Commons Sitting of 17 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Ecclesiastical Patronage; Registration of Deeds (Ireland); Sale of Encumbered Estates (Ireland); Real Property Management (Ireland); Tenants for Life (Ireland); Registration of Births, &c. (Ireland); Leasehold Tenures (Ireland); Tenants of Corporate Bodies (Ireland); Pawnbrokers.
2°. New Zealand Government; New Zealand Loan Act Amendment; Court of Exchequer (Ireland); Customs Duties (No. 2); Tithes Commutation.
Reported. Naval and Military Departments; Rateable Property (Ireland); Medical Practitioners.
3°. and passed. House of Commons Offices; Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from an immense number of places, against the Spirit Licenses and Duties Bill.—By Mr. Wyse, from Clerks of Petty Sessions of the County of Meath, for Alteration of Law respecting Clerks of Petty Sessions (Ireland).—By Mr. Wyse, from Members of the Society for the Improvement of Ireland, irrespective of Sect or Party, for Inquiry into the Fiscal Regulations of England and Ireland.—By Viscount Ebrington, from the Honourable Newton Fellowes, of Eggesford, and from Occupiers and Owners of Land in the Parishes of Chawleigh and Eggesford, for carrying out the Tithe Commutation Act.—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Members and Adherents of the Church and Congregation meeting at Ebenezer Chapel, Hexham, Northumberland, against the sanctioning, by Votes of Money or otherwise, any further Embarkation of Troops from the United Kingdom to Foreign or Colonial Countries.—By Mr. Wakley, from Mayor, Justices, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Borough of Penryn, in the County of Cornwall, praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Flogging in the Army.—By Mr. Wyse, from Regular Operative Ropemakers of the City of Dublin, praying the House not to entertain any Measure for Abolishing the Ancient Chartered Rights and Privileges of the Minor Guilds of Dublin until a Full and Free Inquiry has been instituted.—By Mr. Wyse, from Noblemen, Gentlemen, Clergymen, Owners and Occupiers of Land, and all others Inhabitants of the Town of Borrisokane, and from Bankers, Merchants, and Citizens of Dublin, for the Encouragement of Enterprise in Ireland. — By Mr. Sidney Herbert, from Ratepayers of the Parish of South Bureombe, in the County of Wilts, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. Wyse, from Officers, Committee, and Members of the Clonmel Mechanics' Institute, together with other Inhabitants of the Town and its Vicinity, stating that the Grant heretofore made by Government to the Royal Dublin Society has been wholly inadequate to supply the Demand for Lectures to the various Mechanics' Institutes in Ireland, and praying the House to take the Premises into consideration.—By Mr. Wakley, from several Medical and Surgical Practitioners, in favour of the Medical Practitioners Bill.—By Mr. Pusey, from John Malone, residing in Rutherglen, in the County of Lanark, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Scotland).—By Mr. Brown, from Members of the Liverpool Guardian Society for the Protection of Trade, and from the Inhabitants of Liverpool generally, complaining of the Mismanagement of the Post Office.—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Inhabitants of the Quadrant, Regent Street, in the Parish of Saint James, Westminster, constituting the Committee of the Quadrant Improvement Association, for Removal of the Colonnade.—By Mr. O. Gore, from Booksellers of Oswestry, praying the House to refuse to Railway Companies the Power of Opening Parcels.

PROVISION FOR LADY SALE.
SIR DE LACY EVANSasked the First Lord of the Treasury what provision had been or was intended to be made for the widow and family of the late General Sir Robert Sale?
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not believe that any provision had yet been made for the widow and family of Sir Robert Sale. With regard to any intention of making such a provision, it was impossible for him to advise the Crown on that point without means being first afforded by Parliament to Her Majesty to enable Her to carry out such an intention. When sitting on the other side of the House, he certainly did state that there were several cases of this description which he thought were deserving
752
of serious attention. There was the case of the family of General Nott, for instance, and also the case of the daughters of General M'Caskill, who subsequently had received 50 l. a year each. But at the same time he held that it was a matter for serious consideration whether Her Majesty should not ask Parliament, under certain rules and restrictions, for a sum that would enable Her to provide for the deserving relatives of these officers. Now he could not ask that in the present Session of Parliament, for it was not only necessary to ask for such a sum, but also necessary to bind the Crown with certain restrictions that would prevent its being given as mere patronage, or to persons who were undeserving objects. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, that the question should occupy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord resumed his seat, but subsequently rose, and said, he found he was mistaken when he stated that no provision had been made for Lady Sale. He was not until now aware that 500 l. a year had been granted to her; bat that fact would not in any respect alter the general spirit of his answer.

CRUELTY OF THE TROOPS IN INDIA.
MR. WARBURTONbegged to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. In the Stamford Mercury newspaper, of the 15th of May last, a letter was printed, professing to be from private John Lunn, of the 80th Regiment, to his father, in Stamford. It related to the battles which lately took place, in India; and, after describing the battle of the 20th December, it proceeded to give an account of what took place on the subsequent day. And this was the passage to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet:—
"On the succeeding morning we commenced maiming and shooting all the prisoners, which dreadful work occupied us nearly the whole of the day. On the 22nd we commenced our march," &c.
Now, if this were true, it was perfectly shocking; but he should wish to have from the right hon. Baronet, if possible, a contradiction of the statement. He (Mr. Warburton) had been given to understand that it was not correct; and he thought it was for the honour of the country that if possible the statement should be contradicted.
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSE: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is for the honour of the country—and not only for the honour of the country, but for the very safety of the country, that such a statement should be contradicted; and I am most happy to say, therefore, that there is not one word of truth in it—that there is not the slightest foundation for it whatever. My hon. Friend very kindly put the paper into my hands in which the statement appeared, and I find that it contains the most monstrous contradictious. So far from any atrocity of the kind having been perpetrated, the surgeons of the British army were actively engaged in taking care of the wounded Sikhs; and all the time they could devote to that purpose was so employed by them, to the great astonishment of the Sikhs, who had never seen such an instance of humanity before.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE ARMS BILL (IRELAND).
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, in rising to move the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Public Works (Ireland) Bill, I wish to observe that there is another Bill before the House which has excited considerable attention, and in reference to which several hon. Gentlemen have given notices of Motion. I think it would be convenient to the House, therefore, that I should state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to that Bill. The Bill I allude to is the Arms (Ireland) Bill, the second on the list of Orders of the Day. That Bill was introduced by my right hon. Friend near me, the Secretary for Ireland, upon the ground that Her Majesty's Ministers having but lately come into office, and having many other subjects pressing upon them at this time, it was desirable to obtain the renewal of the Arms Act until the next spring; in order that Her Majesty's Government might consider the whole of its provisions, to see whether any of those provisions were necessary, whether the system should be altogether abandoned, or whether any other provision should be introduced in its place. It appears to me that that was a reasonable proposition, considering that the system of having restrictions on the possession of arms in Ireland has lasted, not only for fifty years, to which I referred the other day in debate, but that in fact it has been in practice ever since the period of the Revolution of 1688. But when that proposition
754
was made to the House, it appeared to many hon. Gentlemen that no such Bill ought to be renewed, without going into its various provisions, and considering whether or not they were such as should be continued. Many hon. Friends of mine, I found, were of that opinion; and I stated to the House, in the discussion upon the Bill, that I was willing to consider those provisions which I stated, when the Bill was last under discussion, were the most objectionable; and to withdraw those provisions from the Bill thus to be continued and reenacted. But in examining the provisions of this Bill, when we had taken out that clause which relates to the "branding" of arms; and when we had taken out also the clause which relates to visits to houses in search of arms, other questions unavoidably occurred to the Government with regard to the provisions of the Bill. We found that it was impossible to consider certain provisions of the Bill, to see if these were objectionable, and not be obliged either to defend the other provisions of the Bill upon their merits, or to give them up altogether. Now, Sir, we could not contend that the Bill should be taken as a whole without looking into it, and considering its various provisions. But on looking into it in the way I have stated, we agreed that the registration clauses, being deprived of those more stringent provisions which were introduced to make those clauses more effectual, would be not tyrannical nor coercive, but useless and unnecessary, and calculated to interrupt the peace of the country. My noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who is as well acquainted as any man with the usual course of proceeding in Ireland, and the various counties of Ireland, was of opinion that it was far hotter to dispense with the Bill, altogether, than to have it thus curtailed of some of its principal provisions. He declared to us that he was perfectly ready to undertake the government of Ireland without the continuance of these provisions. Now, Sir, such being the case, I will not say that I feel no apprehension as to the result of dispensing with this system of legislation which has lasted so long. I would much rather have had a longer time to consider it; and especially to consider whether those clauses which relate to the importation of arms had not better be continued, or amended at least, as parts of our legislation respecting Ireland; but as matters at present stand, having this alternative before me, either to dispense altogether with the provisions of

755
the Bill, and allow it to expire, or on the other hand, to defend clause by clause the provisions of the Bill, which provisions I think unnecessary and useless, I think the former part of the alternative appears to be the preferable. Therefore, on further consideration, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to drop the Bill. Sir, in so saying, I must observe that I have had reference to what has recently come to our knowledge with respect to the state of Ireland. I find that as regards the trials on the circuits in Ireland, there has been no impediment to the administration of justice, and that the juries generally have done their duty; and likewise as regards another circumstance—I speak in reference to the reports of the constabulary—I find that during the last month the reports of grave offences by them are greatly decreased, and that the returns upon that point are extremely satisfactory. This gives me encouragement to hope that, when we part altogether with these restrictions, the future state of the country will justify us for having altogether dispensed with them. But at the same time I should say, as strongly as possible, that Her Majesty's Ministers can only consider their responsibility for the safety of life and property in Ireland as increased; that whatever measures may be necessary, either for the strict maintenance of the existing laws, or the enforcement of all the provisions of those laws for the maintenance of peace and security in Ireland, or, if it should unfortunately be necessary to demand extraordinary powers in order to preserve life and property in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will not shrink from the duties which may be incumbent upon them; and that, believing and hoping it will be possible not to resort to extraordinary measures which will restrain the liberty of the subject, they still are determined at all events that security to life and property in Ireland shall not be diminished. Sir, I conclude by moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Public Works (Ireland) Bill.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
MR. C. BERKELEYsaid, he would not have ventured to intrude upon the House at such a time had not the conduct of Her Majesty's Government been such as he could not help disapproving. He was informed that Her Majesty, under the advice of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Morpeth), had signified to the committee
756
of the Wellington statue that it was not her wish that the site which had been formerly selected should be occupied by the statue in question; but the noble Member for Lynn and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, who had taken occasion to go into the country for the purpose of lecturing the people on the advantages of protection, during their progress came to Belvoir Castle, and there persuaded his noble Friend, in spite of the advice he had given Her Majesty, to allow the statue to be replaced. They had a right to complain of the conduct of the noble Lord. He had not displayed sufficient firmness in his decision; and even now, as he understood, he had not decided the question, for he was about to allow this monstrous absurdity, this piece of incongruity, to be placed on the arch for three weeks, to be pulled down again if not approved of. Who were to form the committee of taste to test the question? He would ask his noble Friend if he would lay on the Table of the House the whole of the correspondence which had taken place on this subject, in order that it might be printed and placed in the hands of the Members; and he gave his noble Friend notice, in case he was not disposed to do so, that he would move at the earliest possible period of next Session for their production. He would do so now, but that he saw so many of the Treasury hacks, who, however their opinion might coincide with his, would be obliged to vote against his Motion.
VISCOUNT MORPETHwas sorry the hon. Member disapproved of his conduct; but, with the permission of the House, he would briefly state how the case was. Since the last discussion took place on this subject, he could not conceal that he had used every means in his power to bring the matter to an issue, in accordance with the wishes of the House, of his hon. Friend, and the public; but the sub-committee had not thought themselves at liberty to accede to any offer of sites which had been made to them, and still placed reliance on the permission which had been formerly given them to place the statue on the top of the arch. Under those circumstances he had thought it the duty of the Government to accede to a proposal of the sub-committee to place the statue on the arch, on the express condition that if, after a short interval of time, it should not be approved of by the Government, who of course would take the advice of competent persons on the matter, the committee would replace

