Commons Sitting of 19 July 1843

MINUTES.
. BILLS. Public.—1° Schoolmasters Widows'
Fund (Scotland) Validity.
2° Schoolmasters Widows' Fund (Scotland) Validity. Committed.—Schoohnasters Widows' Fund (Scotland (Validity.
Reported.—Coroners.
3° and passed:— Schoolmasters Widows' Fund (Scotland) Validity.
Private. 1° Duchall's Estate.
Reported.—Infant Orphan Asylum; Spalding and Deeping Roads; Dowager Countess of Waldegrave's Estate.
3° and passed: — Rochdale and Manchester Roads; Cromford and Belper Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Brotherton, and Lord Clive, from Counties of Montgomery, and Lancaster, Colchester, and Marylebone, against the Coroners Bill.—By Mr. Mitcalfe, from Tynemouth, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. Turner, from Winslow, against Duelling.—By Mr. Corry, from the County of Tyrone, in favour of the Irish Arms Bill.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from two Metropolitan Parishes, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Sandwich, in favour of the Coroners Bill.—From Dunbar, against the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—From Clogher, and Westport, against the present system of Education in Ireland.—From the Owners of the Grand Canals (Ireland), for Subjecting their Profits only to the Poor-rate.—From Cock-field, against the Factories Bill.—From the London and Croydon Railway Company, for exempting their Buildings from the Operation of the Metropolitan Buildings Bill.

DROPPED NOTICES OF MOTION.
On the motion that the dropped notices of motion be read,
Mr. T. Duncombewould move, as an amendment, that the notices be now read, with the view of taking precedence of the orders of the day to-morrow, and he did
1260
so in consequence of the Government not having condescended to assist in making a House yesterday. There was not one Member of the Government present; and though there were sixteen Members on that (the opposition) side of the House, there were only two Members on the other. Individual Members had given up Thursdays to the Government, who in return ought to assist in making a House on Tuesdays. The notice of the noble Lord, with repect to the education of the people, was most important, yet the Government would not make a House to discuss it. There were also thirteen Government orders on the papers; and yet the Government, which did not make a House, came down to complain of the obstruction given to the progress of their bills. Besides, there was the subject of privilege for consideration yesterday; and it was the bounden duty of the Government to discuss it. It took precedence of all other notices; and the Government was responsible for the form in which their Attorney-general bad intended to bring under notice the action brought against the Sergeant by Mr. Pearse, the clerk of Mr. Howard, the attorney. He had never known a House of Commons, and be had never known a Government fall so fast into disrepute. But if the Government were content with being kicked and trampled and spit upon, from one end of Ireland to the other, they might make themselves a laughing-stock if they liked; but they had no right to bring the House into disrepute when a gross breach of its privileges had been committed by the action brought against the Sergeant, especially as he understood this was the last day they could act. He should therefore move that notices of motion should take precedence of the orders of the day on Thursday.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there were few parties more inconvenienced by there not being a House than he was, and he could assure them that the Government was no party to a House not being made. He came down to the House at twenty minutes past four for the purpose of answering a question of which notice Sad been given, and of asking the House to agree to the Lord's amendments to the Church Endowment Bill, and he had not the slightest intimation of there being no House till he reached the door. The hon. Gentleman would therefore see a material difference between an attempt not to make a House

1261
and an accidential failure. It should be recollected that every Member of the Government was occupied with official duties, and he thought it was an obligation on other Members to make a House, especially those who had important notices of motion. There were also several committees sitting, and the general presumption was, that those Members would come down to make a House. As the failure yesterday, therefore, was not intentional on the part of the Government, and as lie himself was disappointed at no House being made, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion.
After some conversation, Mr. T. Duncombe withdrew his motion, and the dropped notices of motion were disposed of.

