insurances; and he could state, from his experience as a director of a large insurance office, that since that time the extent of agricultural insurance had not increased in anything like the proportion which the hon. Gentleman seemed to contemplate as the result of the reduction of the duty on fire insurance from 18. 6d. to 6d. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he thought it was scarcely necessary to remind the House that agricultural insurances were of a character which was very soon exhausted, and that all those which were likely to take place had already been effected. The case, however, was altogether different with the profits of commercial industry, which were perpetually increasing. He was sorry to have to add that, not deeming the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be MR. GLADSTONE said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had placed a construction upon his right hon. Friend's statement which it did not deserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had simply observed that he felt himself precluded from discussing the subject within forty hours of the production of his Budget. Now, that seemed to him to be a very moderate way of putting the case, and as the hon. Member for Dudley desired an expression of opinion on the part of the Government with respect to his Motion, not so much with reference to the present as to future financial years, he could not see why he should be so anxious to press it at once. If the hon. Member pressed the House to a division, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it ought to be after a discussion in which the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of announcing his sentiments, and therefore he should take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the debate to that day week. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN assented. House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 7th April, 1869. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Resolution in Committee-Steam Boilers Inspection. Ordered-First Reading-Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Offices* [63]; Steam Boilers Inspection* [64]. Second Reading-Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment [18], debate adjourned; Life Assurance Companies [35]. Third Reading Salmon Fisheries (Ireland)* [56] and passed. IRELAND-LICENSING OF BEER HOUSES.-QUESTION. MR. KAVANAGH said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he would object to have the provisions of the Bill to amend the Law for Licensing Beer-houses extended to Ireland? MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he was quite aware that the beer-house licensing system in Ireland was very unsatisfactory in some respects, and he had examined the Bill to which his hon. Friend referred with a view to ascertaining whether its provisions could be adapted to that country. It would be, however, he thought, somewhat premature at the present stage of the measure to give his hon. Friend any definite answer to his Question. He would at the same time watch the progress of the Bill, and, having seen how the House would deal with it, decide whether it was possible to adapt any part of its provisions to Ireland, or whether it would be necessary to meet the case of Ireland in a separate measure. POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.-[BILL 18.] (Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Blake, Mr. Downing, Mr. Stacpoole.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading, read. MR. M MAHON in moving that the Bill be read a second time said, it was an exact copy (except as to dates) of the Bill introduced in 1866 by Mr. Serjeant Barry the present Solicitor General for Ireland. The object of the Bill was to extend to Ireland the principle of the Union Chargeability Bill of England passed in 1865. It was desirable that the House should at once understand that the Irish people did not want to have any experiments made upon them. They desired to have either the old English Law of Settlement and Removal, or the new English Law of Union Chargeability. The reason why it was essential that they should have one or the other of those things might be very briefly stated. The first Poor Law Relief Act for Ireland was passed in 1838. As it passed the House of Commons it created union rating and union settlement; but in the House of Lords that had been changed into the monstrous principle that-divisions of unions having been adoped for the purpose of electing guardians the board of guardians should charge against the electoral division a portion of the expenses of every person relieved who might be stated on the register kept by the master of the workhouse to have been resident within the electoral district, and unfortunately the Government of the day did not feel it to be their duty to resist the alteration made by the House of Lords. Practically that Act did not come into operation until 1841, because the workhouses were not opened until 1840, and the principle of out-door relief had not been adopted in Ireland; but so gross was the injustice of the system as provided by the Bill that it was found unendurable; and in the year 1843 the law was modified, so that no person was deemed to have been resident unless, during