757
the whole as it stood at present—that was, the committee undertook to remove the statue, and place it on the ground. As the correspondence to which the hon. Member referred was very protracted, and involved some controversy, and as the present arrangement had been the result, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, at all events until next Session.
SIR F. TRENCHsaid, the committee felt themselves bound to adhere to their former deeision, and had determined, if not permitted to put it into execution, to absolve themselves from any responsibility whatever. The sub-committee found it very difficult to know how to act. All kinds of suggestions had been made to them by various persons; but he wished the House to bear in mind that the subcommittee had been all along influenced by a most anxious desire to meet the wishes of Her Majesty and of the Government, but had felt themselves compelled to fulfil their engagements to the public. They were equally convinced that the arch was the only fit place for the statue. The statue was made for the arch, not one-half of the subscriptions having been received till the arch had been selected as the place for the statue. He was convinced that the statue in that position on the arch would be the finest object ever exhibited; and he begged to return his thanks to Her Majesty and to the Government for having done them justice—and but justice—in giving them an opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of the public.
The EARL of LINCOLNunderstood that the statue was to be placed on the arch for three weeks. He was sure the public would be very glad to hear Her Majesty's Government was to sit on the arch—[a laugh]—but at the time when the statue would be so placed London would be extremely empty; and if they should approve of it, he hoped they would allow the scaffolding to remain a little longer, till the public returned to town. He thought their opinion would not be equally favourable.
The matter then dropped.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
DR. BOWRINGrose to ask the question of which he had given notice. He had heard with great satisfaction from the lips of the noble Duke at the head of the army that the time would soon come when corporal punishments should cease, and that he hoped to live to see the day when they would be altogether abolished. His
758
question was—"Whether any instructions have been, or are intended to be issued, regulating the character of the instrument with which flogging in the army is to be inflicted, as regards the size, the weight, the length of the handle, the number and thickness of the cords or thongs, the size and number of the knots; also, determining what functionaries are to be charged with the infliction of corporal punishment, and what period of time is to be allowed between each blow; also, whether, in case the medical attendant shall certify that it would be dangerous to continue the flogging, any unapplied portion of the punishment is to be reserved for a second infliction; also, whether it is intended that the diminution to fifty lashes shall apply to the European and Native troops of the East India Company; and whether the Government will consent to make annual returns to Parliament of the corporal punishments employed in the army, the number of lashes, the offences for which inflicted, and by what species of court martial ordered?"
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, I shall not attempt to answer precisely and categorically all the questions which have been asked by my hon. Friend who has just sat down; but this I will say, that the noble Duke the Commander-in-Chief intends to do that which he has declared he will do, and does not intend to evade any declaration which he has made, either to this or to the other House of Parliament. Now it would be a complete evasion of the declaration we have received, if any system were adopted by which the violence of twenty-five lashes was so increased as to be as severe as 1,000 lashes. Corporal punishment will be inflicted as it was inflicted before; and any instructions or regulations as to the size and strength of the instrument will be given by the military authorities. As to the medical attendants certifying that the continued flogging of a man was dangerous, and the remainder of the punishment being inflicted on a second occasion, I do not think it is likely to be required with the present amount of corporal punishment, diminished as it will be in future. With respect to the diminution of punishment to fifty lashes being applicable to the European and Native troops of the East India Company, I may observe that they are regulated by articles of war of their own; but I have no doubt that when the opinion of the noble Duke is known, that similar orders will be given with respect to the Native troops in the East India

759
Company's service. There will be no hesitation in giving any return of corporal punishments, or the offences for which they were inflicted, without of course going into detail which may injure personal character. I beg the hon. Gentleman and the House to recollect, that when I stated what was to be done immediately on this subject, I did not state that it was a final and complete measure to be taken by the Commander-in-Chief. I said that the whole matter was under his consideration, and that he purposes, from time to time, to introduce such measures as will render this punishment less grievous; and when my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Fox Maule) proposes the Mutiny Bill, I shall be enabled to state the nature of the measures to be taken on this subject. I can assure the House that it is not the intention of Government to say that fifty lashes is a punishment which every soldier can bear—but that corporal punishment will be diminished as much as possible, and that we hope to maintain the discipline of the army by other and by better means.
MR. WILLIAMSwished to know if the same regulations were to be applied to the navy as to the army. He thought they were as necessary in the one service as in the other, and he hoped that both would be placed on the same footing. As the law stood at present, the captain of a ship could punish a man on seeing him commit an offence. It was evidence enough if the captain saw it; but in any other case the man would have to be reported by the officer, and an inquiry would be made into the circumstances.
CAPTAIN M. F. BERKELEYsaid, that no man could receive punishment on board a man of war without an inquiry, not in the cabin of the ship, but publicly and openly; and that no officer could inflict punishment without making a return of the punishment and all the attendant circumstances to the Board of Admiralty, who made a most close and searching investigation into each case, in order to prevent the infliction of improper punishment. Whenever this subject came before the House, he should feel it to be his duty—disregarding all popular outcry—to state the real facts of the case, and to show the House that it would be utterly impossible to carry on the discipline of a ship if they deprived the naval officers of the power of inflicting punishment. Let them put whatever restrictions they pleased on them, and on the exercise of the punishment; but he boldly and fearlessly
760
asserted—and in that assertion would find the concurrence of the great majority of his brother officers—that they must not deprive a naval captain of the power of corporal punishment.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that after what they had heard in Parliament on this subject, the public were satisfied that the amount of punishment would not be much for the future. It was now known that a few lashes might be sentence of death. ["No, no!"] It had been so. It was known to have occurred at Woolwich; and he asserted it as his deliberate conviction, that more men had perished from the effects of the lash than from the halter. It was essential that there should be the most strict regulations as to the mode in which it was inflicted. While he was on this subject, he would refer to the remarks made by a noble Lord in reference to the late case at Hounslow. The noble Lord had felt it consistent with his duty to denounce the proceedings at the inquest—to denounce them as unjust. The inference that would be drawn from the remarks of the noble Lord was, that the jury were perjured. The noble Lord, knowing nothing of the case except from the reports, felt it to be his duty to denounce the conduct of the person presiding at the inquiry—an individual who could have no motive to act otherwise than rightly; and to denounce the jurors, who, as the noble Lord inferred, had returned a verdict not consistent with their oaths. It was not for him to say more than to express his deep regret that any noble Lord should have felt it to be his duty, with his incomplete and very imperfect knowledge of the facts, to denounce one of the public tribunals of the country. He would not say more than to intimate to the noble Lord, that, if he believed there was anything wrong, any dishonourable or unjust practices at that inquiry, he ought to move for a Committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the circumstances; and not give an opinion on the loose information he had received. He believed that no one had a right to complain of the conduct of the jury in that inquiry.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.
LORD G. BENTINCKrose to ask a question, of which he had given notice the other night, with respect to the appointment of a gentleman as a magistrate on the bench within the jurisdiction of the duchy of Lancaster, of whom it was said that some years ago he was convicted of

761
committing a fraud on the Excise. He had forborne as yet to mention the name of the gentleman, in the hope that there might be two of the same name, and that the gentleman so appointed might not be the gentleman who was convicted in 1831, in the Court of Exchequer, in Westminster-hall, of a gross fraud on the Excise. The gentleman to whom he alluded was Mr. Thomas Gorton, of Tottington-park, in Lancashire, formerly a calico printer; and unless there was some mistake as to the identity of the person, the same individual who, after a series of years, having in his trade of calico printer practised frauds on the Excise, viz., forging the Government stamp, which was the indication that the Excise duty was paid on the article so stamped, was brought to trial in the Court of Exchequer, in Westminster-hall, and was convicted, as he believed, before Chief Baron Lyndhurst in the penalty of 800 l. It would be in the recollection of the House that there was an excise duty on printed calico. When the duty was paid, the Government stamp was impressed on each article; but this gentleman was said to have forged the stamp of the Government and to have stamped his own calico, on which no duty was paid, thus entering into unfair competition with other calico printers. The defendant pleaded not guilty in the Court of Exchequer, a special jury was sworn, the whole number did not answer to their names, and a tales was prayed; but the defendant, finding himself quite unable to free himself from the guilt with which he was charged, withdrew his plea, pleaded guilty, and consented to a fine of 800 l., which was paid to the Crown. This was the gentleman who had been selected by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a man fit to sit on the magisterial bench. He believed it was through carelessness and through influence that the noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord G. Somerset) had appointed so improper a person; but the complaint he had to make against the noble Lord, and which he made in the face of the country, was, that when the error was discovered, and notice given to the noble Lord that this gentleman had in former times been convicted of disgraceful forgeries and frauds on the Excise, he was not immediately removed from the commission. He might be told that there had been some private understanding that he would not seek to qualify; but that was not enough for that House—it was not enough for the
762
country. Those private understandings would not do. It was a great honour to a man in that situation of life to be made a magistrate; and it was an insult to honest and honourable men to place side by side with them on the roll of the commission of the peace for Lancashire a person convicted of forgery and fraud on the Excise. That person should be forthwith removed from his situation in the commission; and the questions he had to ask of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was in no way responsible for this appointment, were, whether this was or was not the same gentleman so convicted in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster-hall, in 1831? and next, whether, if such were the case, it was his noble Friend's intention to permit him to remain on the commission of the peace for the county of Lancaster?
LORD J. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the noble Lord has correctly stated that a person, Mr. Gorton, was placed on the commission of the peace for the duchy of Lancaster by the noble Lord opposite when he was Chancellor of the Duchy, who had been convicted in 1831 of a fraud on the Excise. Lord Campbell found that he had been placed there; and my noble and learned Friend had a correspondence on the subject which I have not yet seen, but of which he has communicated to me the result. It appears that Mr. Gorton was placed in the commission of the peace without any solicitation of his own, and therefore Lord Campbell thought it would not be right to inflict that stigma upon him of removing him immediately from the commission of the peace, and that it would seem as if he had been placed there merely for the purpose of inflicting disgrace upon him. But my noble and learned Friend has taken sufficient precautions that he should not qualify, and that he should never act as a magistrate. As I have stated, I have not yet seen the correspondence; but when I have, I shall be able to give my noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) any further satisfaction he may require as to the facts of the case.
LORD G. SOMERSEThoped the House would bear with him, while he endeavoured to explain the circumstances under which this appointment had been made. He should apply himself simply to the facts of the case as they occurred, and to his own conduct in making the erroneous nomination—erroneous certainly, so far that he should have cleared up the point before he