PRIVILEGE—PRINTED PAPERS.
The Attorney-generalrose to move that the House do now take into consideration the communication of the Sergeant-at-Arms,', made on Tuesday evening. The ordinary course, in such a case, would be, he said, to give notice of a motion for to-morrow, but, unfortunately, the time would then have expired, within which the Sergeant at-Arms ought to have appeared; for, until he had communicated with the House, that officer had most properly abstained from taking any step whatever. The circumstances of the present case were precisely similar to those of the case before discussed, and after a great deal of debate on that case, the House had permitted the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear and plead to the action. He proposed, that the same course should now be adopted, not supposing that the House would, after the lengthened discussion and great deliberation on the former occasion, proceed in a different manner. He begged, therefore, to move—
" That Sir William Gosset, knight, the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House, have leave to appear and plead to the action commenced against him by Thomas George Johnson Pearce."
Mr. T. Duncombebelieved that the hon. and learned Attorney-general was following the precedent established at an early period of the present Session, in the action brought by Mr. Howard, against Sir W. Gossett. The Solicitor-general on that occasion, moved that the Sergeant-at-Arms might be permitted to appear and plead to the action; and the learned
1262
Attorney-general could not, of course, object to the same mode of opposition being now adopted which was then pursued. He only regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) and the noble Lord the Member for London, were not in their places to offer their opposition to the motion. This action only showed, as it appeared to him, the truth of what had been foretold upon a former occasion. They were then assured, that Mr. Howard's son, and Mr. Howard's clerk would both come forward with actions; this action was brought in respect of an act done three years ago, and the moment they appeared, Mr. Howard's son would bring his action; and where or how could this end? Were they for ever to go on instructing the law officers of the Crown to appear? It might be very excellent amusement for them, but the country, he thought, had paid enough already for law expenses. It might do very well for the law officers of the Crown to ask permission that a plea should be put in to the action, for they would have long briefs and large fees, and more actions would be brought in consequence of the encouragement which they gave; but the Opposition must do what they had done before—they must move that the plaintiff in this action be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House, for the purpose of acquainting him that he was violating the privileges of that House. It was said, that the Court of Queen's Bench would uphold their privileges, and that it would be sufficient to appear to the action; but, as the hon. and learned Member for Worcester had said, on the former discussion, suppose the Court of Queen's Bench did not, what were they to do then? By appearing, they were admitting that the Court of Queen's Bench could take cognizance of their privileges. That question had been tried before in Burdett v. Abbott, and there Sir Vicary Gibbs then decided, on behalf of the rest of the court, that it was sufficiently plain that the act complained of was done under the authority of that House, and, therefore, the question was disposed of. Why was it, then, that these parties brought their actions against the Sergeant-at-Arms? It was because they had seen the House wavering upon the former occasion; and because the House had then given leave to the Sergeant to appear and plead. If, on that occasion, they had

1263
brought Mr. Howard to the Bar of that House, they would never have heard of this action. But the result of their present proceeding would be, that they would have no end to such actions brought. They would never appoint a committee with power to send for persons and papers, but that some unwilling witness would be committed for refusing to produce his papers, and would then bring his action. The authority of that House was gone. There was no doubt that Mr. Pearse and Mr. Howard and his son, were proceeding with a view of insulting and wearying the House, in wanton defiance of its authority. Though he did not complain of the hon. and learned Attorney-general that on this occasion he followed the precedent of the early part of the Session, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was pursuing a dangerous and an erroneous course. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment, that Mr. Pearse be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to-morrow.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion. He was convinced that the House could not carry out its orders, unless they possessed some such power of committal as had been described. By the course proposed by the Attorney-general, the House was in a situation to be annoyed by any individual. After the able and unanswerable speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester it was utterly unsafe for the House to abstain from enforcing its privileges in such a case as the present. It should be recollected that they were not acting for themselves but for the country; and if they had not the power of commitment, they would often be deprived of the means of redressing the grievances of the people. The House committed a great error in the former case, and he found that all who had given the matter careful deliberation agreed in this respect.
Sir R. Peelobserved that the whole question had been so fully discussed when the former cases were under the consideration of the House, that he thought it unnecessary to renew the discussion. It should be recollected that the mere commitment of the individual would not stop the proceedings, for in the mean time the action would go on, and all the consequences would ensue, which occasioned them so much consideration. If the action proceeded the jury might give a verdict, damages would be awarded, and the sheriff
1264
proceeding to levy, you would have all the difficulties to contend with which occurred in the case of Hansard from the conflicting authorities of the House of Commons and a court of law. The sheriff was placed in a situation of the greatest difficulty, but the result would probably be that he would consider himself bound to obey the orders of the court of which he was the officer. It was possible that the committal of the individual might induce him to withdraw his action, but the House should remember that the period of committal expired at the end of the Session. In the mean time, the action went on to its termination, and then all the officers of justice were put in conflict with that House. In the case of Howard v. the Sergeant-at-arms, when the plea was put in, the case did not proceed further, and no effect came of the action, and he presumed that it would be the same in the present case. He believed that both with respect to the former and the present action, there was a very strong feeling in favour of letting the Sergeant-at-arms defend the action. In the case of Hansard, where the action went on to judgment and execution, the House was obliged to legislate on the subject, and if the party was committed, and the action was allowed to proceed in this case, they would probably again have to commit the sheriff, and it would become again necessary to resort to legislation. He thought that the course which the House of Commons was now called upon to take was the wisest that could be adopted, for the result of the action of Howard showed that there were great difficulties in establishing a case against the officers of the House of Commons. Under all these circumstances he hoped that the House would adhere to the decision to which they came at the early part of the Session.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question: Ayes 105; Noes 44; Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Beckett, W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Acton, Col.

