on this subject. When the Poor Law was introduced into Ireland the unions were the first rateable districts; but they would not work, and after an experience of eight or ten years a Commission was appointed who reported in favour of reducing the areas, stating that

"To avoid impositions by affording local examinations and control, as well as to approximate to the natural condition of family support, some division of the country into contributory districts has been thought necessary."

them more uniformity of employment and [ to distant periods and a different state of soprovide them with better cottages; but he ciety, he would refer to the latest legislation did not believe it would do anything of the sort. It proceeded on a wrong principle, because it did not settle the question which required settlement-namely, the question of settlement itself. Indeed, the passing of that Bill would throw an impediment in the way of the permanent and proper adjustment of that important question, by dealing only with a part of it, and giving an advantage only to those classes who would have an interest in preventing its complete and satisfactory adjustment. The Bill contained a provision declaring that poor persons should not be removed from the union in which they had resided one year. How would that affect a town like London? Almost every parish there was a union, and if a pauper went from one parish to another he became removable, and would be sent to the country parish to which he belonged, to the relief of the town in which he had laboured the best days of his life. This would not occur generally in the country unions, and this partial treatment of the subject will operate prejudicially against a fair adjustment of the settlement question. The operation of the New Poor Law in the agricultural districts had been, on the whole, beneficial; but it had not worked well in the metropolis, and mainly because those who had to administer it in the metropolis were not acquainted with those whom they had to relieve, while in the country they were both acquainted with and interested for them. The Bill sought materially to increase the area of taxation; but the argument to be drawn from past experience was against such a course. When the compulsory Poor Law was established in the reign of Elizabeth, the area of rating was something like the sessional divisionnamely, the districts in which the justices met. In the 39th Elizabeth it was made parochial, from which we may judge that the larger area had not been found to work well; and fifty or sixty years after, in Charles II.'s time, it was found necessary in the north, where the parishes were large, to reduce the area so as to make the rateable districts coincide with the townships, and the preamble of the Act for this purpose states

"Whereas certain counties by reason of the largeness of the parishes within the same have not nor cannot reap the benefit of the Act of 43rd Elizabeth for the relief of the poor."

If it was urged that these precedents relate

When he was examined before the Committee of 1860, he stated that relief was compulsory charity, and that the object must be to get it under the same influences as were brought into action when charity was exercised, and at the same time consider its bearing as compulsory as affecting the interests of the ratepayers as well as of the poor. The Bill would give no security that in large districts proper discretion would be exercised in the administration of the funds; and although it was admitted that. in many cases injustice would be done by making the existing unions the areas for common rating, it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to alter them. How was it possible to get other parishes to unite as proposed for the purpose of uniform rating? Was it likely that the parishes adjoining the Northampton Union, mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, would unite with that union when all that they could obtain by such a change would be a considerable increase in their rates? The questions involved in the Bill were of the greatest importance, and should not be dealt with by Parliament until after the fullest inquiry had been made with reference to them. The Returns showing the alterations which had been made in the rating of parishes by the operation of the Act of the year before last had not yet been laid on the table, and until that was done they could not judge how far that Act had been just in its operation. He did not think the character of the guardians of the poor would improve under the proposed system. They would not give so much personal attention to the poor; they would have less interest in keeping down the expenditure by finding employment, and the result would be most unsatisfactory, both to the poor and to the ratepayers. Those who argue against a different amount of rates charged on parishes within the same union as unjust, for

get that every landed proprietor acquired | Stradbroke, E.
his property under those conditions. He
Berwick, L.
had bought or inherited it with the know-
Castlemaine, L.
ledge that it was subject to taxation of a Churston, L.
given nature and extent. Parishes had Denman, L.
been mentioned where this Bill would alter | De Ros, L.
the rates to the extent of 3s. in the pound;
but if a man had purchased property upon

cellor.)

Somerset, D.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camden, M.
Ailesbury, M.
Westminster, M.

Abinger L.

Belper, L.

Bolton L.

Chelmsford, L.

Clandeboye,

L.

(L.

Dufferin and Clane

Camoys, L.

boye.)

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley)
Colville of Culross, L.
Cranworth, L.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cre-
morne.)
Delamere, L.
De Saumarez, L.
De Tabley, L.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

a certain estimate of value, and then this Westbury, L. (L. Chan- Winchester, Bp.
Bill passed and reduced its value 3s. in
the pound, he surely had a right to com-
plain that his property had been seriously
decreased in value, while the property of
his neighbour had been proportionately in-
creased. This was not the case of an im-
position of taxation; for the first time, as
in Ireland, where a uniform rate had been
introduced, no similar system having ex-
isted before, it was the change of a bur-
den which had been borne from the time of
Elizabeth to the present day; and it was
a burden of which no one had any right to
complain, because he had acquired his pro-
perty subject to it. Suppose the case of a
farmer who had just taken a farm upon a
lease for twenty-one years, this Bill might
make this difference to him, that he would
have to pay a great deal more for his farm
than he had expected and calculated when
he made his bargain. Surely such a man
would have a right to complain. So many
questions had been raised and so many
interests were involved by the Bill that
they could do no better than postpone it
until they had fuller information on various
points, and until a new House of Commons
had given their opinion upon it, and the
delay of a year in passing the Bill ought
not to weigh for a single moment. He
should certainly support the Motion that
the Bill should be referred to a Select Com-
mittee.