763
nominated Mr. Gorton, if he had not overlooked the information he had received respecting that gentleman. He was very sorry to detain the House on a matter of this nature; at the same time he thought it but right that he should state the whole of the case, when it would appear how far an error had been committed; and if there were an error, whether he had committed it from an improper motive. He could truly say, that during the several years for which he had held the seals of the duchy of Lancaster, he had taken infinite pains, as much as any of his predecessors, to prevent the nomination of improper persons on the roll of magistrates, always taking care to select the persons whom he thought most fit to administer justice, from their various dispositions and the incidents of their past life. In the present year an application had been made to him for the appointment of additional magistrates in Lancashire; he did not know the gentlemen who were recommended to him for nomination, of whom Mr. Gorton was one, but they were introduced to him by a letter from a noble Lord, lately a Member of that House, for whom he entertained great respect, and he was sure every hon. Member who heard him would agree that nobody could be more unlikely to recommend any other but respectable persons to him for a purpose of this kind than his noble Friend and relative the Earl of Ellesmere. His noble Friend stated to him that, owing to deaths and other circumstances, the magistrates of that particular district to which he referred were inadequate in point of number to the due performance of the duties which devolved upon them; his noble Friend explained to him exactly how the case stood, and presented to him a memorial signed by many respectable persons, praying for an increase in the magistracy. His noble Friend also mentioned to him the names of several individuals who might be appointed, only one of whom was known to him (Lord G. Somerset) by name. He was not contented with the general assertions or statements made to him, both verbally and in writing; but he consulted a gentleman of great respectability, whom he was very often in the habit of consulting, and who, from peculiar circumstances, had much local knowledge—whose name, if he were to mention it, no one would gainsay, but he would not mention it—begging his opinion as to the general fitness for the magistracy of the persons they named. That individual wrote to him in, the month
764
of February in terms of strong recommendation with respect to Mr. Gorton. He had also recommendations of the same gentleman from other quarters. Owing to accidental circumstances he deferred making any nomination much longer than he intended; and before he made the nomination at the end of April, information was given him by the Chairman of the Board of Excise, warning him against this person. He made a memorandum against the name, and when, a fortnight or three weeks after, he looked over the books with a view to making the nominations, he referred to the document; but by some oversight or another he did not see Mr. Gorton's name included in it. This was the cause of the error; but so far was he from being aware that he had fallen into the mistake, that when Mr. Wood mentioned to him what he had done, he said in the strongest terms that he had not. However, on reference to his papers, he found that he had actually fallen into it. He admitted that before nominating Mr. Gorton, he should have made himself acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and if he found that gentleman to deserve the imputations cast upon him, then, however much he might regret the necessity of coming to such a determination, after the lapse of so many years, he should have considered it his duty not to nominate him as a magistrate for the county. He had received another letter which induced him immediately to take measures to ascertain from Mr. Gorton himself, what foundation there was for the charge against him. He should read to the House the answer he received from that gentleman:—
"Tottington Hall, June 27, 1846.
"Sir—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th instant.
"In answer to the allegation against me, that ahout the year 1831 I was guilty of having forged the Excise stamp on printed calicoes, I shall state the circumstances, and his Lordship the Chancellor of the Duchy will then be able to judge how far the charge can with justice be made against me.
"Previous and up to 1831, the printworks of myself and partner had been surveyed by two excise officers named Wallplate and Ball. Wallplate was a man of exceedingly drunken habits, and committed a great many errors in affixing what was called the frame mark to calico pieces before they were printed, and in numbering such mark; many of his errors were discovered and rectified, and some, in all probability, never were noticed.
"In the early part of 1831 the general examining officers attended, as was their custom, at our works, and detected some of those errors. A short time afterwards, without any previous communication, we were served with a writ, at the suit of the Crown, for the recovery of penalties to which,

765
if we were liable at all, we were liable by reason of the negligence of the officers of the Crown.
"Both my partner and myself were, and are at this moment, entirely ignorant that we had subjected ourselves to any penalties, and we defended the action which stood for trial in the Court of Exchequer, in Easter Term, 1831; when in an unfortunate moment, after the jury were sworn, our attorney suffered himself to be overruled by the persuasion of his counsel, and submitted to a verdict against us.
"In order that his Lordship may have the whole charge and our defence before him, without any concealment or evasion, I take the liberty to foward herewith one of the briefs which was used by counsel on what should have been the trial, and I beg particularly to ask his Lordship's attention to the evidence of Samuel Scowcroft—a man who had then the exclusive management of that portion of our business for several years. He is still living, and will depose to the facts, but has left our service many years ago.
"I beg to apologize for troubling his Lordship with so long a case; but as the conduct through life of my partner and myself have been such as will bear the most searching scrutiny, I feel assured that, after a lapse of fifteen years, his Lordship will not, without mature consideration, degrade me and my family by depriving me of the honour, unsolicited on my part, which has just been conferred upon me, for that of which I am perfectly innocent. Although I have taken the oaths of a magistrate, I have not yet qualified, and my future proceedings in that respect will of course be regulated by his Lordship's determination.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "THOMAS GORTON.
"Frederick Dawes Danvers, Esq.,
Duchy of Lancaster."
At the time of receiving this letter, he (Lord G. Somerset) was holding office only during pleasure, and it seemed to him quite impossible that during the forty-eight hours for which the term of his official existence might be protracted, he could institute any inquiry into the facts referred to. He thought it would be an act of great injustice towards Mr. Gorton if he were to do so, and he did not therefore look at the brief which had been sent to him, nor communicate it to the Excise or the Solicitor of the Crown. He had thought that the noble and learned Lord who had succeeded him, having been Attorney General for many years, and having the advantage of much greater experience, could decide as to the character of this gentleman with much greater propriety than himself. He had now placed the whole facts before the House; he knew nothing of Mr. Gorton except from the information which he had received; but he had been informed from other quarters that Mr. Gorton was a person holding a most respectable station in society, and well fitted to discharge the duties of the magistracy. As to the advice
766
which he had received in the first instance, he could say no more than that the names of several gentlemen having been mentioned to him, he had submitted them to the individual to whom he alluded. Some of these gentlemen, according to the opinion he received, would be unfit for the magistracy; and though he (Lord G. Somerset) knew them personally, and would have been glad to put them on the bench, he abstained from nominating them, because circumstances were stated to him which he thought rendered them unfit. He was extremely sorry that he had overlooked the information subsequently received; but he could not say that he took any blame whatever to himself for having left the matter undecided when in office, no time remaining for him to consider the case. Having explained to the House how the whole matter stood, he should leave it to them to judge whether any improper motive could be attributed to him; he did not consider himself guilty of having done more than commit an error which any one might have made. He could not approve the soundness of the noble Lord's (Lord G. Bentinck's) judgment in speaking as he had done; but at this moment he would not express any opinion on the propriety or impropriety of Mr. Gorton being a magistrate, because he had not looked fully into the case.
House in Committee on Public Works (Ireland) Bill No. 4.
Order of the Day read.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND — MEASURES OF RELIEF.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, it is with great pain I rise to call the attention of the House to the present state of the distress in Ireland; and in doing so, I shall consider it my duty to refer to what has been done in the course of last year, and the spring of this year by the late Government on the subject of the failure of the potato crop; and whatever sorrow I may feel in having to bring this subject before the House in the present state of the crop in Ireland, yet I shall endeavour in doing so to avoid any subject which can give rise to any party division or excite any feelings of animosity. The Committee may recollect, that towards the end of last year considerable alarm was felt with regard to the state of the potato crop in Ireland, and also in some parts of Scotland. I think it necessary to state that alarm was felt to a great degree, if not a greater degree than usual,

