In reply, Lord John Russell entered into a variety of figures to show that, in the most destitute Unions, the amount of rates collected, even when collected with severity, had not equalled that in comparatively prosperous Unions. On the other hand, the alarm at the increase of rates in the poorest districts had occasioned occupants to withhold what they should have paid for labour, and had thus checked the employment of labour and the cultivation of the land. The general effect of Lord John Russell's explanations was that by fixing a maximum, the alarm would be removed; that by a better administration, and a strict revision of the relief-lists, the really destitute would have a better chance of relief; and that by the rate in aid the deficient collection of the poorest district would be redressed. But he could not adopt the rate in aid as a permanent system in Ireland; nor could he throw the additional relief on the Consolidated Fund. If more were wanted, it would be better that relief should be given from those resources from which relief had been given before the introduction of the Poor Law in 1837. Ultimately, the Bill was read a second time. In Committee it underwent a great deal of discussion, involving, as is usual in the case of Irish questions, very multifarious topics. Numerous amendments were proposed upon several clauses,

moved by Mr. Stafford on the clause limiting the maximum of rating. This was rejected by 178 to 51. Another alteration was proposed by Sir George Grey, the effect of which was to separate rates in payment of former advances and loans from the maximum fixed by the Rate-in-Aid Bill. The latter proposal was loudly resisted by some of the Irish Members; who complained that it virtually set aside the maximum limit which Ministers had fixed by the previous Bill this very session.

Sir James Graham produced an account of thirty-two distressed Unions in Ireland, showing that to the 25th of March 1849, they owed 231,000l., and by next September they would owe 271,000l. more-in all 502,000l.: if that were added to the rate, it would raise it from 5s. to 25s. in the pound. On the other hand, if no provision were made for liquidating the old debts, no contractor would advance meal or other provisions on the security of the rate in aid. He had opposed the maximum limitation, and now he had no objection to Sir George Grey's amendment.

Mr. F. B. Roche observed that no capitalist would have much inducement to buy land on which the rates due would exceed two years' rental. Sir George Grey's amendment was ultimately adopted.

The Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords on the 13th of July, undergoing, however, at the same time, a very severe criticism at the hands of Lord Monteagle, who described it 66 as a trap to catch English capital," and "a miserable attempt at legislation." The more full discussion of the measure, however, was re

served for the committal of the Bill, which took place on the 16th. On that day, Lord Stanley begged to trouble their Lordships, before going into Committee, with a few objections to the measure which could not so properly be stated after it had been committed. He recapitulated the circumstances under which the Bill had been brought forward.

The Government, contrary to the wish of their Lordships, had determined to appoint a Committee to consider the existing state of the Irish Poor Law and the amendments in it which might be desirable. The Committee had taken evidence from Christmas to Easter, and had come to a decision adverse to the proposition of the rate in aid, as impracticable, injudicious, oppressive, and ineffectual. The condemnation of the rate in aid was unanimous on the part of every member of the Committee except those who were themselves members of the Governmenteven members of their own choice voting against the Government. Yet the Government decided on pressing the rate in aid upon the House. Indeed, not more than two or three out of the whole number of important recommendations suggested by the Committee had been adopted. The subject of appeals was omitted altogether; the quarter-acre question had been left untouched; the very large powers now vested, sometimes perhaps of necessity, but most unconstitutionally, in the vice-guardians, had been left unguarded; and those officers were still left to distribute, without any responsibility to the ratepayers, the whole amount of the yearly expenditure under the law, 335,000l. of which was for salaries alone. He thought, as

the Committee recommended, that the local managers should be controlled in their extravagant outlay by a paid Assistant Guardian; but the advantage should be retained of the local knowledge of the Guardians as a means of distinguishing between true and fraudulent applications for relief, and checking enormous abuses. But to make anything like a real and substantial amendment, they must go deeper into the question. If they intended to make the Poor Law beneficial, they must return to the principle of the original Bill, namely, that, with few and rare exceptions, in-door relief should be the only mode of relief in Ireland. It was of the highest importance to arrange the electoral divisions. The Boundary Commissioners presented the reports on two Unions, and, unless he was mistaken, were now ready to lay their whole propositions before the House. As the law now stood, Parliament had no veto; but the Government had a veto. The decision of the Boundary Commissioners was not final, but that of the Poor Law Commissioners was final: if when Parlia ment should be up it should have received the report of the Boundary Commissioners, but not the decision of the Poor Law Commissioners, they would next session be told that it was too late to interfere. He admitted to the full the principle that property has its duties as well as its rights; but this Bill would impose the duties which appertain to some property upon the possessors of other property, at the same time that it would prevent the latter persons from performing the duties which attach to their own property. Upon that principle he objected to the two

imperative on tenants to produce to their landlords receipts for rates paid.

Lord Stanley-"That is only when they pay rent, which they never do."

Lord Lansdowne hoped there would be a change for the better in that respect. Then the abuse of paupers rushing in to fill up the places of those who may have emigrated from an estate was expressly provided against by the clause which fixed the chargeability of relief upon the electoral division in which the pauper had been resident for three years before his application. The question of the rearrangement of electoral divisions was under the consideration of the Boundary Commissioners, and their detailed report might be expected soon.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Clause 1 (the maximum clause) was opposed by the Earl of Wicklow. He said it would be absurd to approve a maximum rate unless there were a guarantee that the deficiency should be supplied. The House of Commons, however, virtually admitted that they would supply the deficiency when it occurred. He should vote against the maximum on principle; but if it were affirmed he should not consent to abandon the Rate in aid, because they could not hold the House of Commons to their implied engagement without first meeting the difficulty so far as it could be met by the Rate in aid. The clause was also opposed by Lord Stradbrooke, as calculated to remove the inducement in poor electoral districts to avoid deficiencies; and by Lord Wharncliffe, as a member of the Committee quite unconnected with

Irish affairs, but most anxious to arrive at a just conclusion. He thought that while the Bill professed to maintain the value of land, this clause would really lower those divisions which were better off than their neighbours. Lord Redesdale thought the Bill im- . practicable and unjust; it actually gave power to collect a five-shilling rate in the half year.

The clause was supported by the Marquis of Clanricarde, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Earl of St. Germans, and the Marquis of Lansdowne, mainly on the ground that a large proportion of the gentlemen best able to judge from experience, and most intimately connected with the disturbed districts, gave it as their opinion that a maximum rate was more likely than anything else to encourage purchasers and restore confidence. The proportion of Unions in which the Rate in aid would be demanded was very small; out of 1923 electoral divisions there were only 328 in which the maximum had ever been reached. The total number of Unions was 131; in 61 of these there was a balance in hand, and where the debts were highest they amounted to no more than 6s. 2d. in the pound on the entire valuations. After that, would any one allege that the contingent liability to a Rate beyond the fixed maximum would weigh a feather in the minds of capitalists?

On a division the clause was negatived by 35 to 26; majority against Ministers 9: Clauses 1 and 2 were accordingly erased from the Bill.

Clauses 16, 17, and 18, were objected to by Lord Monteagle. Under the original Poor Law, it