the eighteen calendar months preceding his application for relief, he had occupied some tenement, or had usually slept for a twelvemonth within the electoral division; and if he had not, the union became chargeable instead of the division. That, however, had been found far too short a time, and in 1847 something like a satisfactory rule of settlement was adopted, and the law was altered so as to require a three years' tenancy, or thirty months' sleeping within the electoral division. But even the scant regard shown for the sufferings of the poor by those who had evicted large numbers of them, and who sought to get rid of all responsibility of contributing to their relief by driving them into the towns, was outdone by the new proprietors who came into possession of the land under the Incumbered Estates Act of 1848, so that in 1847 an Act had to be passed to make it a penal offence to unroof an inhabited house. They sought only to clear their estates. The poor rate, which was enormously high in many parts of the country, was a real terror to proprietors, and it was therefore found desirable to get rid of the settlement created by the Act of 1847. Accordingly, in 1849, an Act was passed which reduced the settlement qualification to sleeping or occupying a tenement in an electoral division within twelve months before application was made for relief. The operation of that change from that time down to the present had been to cause a general outcry and complaint, and was one of the main causes of the demand now made for union rating. It had encouraged the landed proprietors to clear their estates; and the poor people who were evicted, having no other refuge, had crowded into the towns, and, of course, when overtaken by age and sickness, had to be taken into the workhouse. At New Ross, the borough which should manage their own matters as the Scotch and the Welsh did, in which cases the English representatives did not interfere except by way of assent. But he would remind the House that while the county and borough Members in Wales were just equal in numbers, and those in Scotland nearly so, the Irish Members were unequally divided, the county Members numbering sixty-four against thirtynine of the boroughs, so that the popular party were unable to assert their claims with success, and they were therefore compelled to appeal to the English and Scotch Members for redress. In illustration of the hardships of the present system, he would mention that one electoral district near New Ross, where the poor rate used to be 3s. 4d., did not now pay a farthing, while, as he had said, the rate in the borough had risen to 6s. 2d. Another evil caused by the present law was that hardly any labouring men were now to be found within some of these electoral divisions. These poor men had to live in the towns. They walked to and fro from the place where they were at work; they were thus tired and worn and could not give a fair day's work; their wives and daughters, also living in town, could not learn the dairy work or the ordinary work performed by women about a farm; and the conse he represented, it was the custom for the landlords to clear out before the twelve months had expired. In fact, what happened in New Ross, happened also throughout the country. It had been the practice of many of the landowners to supply these poor people with the means of subsistence for a twelvemonth after coming into the town, and then the very day they had obtained a settlement to withdraw their help, and send them to the workhouse. Ever since 1849 the charge upon the towns had gone on increasing, until now it had become unendurable. The continual appeals for redress at last had led to the appointment of a Committee, in 1861, to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland and the administration of Poor Law relief. But that Committee was formed of ten county against four borough and city Members; and as the system into which they inquired was one under which the country was benefited and the towns suffered, it was hardly necessary to say that the result of their deliberation was unsatisfactory. The Committee declared that it was not advisable to alter the law from divisional to union rating. All the county Members, with only one exception, voted this way; the borough Members voting in the opposite direction. The only alteration effected by the Act of 1852, founded on the re-quence was that, instead of a surplus of commendation of that Committee, was to raise the qualifying period of residence from one year to two. This change was not effectual to prevent the evils complained of; the surplus population was still cleared off the land and crowded into the towns, and in due time became chargeable to the rates. In New Ross, the rating, which, in 1842, was only 5d. in the pound, had risen to 6s. 2d. in the pound. In the Union of Clifden, in Galway, in which there were nineteen parishes, it was found that the township paid one-fourth and upwards of the whole rates, and instead of the eighteen rural electoral divisions being equally assessed with the town, as was the case a few years back, they now paid but 6d. in the pound or a little more, whereas the electoral division of Clifden paid 5s. 6d. or more. He had received numerous letters from correspondents stating the