767
of an apprehended scarcity; and I shall state three circumstances which were calculated to inspire the public at large with that feeling. The first is, that potatoes being one of the cheapest and lowest of all kinds of food, on a failure of the crop of potatoes, which is the chief article of nourishment for the great mass of the population, there is no kind of food of a cheaper kind that the population could have recourse to. That is the chief distinction between a country in which the population lives on potatoes, or any cheap sort of food, and a country in which the population is chiefly fed on wheat, or some higher description of food. Another circumstance is this, that the disease in the potatoes is, to a great degree, unknown. No one can tell to what extent it might be carried. If the crop of wheat or barley fall off, we can, within six weeks or two months after the harvests, pretty well ascertain what is the deficiency, and how much remains; conclusions are easily made as to the quantity of food which remains for sustenance of the people, and what supplies are required. The third circumstance which I have to mention, and which is connected with the first which I stated, is, that a great portion of the people of Ireland are in a state of very great poverty, verging upon destitution. This has been ascertained and stated by repeated statistical documents which have been laid before Parliament. The Report of the Commissioners of the Poor Law Inquiry, the Report of the Land Commission over which Lord Devon presided, and the Report on the Census, all show how great a portion of the people of Ireland live in a state of extreme poverty. In fact, they do not receive wages which enable them to pay for the food which they require. They receive wages only during a portion of the year, and these very low in amount, and during a considerable portion of the year they are fed upon potatoes of a very inferior kind, which they themselves crop, very often by an agreement on what is called the conacre system, with a farmer in their neighbourhood. Above them there is another class who, although farmers, are very little better off than those I have just mentioned, and who, when there is any extraordinary pressure of want, are unable to afford out of their means and substance maintenance or wages to those below them. These three circumstances were calculated to make the Government of the country look with very considerable alarm
768
at the prospect before them; and—I am not now adverting to any other measure than those they thought it necessary to take—they took measures in their opinion directly applicable to these evils. The first measure they took was by a minute of the Treasury, of the 9th of December, to order a quantity of Indian corn, amounting in money to 100,000 l., to be purchased by the house of Baring & Co., either in the ports of this country or from foreign countries. With respect to this measure it is to be observed, that it was very wisely, and likewise with great good fortune, for a long time kept a secret both here and in Ireland. The arrival of this supply was not known; so that when it did come it had both a much greater effect in relieving the people of Ireland, whose expectations were not raised by the prospect of its arrival, and had a much less injurious effect in disturbing the regular trade of the country than might have been expected otherwise from this measure. There is another measure to which the Government resorted; and that was, to grant donations in aid of subscriptions. Subscriptions were collected in Ireland to a large amount, and from some of the very poorest farmers in the country. These subscriptions and donations amounted to a sum exceeding 100,000 l. There was another measure which was introduced at the commencement of the Session, to the effect that public works should be presented by certain authorities to the barony or county sessions, who were empowered to make such works, provided one-half of the expense of such should be made by advances to be repaid, and the other half by grants from the Treasury of the State. Another measure which was proposed and carried in this House was, that general presentments should be made for the purpose of executing public works of which the whole expenses should be repaid. The general amount of money for all these measures is stated in the book which was lately presented to this House, called Correspondence relative to the Measures for the Relief of Distress arising from the Failure of the Potato Crop in Ireland. The first item is the purchase of Indian corn and oatmeal, and freight, grinding, and other expenses connected therewith, amounting to 185,432 l. The second item is sums issued as donations in aid of subscriptions made by relief committees, amounting to 67,911 l. The third item is works authorized to be executed under the Act 9 Victoria,

769
c. 1, if required, for the relief of urgent distress—of which one-half is to be repaid — amounting to 452,727 l. The fourth item is sums authorized to be advanced, if required, under the Act 9 Victoria, c. 2, and of which the whole is to be repaid, amounting to 133,536 l. The fifth, sixth, and seventh are smaller items, granted for the employment of the people in cases of great emergency, and other purposes. The whole amount of the expenditure is 852,481 l., of which there is repaid, or to be repaid, 494,851 l. The sum which has been granted or expended, without expectation or intention of repayment is 357,630 l. Now, with regard to the evil which this large expenditure was intended to meet, and with respect to which a great deal of information will be found among the voluminous correspondence which has been presented to the House—with respect to that evil it will be found that, as might be expected from what I have already stated, its amount was differently calculated at different times, and that in fact it has not as yet been completely ascertained. The first account, which you will find in the first page of this volume, stated that upon the whole, taking the four provinces of Ireland, the loss of the potato crop amounted to one-fourth. It was afterwards stated by Colonel Macgregor, that he estimated the loss to be not above one-eighth; and the calculation of the Commissioners who were sent to Ireland to investigate the matter, was, that the loss amounted to one-half of the whole crop. As I have stated, it is very difficult to ascertain what is the real amount of the evil; but I think the House will believe that there has been a very great failure of the potato crop, and that the disease has been destructive to a great portion of the crop of 1845. Now, this is a disease which was not peculiar to Ireland or Scotland last year; but was experienced in various parts of the Continent of Europe, and likewise in various parts of America. I have before me various statements, some of which were made in 1840 by directions of the Congress of the United States, and others were made in answer to a circular which had been issued by the Colonial Office here, from which it appears that this disease, which for some years has been known in America as the "rust in the potatoes," first appeared in 1832, in consequence of which a considerable portion of the crops was lost; and that, in 1845, it was more destructive than it was ever known to have been before. With respect
770
to the measures which were taken by the Government to meet this evil, and of which I have just stated to the Committee the cost, I think we may say, upon the whole, that their effects have been in Ireland exceedingly beneficial. There are contained in this volume various accounts of the effects which have been produced by the different measures to which I have alluded. They show that in places where the people have been deprived of food and employment, food and employment were afforded; that in other places where the people were almost in a state of despair, so far from there having been any outrage, peace and tranquillity have been preserved, and those feelings of fear which arose from distress, changed into feelings of satisfaction and contentment. One of the letters to which I allude is from Mr. E. Russell to Mr. Radcliff. It refers to the county of Clare, in which county there was a greater number of persons employed than in any other county in Ireland. He says—
"The works, considering the materials with which we have to work, are progressing, except in very few instances, satisfactorily; and I may add, that the works undertaken have been works of public utility. Distress would at this moment be general though out the country, were it not that the Government have by means of the public works rescued the people from the deadly grasp of starvation which threatened them; and I am happy in having it in my power to state, on the best authority, that the poor people of Clare were never so well provided for as they have been this season. There are some localities where distress pressed with some severity, but was in most cases promptly relieved; and I believe I could say with confidence that there has not been a single case of starvation throughout this county, and there are fewer cases of sickness, particularly fever, than for many years past. I have heard this remark made by the Roman Catholic clergy throughout the entire county."
In this book there is also an abstract of the number of persons employed by the Board of Works in the various counties in July last, from which it appears that in Clare the number was 102,130 for each day's work. The measure of providing Indian corn seems especially to have afforded very considerable relief. It is to be observed that this measure of Government introduced a greater quantity of food into Ireland than in all probability would have been introduced had not that measure been taken, at least at that time; but beyond this they provided a kind of food which, after a short experience, and some prejudice having been got over, has proved a most nutritious food, and, at the same time, is sold at a reasonable rate. It has been sold, in various

771
instances, as these papers show, at 10 l. a ton, and by retail at 1d. a pound. Now, a pound of Indian corn is quite sufficient to provide sustenance for a strong-bodied labourer for a day. With respect to the donations, likewise, I have to state that these donations did bring out the large amount of subscriptions to which I have already alluded. These subscriptions were made by all classes of persons. They evinced the readiness of all classes in Ireland to relieve the existing distress. Of course I shall not enter into the invidious question whether individuals contributed who ought to have contributed under the circumstances. But I must say that the various accounts seem to show that large subscriptions were received from nearly all persons who were able to afford them. It is likewise so be observed that the amount of subscriptions was no test of the charity which was afforded. Persons of the largest property generally undertook works which gave employment to the people; and as the payment for these came out of their own resources, of course no account was given of them to the public, although they materially contributed to the relief of the people. With respect to the works for which sums were advanced in cases of great emergency, there has likewise been the greatest relief afforded from this source. But it was impossible for the Government and the Legislature, in endeavouring to meet the alarming cases of distress, and to get over the period of the year from December to the gathering in of the harvest in August, when there is much employment of the people in harvest work—it was impossible to preserve them as they have been preserved, from deficiency of food, affording to them due employment, preserving the peace of the country, and, at the same time, affording the satisfaction which must be afforded by the spectacle of the Government and the Legislature of the United Kingdom, so far from being indifferent, eager to supply the necessities of the people — I say it is impossible to produce this great result without some very serious concurrent evils. In the first place, I think that the supply of Indian corn in the emergency which happened, was a measure of great prudence; but if it were to become the established practice for the Government of this country, out of the resources of the Treasury, to purchase food for the people, and that this food should be sold by retail at a low price, it is evident that trade would be disturbed;
772
that the supplies which are brought to us by the natural operations of commerce would be suspended; that the intermediate traders who deal in provisions in local districts would have their business entirely deranged; and that Government would find themselves charged with that which it is impossible they can perform adequately—I mean, the duty of feeding the people. With respect to many of the public works, for which advances were granted, although they were in themselves useful, yet the effect was that ordinary work was abandoned, and that the public works were sought in preference to other works, so that here again the ordinary operations of industry were disturbed. In a letter from the Commissioners of Public Works to the Lords of the Treasury, it is stated that—
"From personal inspections of some of the works in progress, the Board discovered that many individuals were employed who had not been supplied with tickets. Instructions were immediately given to put a stop to such improper and irregular proceedings, which became the more necessary as we experienced the injurious results of it. The great public works of the improvement of the Shannon and drainage were left without workmen; and, strange as it may appear, men who were, by measurement, earning 1s. 6d. and 1s. 7d. a day, quitted these works to take employment on the relief roads at 9d. a day."
Now there was not only the effect of the ordinary farm labour being left for the public works, where, though they received less money, the work was easier, but in many instances great numbers of persons were sent to the works by gentlemen who distributed tickets without proper inquiry, and in this way persons were employed who ought never to have had employment from the Board of Works. Then, again, many of the labourers who have hitherto been in the habit of coming to England and Scotland to the harvest, finding they could get work close to their own doors with sufficient to maintain them, abandoned the idea of resorting to England and Scotland, and the consequence has been that in many portions of the north of England, and in Scotland, the harvest has been delayed from want of labourers, and I believe that a great deal of the food of the country has in this way been lost. In a letter from Major Simmonds to Mr. Trevelyan, dated the 4th of the present month, he says—
"Nothing can be finer than the corn crops now being cut, but slowly, I am told, for want of labourers, resulting, it is to be feared, from the injudicious continuance of public works, as well as in the mismanagement of some committees, in not