Blake, M. J.

Adare, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Allix, J. P.

Borthwick, P,

Antrobus, E.

Broadley, H.

Arkwright, G.

Broadwood,

Astell, W.

Buck, L. W.

Bailey, J.

Buckley, E.

Bateson, R.

Bunbury, T.

1265

Burroughes, H. N.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Chapman, B.

Lockhart, W.

Clive, Visct.

Lowther, J. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Collett, W. R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Denison, E. B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Disraeli, B.

McGeachy, F. A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mahon, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Manners, Lord J.

East, J. B.

Marton, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Manes It. M.

Eliot, Lord

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Escott, B.

Northland, Visct.

Fellowes, E.

Owen, Sir J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pakington, J. S.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Palmer, It.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, J.

Forman, T. S.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Fuller, A: E.

Pollington, Visct.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pollock, Sir F.

Gladstone, Capt.

Richards, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gore, W. O.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C,

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Smythe, hon. G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Greene, T.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, G. A.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Tennent, J. E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hodgson, F.

Trotter, J.

Hodgson, R.

Vane, Lord H.

Hope, G. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Wilbraham, hn.

Irving, J.

Wodehouse, E.

Jermyn, Earl

Wood, Col. T.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Jones, Capt.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W

Kelly, F. It.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Young, J.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

TELLERS.

Law, hon. C. E.

Fremantle, Sir T,

Lefroy, A.

Pringle, J.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Matheson, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Mitcalfe, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Morris, D.

Blewitt, R. J.

Napier, Sir C.

Bowes, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Conor, Don

Clements, Visct.

Plumridge, Capt.

Clive, E. B.

Ponsonby, hon. C.

Colborne, hn. W. N, R

Pryse, P.

Duff, J.

Ross, D. It.

Ewart, W.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Towneley, J.

French, F.

Trelawny, J. S.

Gibson, T. M.

Turner, E.

Hall, Sir B.

Wakley, T.

Hastie, A.

Wallace, R.

Hindley, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, hon. H.

Williams, W.

Hutt, W.

Wilshere, W.

Mc'Taggart Sir J,

Wood, B.

1266

Worsley, Lord

TELLERS

Wrightson, W. B.

Hume, J.

Duncombe, T.

Main question agreed to.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. Mackinnonhoped that there would be no objection to his proceeding with the second reading of the Health of Towns Bill, as it had been several months before Parliament, and he introduced it in consequence of the recommendations of the committee of which he was chairman.
Mr. M. Gibsonobjected to such a measure of importance emanating from an individual Member. The Government alone could properly introduce such a measure.
Sir J. Grahamhoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his bill; the subject was an important one, and he had to state that a report had been drawn up on the subject by an officer of the Government, which would be laid on the Table of the House. He hoped that the Government would be able to bring in a bill on the subject next Session.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, as the Government had taken up the subject be would with, draw his bill.—Bill withdrawn.