like results in other places. There had been a continual succession of experiments made in Ireland, each more ruinous than another. It had been said that Irish Members population, there was a deficiency, and a great demand both for male and female labour. In short, by unjustly forcing the labourers into the towns the evils produced were greater even than those which had existed in this country. He trusted that both English and Scotch Members would be cautious before opposing the Bill. Nothing unreasonable was asked in it. All that the representatives of the Irish people asked was to have union rating, or at least the old Law of Settlement and Removal as it existed in England, which would speedily lead to union rating. "That the Bill be now read a second Motion made, and Question proposed, time."-(Mr. M'Mahon.) MR. BRUEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. and learned Member who moves the second reading of this Bill has detailed to the House grievances and sufferings of the poorer classes in Ireland, under what he alleges to have been the action of a Poor Law passed in 1849, the pro visions of which he complains he admits | must all attribute to the hon. and learned were repealed by an amendment effected Member-cannot command the time and in 1862, so that it appears to me he is opportunity for discussing the matter dealing with hardships not now existing, completely and deliberately. When the and which no legislation can now affect. physical impediments of time or want of He offers to us in his speech an alterna- time can be opposed, it is a weapon pertive remedy, either union rating, or the fectly constitutional in the hands of those old Law of Settlement and Irremovability who hold strong conviction on any quesof England. But as the Bill before the tion before the House, but I protest House chooses the first of these, union against the degradation which a great rating is the only subject with which I question involving policy and justice have to deal. His Bill is unpretending must suffer when the time necessary for and simple in appearance, but conceals its discussion is wanting, when the issue under that guise changes which, if adopt- of it is governed by time as well as proof. ed, would produce great and prejudicial In the present case there is a great deal effects in Ireland. The Bill proposes to to be said for and against the Bill, which alter the area now used for the purpose has never been argued before to any exof taxation under the Poor Law-to sub- tent, and what time has the hon. Memstitute the whole union as the area of ber for all this necessary debate? Why, uniform rating for the electoral division. every Wednesday up to the 30th of June It is evident that this will increase in is occupied, and Wednesday is his only some and reduce in others the burden of day. Lastly, I object to the introduction taxation, which the ratepayers already of this measure, so large, so important, bear; therefore, the interests of the at a time when men's minds, in the whole of the ratepayers in Ireland will House and out, are occupied and disbe touched. It is alleged by the pro- tracted by the consideration of even a moters of the Bill that pauperism will greater question; and on all these conbe reduced by it, and we admit that it siderations I appeal to the hon. Member will have an effect on pauperism, but to withdraw the Bill and let us proceed whether to increase or reduce it, is at to the discussion of the next subject on least a matter of doubt. Thus, it is evi- the Paper to-day, which is of much indent that the measure will affect the in- terest to English Members, and in which terests of all who pay rates in Ireland, there is some chance of progress. My of the class that receives relief, and that appeal not being successful, I must say comprises pretty nearly the whole of so- I object to the title of the Bill as conveyciety in Ireland. Now, I say at the out-ing a wrong impression. Any person set that a question involving such great interests one on which such a difference of opinion exists as to its probable reresults-ought not to be brought forward when we are absolutely without information founded on statistics as to its effect upon different districts in the country. There is not an owner of real property in Ireland who will not have his burden of taxation altered, and it is the barest justice to those who are called on to suffer loss by the operation of this Bill-and they will be by far the largest class-to give them an opportunity of estimating the extent of that loss before the question is decided; and this can only be done by examining the Returns moved for by me and granted by the House, and which have only just been laid on the table, but not printed yet. Secondly, I object to a measure of this importance being in the hands of any unofficial Member who, whatever be his talents, his industry, his earnestness-which we reading it would suppose we had a system of exclusive electoral division rating. We have no such thing; we have union rating in Ireland in so far as it can be usefully applied. By a Return of the Poor Law Commission I find that out of a total of £841,286 spent under the administration of the Poor Laws, £329,700, or 39 per cent, was raised by a union-atlarge rating, while £389,621, or only 46 per