773
gradually withdrawing relief from persons able to work."
These are injurious consequences, which are so far inevitable from the large employment given by these public works, especially as the emergency was unexpected, the measures which were taken sudden, and carried into effect, of course, by persons who had not previously had experience in that country. This is always the case when employment is given by way of public charity, and not from the regular and wholesome demand of the public. Instead of a fair day's wages for a fair day's work, you have an unfair day's wages for an unfair day's work. The persons employed in conducting public works finding that labourers came to them rather than take private employment, reduced the wages to 6d. and 5d. a day; and the labourers finding that they were not paid more, did not work so effectually, and, in fact, did not give work that was worthy of the wages. Such are the evils which are necessarily consequent upon this kind of employment. There have, of course, been many other irregularities from this extraordinary measure. But I am sorry I cannot say that which any one in my situation would wish to be able to say, that this extraordinary remedy had put an end to the extraordinary evil, and that the time was come when we could go back to the ordinary rules which should govern our proceedings, and leave the demand for labour uninterfered with and underanged by any public measures. This time, however, has not come. I am sorry to be obliged to state that although there is at present in the greater part of the counties of Ireland harvest work sufficient and wages sufficient for the support of the labouring population, yet the prospect of the potato crop this year is even more distressing than last year—that the disease has appeared earlier, and its ravages are far more extensive. Sir, I have here some papers which have been furnished me by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. They are private letters, and contain statements which have been confirmed by letters I have myself received, and by letters that have been received by my right hon. Friend near me, and by the statements in the public newspapers. Here is one from Lord Shannon, in which he says—
"I regret to say that the destruction of the potato crop is proceeding more rapidly than could ever have been expected. It is the same with my own, which have had the benefit of the best care and draining in the cultivation. They are now
774
completely destroyed. Already the small farmers are assembling in great numbers, and I am sorry to say I very much doubt whether the same sums could again be collected which this year supplied the relief committee. I do not think that there will be a potato within reach of the labouring classes by next Christmas. Those which they are now eating are most unwholesome and unfit for human food. Within my recollection the prospects of this country were never so awful, and even in the most peaceful districts I can conceive that there may be the most fearful consequences among the labouring classes."
I have also a letter from Lord Enniskillen, addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, and dated from Florence-court. Lord Enniskillen says—
"It is my painful duty to write to you on the state of the county of Fermanagh, and of that part of the county of Cavan which borders upon it. Till within the last three weeks the potato crop was most promising; but the disease has since broken out in it with such violence, and so universally, that there is no prospect of a potato in the county at Christmas. My own fields are as bad, if not worse than those of my neighbours, although they have had all the advantage of good drainage. I consider it my duty to report the fearful state of the county."
I have also a letter from Lord Bernard (as we understood) to the same effect, and stating the resolutions which had been come to in consequence in the Bandon Union. The accounts from the north and from other parts are equally bad. Here is a letter addressed by Colonel Jones, from Galway, to Mr. Redington the Under Secretary. He says—
"I beg leave to report to you the result of our examination of the potato crop in Athlone. We proceeded in the direction of two lines diverging from the high road between the two towns mentioned. My attention was directed to the appearance of the potato ground, and the result of my observations was that there was scarcely a field that had not received the blight. It was easy to see this by the state of the stalks which were blackened. But we also entered a great number of fields, and had the roots taken up; in almost every case the tubers were diseased. The conclusion to which I have come, is that the crops for the present year will have lost three-fourths of their produce. The wheat crops are already under the sickle, and are very fine. The oats will be in in about ten days, and they also are very good crops. It now becomes my duty to state to you the condition of the relief works, and what I think it would be necessary to do in consequence. In consequence of the farmers paying higher wages just at present than the Board of Works, the number of persons employed on the public works, is much decreased. An order has therefore, been made, that if labourers do not present themselves within a given time, those works shall be stopped which have been deserted by the workmen. But I have every reason to believe that as soon as the crops shall have been finally gathered in, which will be in about ten days' time, there will then be a general rush for

775
employment on the public works, and great evils will ensue if there should not be employment."
And, Sir, the accounts from Sligo, from the south of Ireland, and from various parts of the country, all concur in representing the disease as being this year more fearful than it was in the last. The accounts in the newspapers from their various correspondents are to the same effect. Sir, it has, therefore, become our duty to consider in what manner we should propose to Parliament to make provision for some employment for the labouring people of Ireland—proposing that to Parliament for which we require the direct sanction of Parliament, and at the same time affording to the Government a discretion to take such measures as any emergency may in their opinion render necessary, of which measures they would afterwards give an account to Parliament. Sir, it has appeared to us, with regard to the first measure to be adopted, that while there ought to be public works, and those public works ought to be undertaken under due control, we should not, with regard at least to the general measures proposed, defray the cost of those works by means of grants, but by loans, to be repaid by the baronies and the counties in the districts for which they are granted. We, therefore, propose to introduce a Bill to this effect, that the Lord Lieutenant shall have power, on recommendation made to him, to summon a barony sessions or a county sessions for works for relief of the poor. When those sessions shall been assembled, they will be empowered and required to order such public works as may be necessary for the employment of the people and for their relief. I say, "empowered and required," because it is intended that it shall be incumbent on them, on being summoned to those sessions, to order those works. The choice of the works will be left to them, and they will be put in execution by the officers of the Board of Works. When I say that the choice will be left to them, I mean that they shall point out the works which they consider necessary, but the approbation of the Government will be required, that is to say, of the Board of Works, before those works can be finally undertaken. It is further proposed, that advances shall be made from the Treasury, for the purposes of those works, to be repaid in ten years at 3½ per cent interest, the lowest rate ever taken for works of this kind. The whole amount so advanced by the Government will, however, have to
776
be repaid. I should also state that in levying for the repayment of the money, and for the interest, those levies will not be made according to the assessment for the county rate, but according to the assessment for the poor rate. So that owners will be obliged to pay their proportion as under the poor-law assessment, and the poor occupiers will be, in a great measure, relieved from the assessment. I should add, also, that we propose to provide for another case—that of the very poor districts, where it would be impossible that the money should be repaid. We propose that there should be a grant, by Act of Parliament, of 50,000 l. for the purposes of such districts, where works shall be provided by the Government to be undertaken only on the ground of their being works of public utility, and of the districts being so poor as not to be able to undertake the expense of such works. In some such cases works of the kind have been undertaken. One case of the kind is stated in the correspondence, where, in consequence of the poverty of the district, a subscription to only a certain amount was taken, and a larger amount was given by the Government than the Act of Parliament authorized. The Bill to be introduced for the purpose will be similar to many other Acts of the same kind. The 1st Victoria, c. 21, is that which we propose to follow. We also propose that there shall be commissariat officers stationed in different parts of Ireland, who shall be in correspondence with Sir Randolph Routh, and who shall, from time to time, communicate with him on the state of distress in their several districts. Having already stated the evils which have in practice arisen from interference by the Government with the supply of the public food, I have only to add that we do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into the country. We propose to leave that trade as much at liberty as possible. But there may be particular cases, as there were in 1836 and 1839, where, in consequence of the part of the country where the famine prevailed being very inaccessible, it became necessary to employ the commissariat officers. As a general rule, however, we still take care not to interfere with the regular operations of merchants for the supply of food to the country, or with the retail trade, which was much deranged by the operations of last year. With regard to relief committees, we propose

777
that they should for a time be constituted, taking care to avoid those errors which have hitherto ensued from want of experience, and guided by the lights we have received from the practice as hitherto established. In particular, we shall endeavour to avoid the giving of tickets, by members of the relief committees, to persons who are not in need of relief. I should add that all the officers to be employed in the commisariat, and those employed by the Board of Works, will be paid by the Government for the services they perform. And here I feel bound to say, that the correspondence on the Table, and everything I have heard from private sources, show that there never was work undertaken with more zeal and intelligence, and with a more earnest desire for the relief of the prevalent distress, than that which was undertaken, last year, by the persons employed by the Government in this affair; that, whether I have to speak of that most intelligent officer Sir Randolph Routh, or of Colonel Jones, or of the officers of the Board of Works, whose correspondence is in these papers, or of the local persons employed; and likewise, generally speaking, of the relief committees, there has been shown the utmost desire to give all their time and attention to the relief of distress, and likewise to endeavour as much as possible to afford every light to the Government, by which abuses might be averted, and permanent inconvenience might not be produced. With these objects, Sir, I shall propose, first, that a sum shall be voted to defray the expenses already incurred, then a vote for direct advances by Exchequer Bills for the purposes stated, and also that grant which I have mentioned for those districts which may speedily require it. Sir, as I stated at the commencement, this is a special case, requiring the intervention of Parliament. I consider that the circumstances I have stated, of that kind of food which constitutes the subsistence of millions of people in Ireland, being subjected to the dreadful ravages of this disease, constitute this a case of exception, and render it imperative on the Government and the Parliament to take extraordinary measures for relief. I trust that the course I propose to pursue will not be without its counterbalancing advantages; that it will show the poorest among the Irish people that we are not insensible, here, to the claims which they have on us as the Parliament of the United Kingdom; that the whole credit of the Treasury and
778
means of the country are ready to be used as it is our bounden duty to use them, and will, whenever they can be usefully applied, be so disposed as to avert famine, and to maintain the people of Ireland; and that we are now disposed to take advantage of the unfortunate spread of this disease among the potatoes, to establish public works which may be of permanent utility. I trust, Sir, that the present state of things will have that counterbalancing advantage in the midst of many misfortunes and evil consequences. I know not that I need detain you any longer, than to assure the Committee and the House, that we consider that our predecessors in office did show a very laudable anxiety to meet the evil—that the remedies they applied were suited to the occasion—that we shall endeavour to imitate the spirit in which they acted, while we shall endeavour to take advantage of their experience to correct errors which were inevitable in consequence of such unforeseen difficulties. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first of the following Resolutions:—

"1. That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the issue of Exchequer Bills, of any sum not exceeding 175,000 l., to be made by way of Grant, and of any sum not exceeding 255,000 l., to be made by way of Loan for Public Works for the Relief of Distress in Ireland

"2. That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct Advances to be made by way of Loan out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or by the issue of Exchequer Bills, to defray the expense of Public Works presented for in Ireland, to facilitate the employment of the labouring Poor.