Albemarle, E.
Cadogan, E.
Belmore, E.
Caithness, E.
Carnarvon, E.
Chichester, E.
Clarendon, E.
De Grey, E.
Cowper, E.
De La Warr, E.
Derby, E.
Devon, E.
Ducie, E. [Teller.]
Fitzwilliam, E.
Granville, E.
Grey, E.
Harrowby, E.
Minto, E.
Manvers, E.
Morton, E.
Nelson, E.
Portsmouth, E.
Romney, E.
Russell, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Shaftesbury, E.
Spencer, E.
Stanhope, E.
Strafford, E.
Tankerville, E.
Verulam, E.

Eversley, V.
Hawarden, V.

On Question, Whether the Bill be referred to a Select Committee ? Lordships divided :-Contents 24; NotContents 86: Majority 62.

Heytesbury, L.
Houghton, L.

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falk

land.)
Keane, L.
Leigh, L.
Lyveden, L.
Methuen, L.
Monson, L.

Mont Eagle, L. (M.
Sligo.)

Oxenfoord, L. (E.Stair.)
Rivers, L.

Rossie, L. (L.Kinnaird)
Saye and Sele, L.
Seymour, L. (E. St.

Maur.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

ricarde.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clan

House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrw, half past

Ten o'cloock

MR. PEEL said, in reply, that our MR. AYRTON said, he would beg to charge was 1s. per half-ounce from this ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whe-country to the West Indies, and the printher Her Majesty's Government will be ciple upon which it had been fixed at pleased to extend to the Officers and Clerks that rate was in order to make the serof the Civil Service, who have presented a Memorial, the Saturday half-holiday

pose to pass I find this provision

It was said, "You there make a Roman | of the Protestant religion, of Protestant Catholic Member of the House depose that institutions in this country, does not rest he disavows that which he does not admit on an oath of this description, but on far ever was a tenet of the Church to which higher grounds. I quite agree that the he belongs; and you make him do what defence of the Church and of the Prois tantamount to saying that he does not testant institutions of this country rest on intend to commit murder himself or coun-higher grounds-on the affections of the tenance it in others-a demand which is people, and on the persuasion entertained directly offensive." Now, that has always by the great majority that those instituseemed to me a very sound view of the tions and that Church are best calculated case; and, accordingly, I was very glad for the happiness and welfare of the people. to see that passage omitted from the earlier But I ask the Committee to observe how part of the proposed oath. In like man- much too far the argument I have menner, the latter part of the oath necessitates tioned goes. In the oath which we prothe repudiation of any intention to equivacate, evade, or use mental reservationan assumption which Roman Catholic Members held it was an insult to a man of honour to put forward. The provision is offensive and unnecessary, and, therefore, I think it ought to be omitted. Up to that point I entirely go with those who propose this Bill, but there, I am afraid, my agreement with them stops. There is another part to which the arguments employed in bringing forward this Bill have no application whatever, and that is the part of the oath I propose shall be restored. It makes the person who takes it declare as follows:

"I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do

solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom." The Committee will observe that we are not engaged in composing one uniform form of oath for every Member of this House, though whether it may be the will of the House in a future Session to entertain that question I have no means of knowing. The work upon which we are engaged is simply the modification of the Roman Catholic oath; and the question is, how we are to remove from the oath everything which is unnecessary and everything which is offensive, at the same time preserving all that is substantial and all that designates the purpose and the end for which the oath in the first instance was intro duced. In that view of the case I cannot help thinking that no argument has been advanced for omitting that portion of the oath which I ask the Committee to restore. The only one I have heard attempted has been this-that the defence of the Church,

"I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an Act intituled An Act for the Further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants." You might just as well apply the argument here, and say the succession to the Crown does not depend on the oath to be taken by individual Members of Parliament, but on the loyal affections of the subjects of this country, and on the feeling pervading the whole of this land that the succession which has conferred blessings without number upon the country is not one they would willingly surrender. Yet we do take this oath as a mark and pledge from those having seats in this House that they will defend the succession which has become the established succession in this country. And in the same way it was as one of the guarantees for the security of the Established Church, not merely the branch of the Established Church in Ireland, but the Established Church as a whole-it was, I say, as one of the guarantees for the maintenance of the Protestant Government and of the Protestant religion in every part of the Kingdom, that this oath was introduced in the year 1829, and formed part of the terms upon which our Roman Catholic fellow subjects obtained seats in this House. As to its having proved efficacious in its operation, I will not trouble the House with a repetition of various instances which have been already brought under its notice. I might advert by name to the declarations, not of those who still sit with us, but of others who have passed from us, that this oath did prevent them from entering upon any aggressions on the Established Church and Protestant Institutions of the country; and though I cannot of course mention names, I speak with