cent, was raised by electoral-division rate, the balance being dispensary district charges, levied neither on the union at large nor on the electoral division, but on the dispensary district. The fact is we have a Poor Law system which is not in extreme; it combines what is useful of union rating with what is good of division rating. The constructors of our system, and those who from year to year have jealously watched its working, have all wisely determined to recommend to require to give a motive for local supervision. I oppose this Bill because it would supplant a system combined and masses of the working classes, and such therefore adaptable to a variety of cir- masses have always attending them a cumstances, by a system rigid, contract- fringe of poverty, sickness, decrepitude, ed, and tending towards centralization -even in prosperous times a heavy instead of encouraging individual action weight-but when prosperity is low, a and responsibility. I do not believe that burden on the poor rates almost overbearsuch a violent change would be the best ing if of local incidence, and in that case way to remedy the inequalities of the too causing discontent because unequal. poor rate which the hon. Member alleges This is not the case in Ireland, for, with to be unjust, and which, if he can prove the exception of three or four large towns them to be unjust, ought to be remedied. and the linen districts of Ulster, where Now, Sir, we are asked to adopt union the rates are not heavy, the Irish popurating in Ireland as the exclusive system, lation is dependent on agriculture, and because it has been adopted in England, there are no great industries with their and this argument rests on two grounds- great populations of the working classes; first, that the change has been bene- and I assert that the inequalities of taxficial to England; and secondly, that it ation are not great and glaring, as they would therefore be beneficial in Ireland. were in England before 1865. The hon. Has the change been beneficial in Eng- Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon) land? I speak on this point with great has given to the House instances of the hesitation, not having practical acquaint- inequalities of taxation in New Ross; he ance with its working there; but I doubt has stated that the poor rate struck on that the system adopted only four years New Ross division last year was 6s. 3d. ago has had time to develop its real in the pound. I venture to say that the effects, and if so it is premature to re- rate is a fallacious guide. You ought to commend it to us; but so far as it has take rather the expenditure for the year gone, what can we judge of its working? for relief of the poor, and I find that by By the Report of the Poor Law Board I a Return just issued, under the authority find that the rate of expenditure per of the Poor Law Commissioners, the exhead of the population was 6s. 33d. in penditure for relief of the poor in New 1856, and was regularly reduced until Ross district in the year ending Septem1860; then came the cotton famine, and ber 1868 was 4s. 11d. in the pound, so for three years the rate rose. In 1865, it that the hon. Member may congratulate stood at 68. per head; in 1866, the first his constituents that their high rate of year of union rating, it rose to 68. 11d.; 68. 3d. was either payment of their debts, in 1867, still further to 68. 61d.; and I or will leave them a balance next year. am informed on the best authority that The hon. Member has also mentioned in 1868 it was still further increased. I other instances of inequalities of the poor find the same results when I consult the rate. Now, I have taken from the Poor table of the percentage of persons re- Law Commissioners' Return just menlieved to the population, and I am tioned these facts-There are in Ireland obliged to conclude that union rating has 3,438 electoral divisions; of these, there not acted beneficially here, in the in- are only two that have expended 5s. and terests of the ratepayers, or in the re- upwards in the pound for the year endduction of pauperism. We are not ing September, 1868, and there are only authorized then to assume that union forty-two which have expended 38. and rating has been a success in England; upwards in the pound, so that the babut even if it had, can we argue that it lance 3,398 electoral divisions have exwould therefore be so in Ireland? This pended a sum provided for by a rate of turns on two questions. Are the circum- less than 3s. in the pound. The smallest stances of England and Ireland alike as charge is 5d. in the pound, and that is regards pauperism; and were the laws applicable to only two or three electoral of the two countries before the proposed divisions in Ireland. I assert that these change the same? and I think we must high rated divisions are exceptions too answer in the negative to both these few in number, too unimportant in chaquestions. The circumstances of Eng-racter, to warrant so great a change over land and Ireland as regards the sources a whole country, where, as a whole, the of pauperism are not identical. England Poor Law system is working smoothly has scattered over her surface in every and equally. The inequalities of rate part great industries, attracting large quoted cannot compare with the in |