"3. That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct the issue of any sum not exceeding 50,000 l. out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or by the issue of Exchequer Bills, for the purpose of aiding in the execution of Public Works of acknowledged utility, in such districts in Ireland as are too poor themselves to bear the whole expense of executing such works."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take that opportunity to read one of two letters he had received that morning, and which he believed would be satisfactory to the House. He might, however, state, in addition to what his noble Friend had said, that it was not the intention at all to import food for the use of the people of Ireland. In fact, many merchants had declared that they would not import food at all if it were the intention of the Government to do so, and unless

779
the Government would given such an assurance. The letter which he would read afforded every ground for believing that the Government were taking the right course, and that there was every reason to hope that the food of the people would be provided by private importation. This was the letter:—
"Liverpool, August 15, 1846.
"Dear Sir—I think it right to mention to you that I am informed by some of the leading merchants in the corn trade that very large orders for Indian corn have been sent out to America, and they are now being sent out to an unprecedentedly large extent, for the supply of Ireland, the vessels, in many cases, being chartered to call at Cork or Falmouth (as the wind may serve) for orders.
"Indian corn has also been ordered, to a great extent, from Trieste, Corfu, and other ports in the Mediterranean. The trade in Indian corn being now quite free, it is hoped that Government will not interfere with the regular operations of commerce, as they did last year, when, owing to commercial restrictions, the Government alone could make the importation.
"The supply of Ireland may now be safely left to the merchants, who will manage the transaction much more economically that can be done by the Government.
"The price of Indian corn in this market is from 28 s. to 32 s. per 480 lb."
MR. D. BROWNEsaid, if anything could convince him that a local Parliament for Ireland would not be necessary, it would be the speech and the proposition of the noble Lord, and the way in which both had been received by the House. He felt confident that both would meet with the approbation of the people of Ireland, and would induce them to place dependence on the good disposition of the Government; and, furthermore, that they would not be led into those excesses into which a more patient people might be betrayed under prospects so disastrous as those of Ireland appeared to be. From the county he represented, he had received the most fearful details, not only of the present distress, but also of the prospect for the future, and he had petitions to present to the House in which it was stated that in two months there would be in the county of Mayo no food for the people. In giving this praise to the present Government, he by no means wished, however, to make any invidious comparison with the late one, which had acted with the greatest alacrity and benevolence. Nothing was more calculated than their conduct had been to remove from the minds of the people of Ireland the impressions produced by their conduct in other matters, to which he would not now allude. But if the late Government
780
were solicitous for the preservation of life and peace in Ireland, under the excitement and despair incident to the fear of famine, it was much more the duty of the present Administration, under circumstances of still more aggravated distress, to take measures for the purpose of providing against the threatening danger. While it was necessary to make those who were rich contribute to those who were without food, it was most dangerous to raise inordinate hopes in the minds of the people of Ireland. It would be most dangerous to make the people of any country dependent on anything but their own exertions. The tendency was to demoralize them, and to depress them from a condition of honourable freedom and self-reliance to a condition of abject dependence upon the pity of others. Great caution ought also to be exercised in regard to interference with the markets. Such interference, in many instances, had had the effect of increasing the prices and diminishing the supplies of food, because legitimate speculation was checked by the interposition of the Government. One advantage, he thought, would arise from the proposals submitted to the House. The attention of Parliament must necessarily be turned to some measure which should provide, that hereafter the people of Ireland should not be left dependent upon the generosity of this country. There must be some law enacted, which should take from the landlord and give to the tenant as much as amounted to the difference between starvation and comfort—some law to regulate the tenure of land for that purpose. A more extensive system of Poor Laws must be established for the purpose of making the landlords attend to the interests of their tenantry. Matters could not go on as at present. Another good result was, that the potato would no longer continue the staple food of Ireland. Mr. Cobbett's wish on that point was about to be realized. Energy and enterprise would be stimulated by the introduction of a higher standard of living. He trusted the attention of the Government would be turned to promoting manufactures in Ireland, so that the people should not remain altogether dependent upon agricultural pursuits, whence the least remuneration was derived from their labour; and not only to promoting manufactures but to improving harbours, fisheries, and the means of intercourse both by land and by water. The disposition of England was to give the people of Ireland, under present circumstances,

781
a fair chance of bettering their condition: and he believed that the House of Commons was most willing to take steps for carrying out the general wish, and promoting the material and social improvement of that country.
MR. WILLIAMSconsidered that the Government and Parliament were only discharging their duty in taking measures to provide against the threatened famine in Ireland. Under the system of Poor Laws established in England, provision was made for every man. That provision might not be so adequate as it ought to be; but still no human being could be placed in a position of destitution without having the means, by law, of obtaining relief. The same system must be extended to Ireland. He was quite convinced that if a system of Poor Laws, enforcing outdoor relief, were introduced into Ireland, the landlords would then discover means of obtaining employment for the poor, and the destitution of that country would, to a very great extent, be superseded by an extension of labour such as would prove highly advantageous to the landlords of Ireland themselves.
MR. LABOUCHEREhad no intention of entering on the difficult and controverted question as to the introduction of a system of Poor Laws into Ireland different from that which had already been established in that part of the United Kingdom. Any person who had paid the most cursory attention to the subject knew its difficulty. But while it deserved the most careful consideration on its own merits, he must be permitted to observe, that any incidental discussion upon such a question seemed to be altogether useless. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had stated that the Government had altogether abstained from calling upon the landlords of Ireland to take measures in reference to the distress which was impending. The hon. Gentleman could not have attended to the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord J. Russell). For what did the noble Lord propose to do in the measure he had submitted to the House? He proposed, and rightly, not only to empower, but to require the property of Ireland to meet the circumstances of distress and destitution which the failure of the potato crop had brought upon their country. But while the State required that the landlords should take upon themselves this burden and responsibility, it was due to them, in the circumstances
782
in which they were placed, that they should receive the assistance which the House had it in its power to offer. It was proposed to give the property of Ireland every facility for the purpose of enabling it to undertake the task. It was impossible to deny that Ireland was placed at this moment in a position almost unexampled in the history of a nation. A failure of the potato crop, the main article of subsistence among the people, and that people, or a large proportion of them, always in a state bordering upon destitution—a failure so wide, so sudden, so sweeping, in itself presented a very extraordinary state of matters, which required very extraordinary remedies; and all arguments drawn from an ordinary state of things were plainly inapplicable under the circumstances. The measures of the late Government on this subject had been characterized as wise measures. The Corn Laws had not been repealed; a heavy duty existed on Indian corn; and hence Government would thus be induced to take extraordinary measures for introducing a supply of it into Ireland. But now the trade was perfectly open, and nothing could be more fatal to the interests of the country than that the Government should undertake the business of the merchant. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read some letters, showing the advantages already produced by the assurances which Government had given that they would not interfere with the importation of grain by the ordinary channels of trade. A very remarkable instance had occurred within his own experience. A few days ago, a very large provision merchant in one of the principal ports on the west coast of Ireland said to him at an interview, "I am very much disposed to speculate largely in Indian corn; but I wish to have an assurance that Government will not interfere with my market. I wish to know upon what principle the Government means to proceed." The reply was, that in regard to articles of food the Government would under no circumstances import any; but that the same unqualified assurance could not be given against temporary and partial interference in particular cases where communication was difficult, though the Government were equally sensible of the necessity of leaving the retail trade in the hands of the dealers as well as the wholesale. On leaving the room, the gentleman went forthwith and purchased two cargoes of Indian corn, and had them sent

783
round to Ireland. What better proof could be adduced that it was not advisable for a Government to interfere with the commerce of the people; and that when a Government did interfere, the tendency was to stop the common processes and exertions of trade so as in reality to deprive the people of the subsistence which they required? He was quite willing to give credit to the late Administration in regard to the course they had pursued. Their proceedings had been actuated by the best intentions; their measures had been, conducted with very considerable ability; but it was impossible not to notice what was going on in Ireland at this moment, without being impressed with the evil consequences of interference by Government either with the import trade or with the markets of the country. He did not mean to say that the late Government did not act properly under the circumstances; but he felt it necessary to state some circumstances which rendered it inexpedient to persevere in the same course. In the first place, the provision trade was paralysed. In the next place, the labour market was utterly deranged; and by doing so very much, in many cases they had demoralized the habits of the labouring classes. The blue book on the Table was full of instances in illustration. A communication had that morning been put into his hands, which strongly confirmed the view he had taken. It was from a gentleman whose name he should not mention, but who was intimately acquainted with the subject. The gentleman said—
"The Indian meal was sold indiscriminately 20 per cent under prime cost, and the greater part was bought up in large quantities by the farmers with the proceeds of their potatoes in — market, and almost all the farmers have reared their calves upon it."
["Where?"] He would rather not mention the neighbourhood. In another passage which he should read it was stated that—
"The — got a large sum to spend, and set about public works; allowed the highest wages, employed a great number of men, mostly not persons in want, allowed those to bully them into letting them do as they pleased, and so scandalous an exhibition as these crowds of people working pro formâ, I never thought I should see."
The people preferred the relief works to ordinary employment. The Shannon works were deserted and the harvest operations relaxed, whilst the people flocked to those relief works, though the rate of wages was inferior. And why did they
784
do so? The relief work was not real work, it was looked upon as furnished in charity, and the work was not done in a proper manner. Though it was proper for the Government to see that the people were not in a state of destitution, yet unless a due check were imposed upon such efforts on the part of Government, they were likely to do more harm than good. He did not mean to say that in what was to be done next year, it would be possible to avoid altogether these evils. He trusted that by the adoption of suitable checks, those evils might, in a great degree, be avoided. They must not forget, however, that their first duty was to take care that the people did not starve. He hoped that the Bill which it would be his duty, in accordance with the intentions expressed by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), to lay on the Table of the House, would, as far as possible, prevent the Irish people from being left in a state of destitution, while at the same time it would provide efficient checks to control the administration of the measures for their relief. He hoped that by rendering it the interest, as well as the duty, of the landed proprietors to afford employment to the people, a vigilant and efficient control of the funds appropriated to their relief might be ensured. While, on the one hand, the Government called upon the landed proprietors of Ireland to tax themselves for the support of their poorer neighbours, on the other hand they held out every inducement to those proprietors to discharge that duty, by advancing them public money at an easy rate of interest, and extending its repayment over a period of ten years. He hoped and believed that this measure was as well calculated as any that could be devised for meeting and remedying the distress which unfortunately prevailed among the population of Ireland.
The EARL of LINCOLNregretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had not omitted the last portion of his speech, and that he had not left the case in the position in which it had been left by the First Lord of the Treasury; for certainly he had not expected to hear from the Secretary for Ireland so strong an argument, not only against everything that had been done by the late Government, but against everything that the present Government was about to do. If any reliance could be placed upon the letters which the right hon. Gentleman had read, if it could be proved that such gross and monstrous