CORONERS.
Lord Worsleywished to have the Coroners' Bill committed pro formâ for the purpose of introducing a number of amendments. The bill could then be printed, and ordered to be taken into consideration at a future day.
Sir E. Knatchbullsuggested that the bill should be postponed for the present Session. The right hon. Baronet moved that the bill be committed that day three months.
Sir B. Hallread the following account of inquisitions taken by the coroners for the county of Middlesex, in several successive years:—

year.

No. of Inq.

Fees on Inquests.

No. of Miles.

mileages.

Disbursements.

l.

s.

d.

l.

s.

d.

l.

s.

d.

Mr. Stirling and Mr. Wakley

1837

615

706

0

0

3,180

119

5

0

168

14

9

1838

720

960

0

0

3,149

118

1

9

705

0

5

1839

623

830

13

4

2,855

107

1

3

624

10

5

1840

787

1,049

6

8

2,964

111

3

0

617

17

0

1841

803

1,070

13

4

3,231

121

3

3

772

5

6

1842

839

1,118

13

4

3,429

128

11

9

195

5

0

4,387

3,883

13

1

Mr. Baker.

1837

627

738

0

0

1,917

71

17

9

460

9

11

1838

752

1,002

13

4

2,337

87

12

9

1,147

3

8

1839

784

1,045

6

8

2,684

100

13

0

1,206

9

6

1840

709

945

6

8

1,611

60

8

3

1,045

11

6

1841

748

997

6

8,

2,084

78

3

0

1,128

12

6

1842

868

1,157

6

8

2,467

92

10

3

1,393

14

6

4,488

6,382

1

7

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 66; Noes 42: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hodson, It.

Aldam, W.

Ingestre, Visct.

Archbold, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Arkwright, G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Astell, W.

Kelly Fitz Roy

Baillie, Col.

Langston, J. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lowther, J. H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

McGeachy, F. A.

Beckett, W.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mitcalfe, H.

Borthwick, P.

Morris, D.

Broadwood, H.

Newdigate, C. N.

Buck, L. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Buckley, E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Patten, J. W.

Collett, W. R.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Pringle, A.

East, J. B.

Poise, P.

Escott, B.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Fellowes, E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Forman, T. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Fox, S. L.

Villiers, hon. C.

French, F.

Wilbraham, hn. It. B.

Fuller, A. E.

Williams, T. P.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Wood, C.

Gladstone, Capt.

Wood, G. W.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Grimston, Visct.

TELLERS.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Worsley, Lord

Hodgson, F.

Fitzroy, H.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Blake, M. J.

Lockhart, W.

Bowes, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Broadley, H.

Nicholl, rt. an. J.

Brotherton, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Clive, Visct.

Pakington, J. S.

Clive, hn. R. H.

Richards, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Rolleston, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Russell, J. D. W.

Duff, J.

Thornely, T.

Duncan, G.

Towneley, J.

Duncombe, T.

Vane, Lord H.

Egerton, W. T.

Wallace, R.

Ewart, W.

Ward, H. G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Wawn, J. T.

Gibson, T. M.

Williams, W.

Gore, W. O.

Wilshere, W.

Greene, T.

Wodehouse, E.

Hall, Sir B.

Wood, Col. T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Hume, J.

Hope, G. W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Main question agreed to. Bill went through committee. Report brought up to be further considered.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND.)
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to go into a committee on the Medical Charities (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. F. Frenchsaid, he had not anticipated that her Majesty's Government would carry their hostility or their indifference to the interests of Ireland so far as to oppose going into committee on the sole remedial measure relating to that country at present before Parliament. He had not anticipated that they would endeavour to render the proceedings of the select committee, appointed at a very considerable expense to the country to inquire into the state of the medical charities in Ireland, as abortive, as the noble Lord the Secretary for that country had contrived to render their report. He had not anticipated that because the abuses of the system under which medical relief was administered to the sick poor in Ireland were not to be remedied in the objectionable manner proposed by the noble Lord, that the fiat of her Majesty's Government was about to go forth that they should not be remedied at all. Whether their powers of obstruction would ultimately prove equal to their inclination remained to be seen. He for one did not, rate their strength as highly as they did themselves. Placed in power by the united exertions of three great parties—the Irish Conservatives, the opponents of the New Poor-law, and the English agriculturists, how did they at present stand in respect to each of these bodies? The support they received from the Irish Conservatives proceeded more from shame than affection; the most sanguine adherent of the present Government could hardly, after the course they had adopted, anticipate any future support from the opponents of the Poor-law, and he believed the divisions on the Canada Corn Bill had clearly shown that more of the agricultural party than the Honiton farmer "had discovered there was a worse devil in existence than Lord John." His object in asking the House to go into committee on the bill was threefold —immediate legislation, central control, and medical inspection; and he should endeavour from the evidence to show he did not seek for anything unreasonable, or to