785
abuses had been committed in Ireland under the system adopted by the late Government, he should not think of accepting from the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, or from any Member of the present Government, those commendations for the success of the measures proposed by the Ministry with which he had been associated, to which he felt bound to say with all humility he thought they were entitled. On the contrary, he should at once say that they deserved the condemnation of the House, and that those able public officers who had been employed by the late Government in Ireland, instead of discharging their functions properly, had most grossly neglected their duty. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman had filled the office of Secretary for Ireland, even for so short a space of time as that during which he had held the same position, he believed that right hon. Gentleman would admit that it was not safe to read such letters as those he had produced without previously substantiating not only the names of the writers, but the facts to which they referred. If they could suppose that Sir Randolph Routh, whose conduct had been highly and deservedly eulogized on all sides, had allowed the Indian meal, which had been imported by the public authorities, and which had been paid for by large sums devoted to that purpose by the Legislature, to be appropriated to fattening the calves of the Irish farmers, he would have been guilty of a gross breach of duty, which could scarcely have been committed by the merest tyro. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not stop here; but he stated that the grossest abuses existed with regard to the public works which had been carried on in Ireland. He was far from denying that abuses had occurred; indeed it was impossible, though the Government might exercise the most careful and vigilant superintendence, to prevent such abuses. He did not, however, believe that those abuses had existed to anything like one-tenth, or one-twentieth, or one-fiftieth the extent represented in the letters which had been read by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman, after commending the course the late Government had pursued, proceeded, by a course of ratiocination in which he confessed he was unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman, to contend that the result of their measures had been to demoralize the habits of the labouring poor, to paralyse the
786
labour market, and utterly to ruin the provision market. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I said, to derange the labour market.] He must say this was the first time he had heard, even from the most violent opponents of the course the late Government had pursued, so grave a charge as that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. If it could be proved that the measures adopted by the late Government had demoralized the labouring population of Ireland, he must say that in the course the present Government intended to pursue, which had been to-night announced by the noble Lord opposite, and of which he might say he most highly approved, they were unwisely treading in the footsteps of their predecessors, and contemplating measures which would not merely demoralize the habits of the poor, but reduce them to a state which it was fearful to contemplate. What was the difference between the course pursued by the late Government on this subject, and that which was proposed by the noble Lord opposite? The difference between the measures of the late and of the present Government was this: first, that the noble Lord opposite and his Colleagues did not intend any longer to import provisions from foreign countries on behalf of the Government; and, secondly, that they proposed to advance money on loan, and not by grant. It must, however, be remembered that the measures they contemplated would give a fictitious excitement to the labour market. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to encourage public works in Ireland; they were going to carry on, though not perhaps to the same extent as the late Ministry, precisely similar operations to those they had sanctioned. If, then, the late Government could be justly charged with demoralizing the habits of the labouring poor, it was evident that the noble Lord opposite and his Colleagues would expose themselves to the same imputation. But he denied that this had been the result of the course pursued by the late Government. On the contrary, he felt the greatest confidence, although there might have been—and he admitted there had been—great attendant evils on the measures they had felt bound to adopt, yet that, so far from occasioning anything like a permanent demoralization of the people, very considerable moral advantages would eventually result from them. He hoped the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne) would, on his return to Ireland, inform his

787
countrymen that no English Member had risen to object to the proposition of the noble Lord; and that even the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams), who was perhaps more jealous than any other Member of that House of the management of the public purse, had not said one word in opposition to the noble Lord's proposal; but, on the contrary, though he objected to largesses from the public funds, he had expressed his opinion that under the existing circumstances of Ireland such a measure was necessary. He hoped this fact would go forth to the sister country; and the people of Ireland would then see that whatever Government might be in power, they would not allow the poor of that country to starve. It would then be seen that the Government regarded the poor of Ireland with at least equal care and solicitude to that which they evinced towards the poor of this country; and our fellow subjects in Ireland would also know that even the most economical Member in that House had raised no objection to the measures proposed for meeting the emergency which had arisen. He believed that other advantages would result from the measures which had been adopted, and which were about to be adopted, by Government with regard to Ireland. Not the least of those advantages was the probability of inducing the labouring poor of Ireland to look to wages wherewith to purchase food, rather than to depend upon the produce of their small crops. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that the effect of the measures adopted for relieving the population of Ireland, had been to derange the labour market in that country. He admitted, that to some degree that might have been the result, but by no means to any considerable extent. The measures now proposed by the Government would, however, have a precisely similar effect—an effect which they could by no means prevent. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the measures brought forward by the late Government had paralysed the provision market. He (Lord Lincoln) believed, that if the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries on this subject, he would find that the charge was utterly groundless. If the right hon. Gentleman applied to Sir Randolph Routh, or any of those persons who had watched, with most scrutinizing eyes, every turn in the market, in order to obviate inconvenience from this source, he would find that this accusation could not be substantiated. Not long before he
788
quitted the office of Secretary for Ireland, he was called upon by a gentleman who made grave complaints respecting the administration of the commissariat department in that country. He might remark, in passing, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) seemed to have forgotten some of the habits of the office he had formerly held; for the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had given private information to a gentleman who applied to him to ascertain what course the Government intended to adopt, and who immediately went and purchased two cargoes of grain. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have acted more in accordance with the rules of the Board of Trade if he had abstained from giving information of that kind. As he had before said, however, a gentleman complained to him, when he held the office of Secretary for Ireland, that there had been a gross maladministration in the commissariat department, by which his interests had been materially affected. He immediately wrote to Sir R. Routh, stating the accusation, and requesting that gentleman to inquire into the case. Inquiries were accordingly instituted, and their result convinced him that the charges were wholly at variance with the facts. He was not, however, inclined to say, that the measures adopted by the late Government for affording a supply of provisions to Ireland should be continued by their successors in office. If the late Government had remained in office, it by no means followed that they would have persevered in the course they had, for a time, felt bound to adopt; and he must say, that he fully approved of the intentions of Her Majesty's present advisers on this subject. The circumstances under which the late Government interfered on this subject, differed very materially from those of the present time. When the Government of which he was a Member were called upon to adopt measures for the relief of the people of Ireland, Indian meal was unknown—or comparatively unknown—in the country. It was impossible to expect that private parties would speculate in that article. It had been tried in a small locality in Ireland, where it had been disapproved; and it was evident that, if introduced at all, it must be introduced by the Government with care and caution. He thought, however, that the course taken by the late Government with regard to the importation of Indian meal, had been much misunderstood.

789
The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne) had stated that the importation of Indian meal by the Government, had greatly discouraged private speculation in that article. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was entirely mistaken. He (Lord Lincoln) believed that, but for the efforts of the Government to introduce Indian meal into Ireland, and to persuade the people to adopt it as an article of food, no private importations would have taken place—at least to any considerable extent. But the moment an example was set by the Government in introducing this meal, private individuals engaged in the trade, and it had been carried on to the present time. [Mr. D. BROWNE had referred to speculation in the usual provision trade.] He fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Member for the city of London, that if the Government were now to import provisions, they would paralyse trade, and prevent those private exertions to which every country must look for a permanent supply for the sustenance of its inhabitants. After the speech of the noble Lord, who had fully explained his intentions, who had given ample credit to the late Government for the manner in which they had met the frightful emergency of the last year, and who had admitted that their views and intentions had been fully carried into effect by the able officers under their direction, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble the House, but for the observations which had been made by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. He considered that, under such circumstances as those in which Ireland was now placed, any Government that might be in power ought to be very largely trusted; and he believed the noble Lord had given to the House all the information he felt justified in affording them. He felt bound to bear his testimony to the admirable and efficient manner in which the officers of the commissariat department in Ireland had discharged their duties; he was satisfied the Government would derive great advantage from continuing their services during the winter; and he hoped no considerations of economy would induce the noble Lord to withdraw any of those gentlemen from the posts to which they had been appointed under the direction of Sir R. Routh. He need scarcely say that he entirely concurred in the approbation which had been expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury of the admirable manner in which those officers had performed the duties
790
that devolved upon them. He might also assure the House that his right hon. Friend under whom he recently held office, had felt the greatest anxiety with reference to the subject now under discussion. Never during the many years that he had been acquainted with his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had he seen him so nervously anxious on any subject—anxious that the means for relieving the people of Ireland should be fully efficacious, while they should be unproductive of inconvenience and derangement to the trade and labour of the country. With all those good intentions, however, and notwithstanding that the schemes of the Government had been well digested, it would have been impossible for them to have carried out their plans efficiently but for the co-operation they had received from their officers in the sister country. It was impossible to give too much praise to Sir R. Routh, to the Board of Works, and to two gentlemen who, at his (Lord Lincoln's) solicitation, had, in March last, most handsomely given their services to the Board of Works, in subordinate situations—Captain Larkom and Mr. Griffith. He must add, that those gentlemen had displayed the greatest zeal, and an ability that could hardly have been expected from individuals who had been so little habituated to service of the description in which they were engaged.
MR. LABOUCHEREfeared what he had said had been misapprehended by the noble Lord who had just sat down. He thought he had done ample justice to the late Government for the measures they had adopted for preventing a famine in Ireland. He had, however, deemed it right to state that, though those measures might have been necessary, they had been attended with some evil effects. In order to justify this statement, he might appeal to the published correspondence, page 341, where, in a Treasury minute, it was stated that—
"Those parts of the operations for the relief of the people which stand most in need of correction, are stated to be connected with the imperfect manner in which some of the local relief committees have executed the duties entrusted to them."
The noble Lord seemed to think that he (Mr. Labouchere) had made a general charge against the relief committees of Ireland. Nothing of the kind. He had only said, that in particular cases abuses had existed; and that his assertion was not unfounded was proved by the following extract from the minute:—