1269
which any fair objection might be made. [The hon. Member quoted the report of the committee on Medical Charities (Ireland) to show that the bill was required.] If public opinion is of any weight, this question ought long since to have been settled. The committee appointed this session to report on the Irish medical charities advised a certain plan of legislation, but conceived that, considering the difficulties which at present prevail with respect to the administration of the Poor-law, they cannot advise the immediate adoption of any part of the plan but that relating to the appointment of the central board and inspectors. They went on to say,
"The witnesses examined before your committee, whilst differing on other particulars, are unanimous in recommending the establishment of inspection; and your committee would observe, that the preliminary inquiries and suggestions to be made in the progress of such inspection will tend to render more satisfactory and complete the other parts of the plan they offer as a substitute for the present mode of maintaining and administering the medical charities of Ireland."
These resolutions were agreed to by the committee, and, as a matter of course, would have been reported by him as chairman of the committee to the House the same evening; but it was proposed they should be read over the next day, as several amendments had been introduced, to see that there was nothing contradictory in them. On this understanding lie left town, and he was surprised to learn by a letter from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, that the noble Lord had managed in his absence that those resolutions, though agreed to, should not be reported to the House. He was not about to pursue a course to which the noble Lord had already objected that of complimenting him at the expense of his Colleagues. Was he disposed so to do, which he frankly admitted he was not, he knew no subject save his personal courtesy on which he could be complimented. The noble Lord owed his official station, according to the more than once repeated declaration of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, to his having thwarted the views of that right hon. Gentleman when leader of the Opposition in that House; and, certainly, the noble Lord seemed well disposed to pursue a course, which, in his solitary case, had led to place and power,
1270
by disregarding as much as possible the views, as shown in the case then before them, and the claims, as heretofore shown in his conduct to the late Mr. West, of his political supporters in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had declared himself well satisfied with his selection; was the right hon. Baronet the only person to be satisfied? Was that right lion. Gentleman placed in power for his personal gratification? Did he not conceive, in the words of an eminent writer of the present day,—
" There might be danger in showing to men, that to have served you, was discouragement, to have warred against you was guerdon and grace."
Short as the time was which the noble Lord had been in office, he had managed to enstrange from his Government the affections of the Conservative party in Ireland to an extent scarcely possible to have been contemplated, and this he had done without conciliating one single individual amongst his political opponents. The sole acts by which the noble Lord was known in Ireland, were, his identifying himself with the Poor-law commissioners, his taking on himself their unpopularity, his placing himself in direct and hostile collision with a powerful body, whom from their education, their abilities, their personal influence, scattered as they were throughout the country, it was most desirable at the present crisis to have conciliated—the medical profession, a body no statesman would have neglected. In this, and his ungracious attempt to exclude from the representation of the University of Dublin one to whom his party owed much, who had spent thousands and tens of thousands in battling for the Conservative cause at a time the return of that party to power seemed hopeless—one of whose support any Government might justly feel proud—he rejoiced to say that the noble Lord had failed in every thing. The medical profession and the public with one voice indignantly rejected his attempt to degrade the profession, to sever the sole remaining links between rich and poor in that already too-much divided country—to place the medical charities in Ireland under the heartless control of the Poor - law commissioners. Ingratitude, come from what quarter it may, found but little favour in Ireland; notwithstanding the admitted claims, the acknowledged professional abilities of his right hon.

1271
Friend the Attorney-general—claims which were he unconnected with the noble Lord, would have rendered him a formidable competitor for the representation of the University—coming forward, as he was supposed to do, the nominee of an ungrateful Government, he was unable to muster sufficient force to appear at the hustings. In that House had the noble Lord originated, or even supported, one single conciliatory measure for Ireland; amongst his twenty-three bills he claims but two—the Drainage and Fishing acts to have been of this nature—measures he found left behind by the Whigs, the success of which is yet to be proved, the advantages of which are more than doubtful. Every proposal to improve the condition of the people, ay, or even to inquire into admitted grievances, has experienced the hostility of the noble Lord. It is true that he assisted in calling into existence the liberal corporations of Ireland; but in the bill whereby this was effected, provisions are contained which in most cases leave these corporations without any corporate functions to execute, a grievance which he has taken no step to remedy. The right hon. Baronet considered that those would become normal schools of agitation. The most ready method has been taken to make them so, by leaving them little else than political subjects upon which to bestow their attention and occupy their official existence. The noble Lord refused information even as to the principle upon which the unjust and unequal taxation for the improvement of the Government property on the river Shannon was thrown upon the adjacent counties. He refused inquiry into the reckless extravagance and gross mismanagement of the Poor-law commissioners. He refused his assistance to obtain for Ireland a system of railway communication; and the consequence was, that the English capital, which, with a little encouragement from Government, would have been employed in those works, had been invested in similar works in France and other countries. He refused within these few days to consider in committee the state of Ireland, although the condition which that country has reached under his Administration has been allowed on all hands to be deplorable. The only measures, in fact, which the noble Lord can claim as his own, are the Poor-law Evil-Aggression-Act, and the Arms bill destined to go down to posterity branded
1272
with his name. However largely the noble Lord may have contributed to his Satanic Majesty's pavement, he asserted without fear of condition that he had neither passed nor attempted to pass any measure to develope the resources of the country, to improve the condition of the people, to remedy existing grievances, or to allay the discontent admitted justly to follow from them. And discontent must continue to exist in Ireland, as long as that country is made the refuge for political inexperience—for untried capacity—as long as the head of every department there, to throw them back their own term, is to be an alien—as long as the opinions of her representatives are to be despised or disregarded. But the inexperience or inefficiency of the noble Lord could not be considered as an excuse for the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. He himself had been Secretary for Ireland; the noble Duke the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and gallant Officer the Secretary at War, all served in the same capacity. There was no want of experience or information on Irish subjects in his Cabinet, were he disposed to avail himself of them. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that Ireland would be the chief difficulty of his Administration. Was it not to be expected as a matter of common sense that he would in the first instance have turned his attention to that country? that he would have looked his difficulties in the face, and have endeavoured to obviate or have prepared to meet them? But, no, the right hon. Baronet was so engaged in preparing his uncalled-for Tariff, that he had not a moment of leisure to bestow on Ireland or her affairs. He was so busily employed unsettling everything, he had no time to settle anything; and for the first time he turns his almost bewildered attention to that country, when he believes insurrection to be thundering at his gates. Before he sat down he (Mr. French) would ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department if he considered it fair to assent ro the appointment of a committee, at a considerable expense to the country, if he had beforehand determined not to avail himself of any information they might collect? Did he consider it fair to allow men in high

1273
professional practice to be summoned as witnesses from Ireland at a great pecuniary loss to themselves, probably from 200 l. to 300 l. each, if their opinions were not to be attended to? Did he consider it fair to ask Members of that House to sit for six or seven weeks in committee, if the resolutions they agreed to were to be treated merely as waste paper? Did he conceive that declining to remedy acknowledged abuses, and refusing permission to another to do so, was a course likely to lead the Irish people to imagine that their interests were fairly attended to in the Imperial Parliament, or to allay the excitement, daily—hourly increasing it favour of repeal of the legislative union between the two countries? The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.
Lord Eliotsaid, he should oppose the motion, because he did not think the bill would realise the object the hon. Member had in view, and would entail considerable expense upon the country.
An hon. Membermoved that the House be counted, and forty Members not being present, the House adjourned.