791
"It appears, as well from the report now before this Board as from the previous correspondence on the subject, that tickets for employment on the relief works have, in numerous instances, been distributed by the members of those committees, without regard either to the real circumstances of the applicants, or to the number of persons who could properly be employed—that the ordinary resort of Irish labourers to England, for the purpose of participating in the high wages consequent on the getting in of the hay and corn harvest, has been in some parts of the country suspended—that the great public works for the improvement of the Shannon and for the drainage of the country have to a considerable extent been left without workmen; and the people employed on the relief works have indulged in habits of indolence, preferring the receipt of an eleemosynary allowance under the name of wages to higher wages proportioned to the labour performed."
He (Mr. Labouchere) should be sorry to think that the noble Lord supposed he was disposed to underrate the manner in which the late Government, in circumstances of unexampled difficulty, had performed their Important duties; but he had considered himself justified in pointing out the difficulties with which any Government had to contend in dealing with a subject of this nature.
MR. HENLEYwould not say anything in opposition to the measure, for he thought that, with the prospect which the country presented before them, a more wise arrangement could not have been adopted. But it was vain to look at the measure as one of a mere temporary nature to meet a present emergency. The disease in the potato had been going on in America for four years past. It was known in these countries only two years. It had not ceased in America as yet; and there was no telling what the final result would be in this country. His main object in rising was to call attention to those matters, in order that the House might not be called upon in another Session for another temporary measure. They should be prepared to do something permanent. It would, however, be satisfactory to the people of this country to know that the House was much more liberal to their poor fellow subjects in Ireland than to the poor of England; for in the instructions to the inspectors of relief works, the very first was—
"The inspecting officer will in every case revise the lists of labourers employed upon relief works, so as to confine the persons to whom wages are for the future to be paid to those who are proved to have no other means of subsistence; and he will take care that the rule, that tickets are to be signed by two members, and are to be issued only through the secretary, as well as the other regulations
792
which have been prescribed to the relief committees for the purpose of preventing persons who are not really in distress from being employed upon the works, are properly observed."
It would be seen from these instructions that outdoor relief was to be given to the destitute poor of Ireland, who should appear to have no other means of subsistence; whilst in England they were obliged, not only to prove their utter destitution, but also that they had sought for employment and could not get it. They were opening a door which they would find it extremely difficult to shut. He trusted that some permanent measure would be adopted to prevent the recurrence of seasons of such helpless distress, and to put upon a better footing the general prospects of the country.
SIR J. D. NORREYSwished that the Legislature of the country would, in a future Session, bring forward such measures for the permanent relief of Ireland as would remove from the people of that country the necessity of coming to the British Legislature in the character of supplicants. Ireland had mines of the most extensive and valuable description; it had rivers peculiarly adapted for commerce and manufactures; and yet, in consequence of the Legislature not looking to the subject of the improvement of Ireland in a proper light, all those natural resources of wealth and comfort were allowed to lie waste and useless. He hoped the noble Lord would have the courage to attack the grand jury system in Ireland. The noble Lord wished to remove from the old grand jury system the power of taxation. He (Sir J. D. Norreys) would recommend him, instead of letting the selection of what was to be done in the way of public works remain with the baronies, to transfer the selection to the poor-law unions. Let the electoral divisions make the selections, and the unions have power to tax themselves. They would thus get rid of the baronies and the grand jury system at once.
MR. HUMEwas pleased to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because that was the language that ought to come from an Irish landed proprietor. He was pleased to hear that the landlords of Ireland were prepared to provide for the necessities of the people of that country as far as possible, in the encouragement of public works; for until they were prepared to do so, and to raise the funds from their own lands for their

793
improvement, it would be vain to look to England for relief of a permanent or improving nature. When the measure of the late Government was proposed, he (Mr. Hume) prophesied that it would derange the labour and the provision markets. The prophecy had come to pass. The effect of the relief works had been actually to prevent the labour from coming over to England and Scotland from Ireland, as heretofore; and a friend of his from a midland district had told him that such was the demand for labourers upon railroads, and the want of Irish harvest labourers, that they could not procure labourers for the usual agricultural purposes. It was dangerous for the public to interfere with the labour market Public money had been expended to no useful purpose whatsoever. They should go deeper, and strike at the root of the evil. Why should the Government be called upon to supply food for Ireland, and not for England or Scotland? Were the people of Ireland less disposed to work for their daily bread than those of England or Scotland? He believed not. They had abundant proof in England and Scotland that the Irish labourers worked hard and willingly; and was it likely that at home they were a whit less industrious? It was the result of misrule that the Irish people were thus destitute and helpless; and it was for the Government to look deeply into the causes, and remove them. They had hitherto mistaken the course they should have pursued. They had made a grievous mistake in keeping up a Government in Ireland of a nature opposed to the will and wishes of the people, in keeping up institutions that were hateful to them, and which they abominated. Those evils should be struck at; and it would be the duty of the Government to examine into them with a view to their removal. But to meet the existing distress, he approved of the measures and the present course of the noble Lord's Government.
MR. M. MILNESsaid, that all eleemosynary grants of this kind established very bad and corrupting principles. He perfectly concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose, that it was at once the duty of the English Legislature to place Ireland on a footing similr to England and Scotland in respect of its laws. He believed that if the landlords of Ireland were assisted by the Legislature in improving their estates, they would be conferring incalculable good upon the people of that country.
794
The people of England were undoubtedly willing to make great sacrifices for the relief of their Irish brethren; but they must, nevertheless, tell the landlords of Ireland that it was their duty to conduct themselves towards their dependents in the same manner as did the country gentlemen of England. The landlords of Ireland must retrench their luxuries, and devote themselves to the improvement of their country.
SIR R. FERGUSONthought that the sums to be raised should be raised upon the poor-law assessment, through the poor-law guardians, and the electoral divisions should be made responsible for the sums to be laid out within them. Provision should be made, of course, for the election of the boards of guardians. The election was at present excellent; but if they were to have the arrangement of assessment for public works, there would be much difficulty. There was one point to which he wished to draw attention, which had been overlooked as yet, and that was that the Board of Works in Ireland had been totally incompetent to the business entrusted to it. He gave the Board credit for the best possible intentions; but they were unable to manage the business which devolved upon them. He would read an extract from their report, which would exemplify the fact:—
"There is no doubt that many works were commenced without necessity. It is true the representations were extremely urgent and pressing, and therefore great precaution and judgment were necessary."
There was a great want in some way or other of a controlling power. The Board of Works threw the blame upon the relief committees; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland brought forward two anonymous statements casting blame also. He thought it very unfair to make statements such as those without mentioning the districts from whence they had been forwarded, and in which the matters complained of were stated to have occurred. The local committee had been completely overborne in many instances; but if the assessment were made local there would be a different result.
MR. B. ESCOTTsaid, it appeared to him that they were agreed on all hands as to the necessity of doing something for the Irish people. The Government of the noble Lord and of the right hon. Baronet were equally desirous of doing good for, and had equally good intentions towards,

795
that people. The only question was, how those intentions were to be carried into effect; and the great difficulty was, to reconcile the good intentions with the bad effects of the measures hitherto adopted. It could not be denied that the late Government were quite right in adopting extraordinary measures to meet an extraordinary exigency; but it was a fair question to be asked, whether there were not some ordinary measures which, although not sufficient for the present crisis, ought nevertheless to be proposed for the general and future welfare of the country. There were still heavy duties upon the importation of ccrtain articles of food. Would the noble Lord consult any great historian—would he look back, and say whether in the history of this country, or any other, they had, in a period of famine, in a period of distress for want of food—at a time when they were told that extraordinary measures were requisite to supply the deficiency in Ireland—whether he had ever heard in such circumstances of restrictions by law upon its importation for the purpose of making food dear? Why should not all such restrictions be removed at once? He was aware that the general feeling was, that the great question having been just settled, it ought not to be reopened; but when it was settled it was not known that the distress would be continued; and if the noble Lord oppsite (Lord G. Bentinck) were himself in power, he would hardly propose the re-enactment of the Corn Laws in the face of the pressing wants of a great body of the community. It was the duty of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government to erase from the Statute-book all acts restricting the import of food. At this moment beans and peas paid the same duty as that until recently imposed upon Indian meal, but now happily repealed. Parliament was bound under existing circumstances to remove the duty from all articles of food.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had heard nearly all the speeches delivered that evening with great satisfaction, and especially the speeches of the hon. Members for Coventry and Mallow, though they spoke on different sides of the question. He most willingly bore testimony to the wisdom of the measures taken by the late Government. The present Government had had the benefit of those measures, and if they had been able to improve upon them it should not be forgotten that they had had the benefit of
796
nine or ten months' experience of the existing system, to which some portion of the merit of their measures must be justly attributed. He could not agree that the measures of the late Government had failed. On the contrary, he thought they had been attended with most extraordinary success, considering the unprecedented difficulties and nature of the occasion. He did not hesitate to say, that the very existence of the people of Ireland in many districts was owing to the measures of the late Government, and not merely the existence of the people, but the preservation of the country from the outrages and disorders consequent upon a period of starvation. He thought also the noble Lord was justified in saying that they had introduced a new trade into Ireland, when, contemporaneously with the supplies ordered by Government, it appeared that supplies ordered by private persons had poured into that country. He rejoiced at the introduction in this manner into that country of a cheaper and more nutritious supply of food. He was sanguine enough to expect that it would prove a great blessing to the people of Ireland, by preventing their habitual dependence upon an inferior description of food, below which they could not fall even in time of famine. He rejoiced to find also that, in some instances, people in Ireland were giving up their dependence upon the produce of a little plot of ground, and availing themselves of the system of wages now known almost for the first time in that country. He thought this would produce a change that must be most beneficial to Ireland. With respect to the public works, he should, however, be sorry that it should be considered the measures taken by the late Government, or those proposed by the present Government, were to be a permanent system of relief for Ireland. They were only to be justified by the necessity which had arisen in consequence of the late and present failure in the potato crops, and which made it necessary they should afford extraordinary relief to that country. The hon. Baronet opposite complained somewhat of the expense incurred in comparison with the work accomplished; but it must be remembered the works were not commenced for the sake of the works themselves so much as to supply the wants of the people of Ireland, by affording them employment. It was quite true that in consequence of the very short notice at which they had been commenced it had been found impossible,

797
in some instances, to procure adequate superintendence; but here again, he hoped they should profit by the experience of last year, and that no complaints on this head would be made in future. He could not agree in the suggestion that the works should be executed by the counties themselves. If this plan were adopted, they would be executed in a different manner, and by a totally different class of persons. Works executed upon county presentments were executed by contractors in their own way and by their own men, so that if this system were adopted, the chief object the Government had in view would be frustrated. He, therefore, held it to be indispensably necessary that the works to be carried on in Ireland should be executed under the control of the officers of the Board of Works, aided and assisted, as far as practicable, by the local relief committees. When these committees did their duty, nothing could be more beneficial than the effect produced by their aid and assistance; and, therefore, he was most anxious to have local co-operation, because he was perfectly sensible that without it the system could not be carried out in as satisfactory a manner as it otherwise would be. With respect to the hon. Member's observations on the subject of levying the rate to be fixed by unions, he apprehended that there would, on that point, be no difficulty whatever; for he had it on the authority of Mr. Griffiths that it would be quite easy to levy the cess upon each barony, which would be in a form distinct from the parochial rate, as it was intended it should be. The Government were most anxious to propose a measure of temporary relief for the present distress of Ireland; but they were also desirous to avoid, as much as possible, mixing it up with the poor-law system that prevailed in that country. Having in his official capacity had to examine most of those matters in question, he was bound to confirm to the fullest extent, and in the strongest manner, the statements of the noble Lord opposite, as to the conduct of the officers who had been employed in carrying out the plan of the late Government. He thought it was the best mode that could be proposed to permit the local magistrates to make the assessment, because, from the nature of their connexion with the several places, they would assess just sufficient for the purposes contemplated, and no more. It was because he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to see the Irish govern themselves in, these matters,
798
and work their own machinery, that the present system was proposed. It was, however, only right that the burden should be ultimately thrown on the landed interest of Ireland, and not on the shoulders of the people of this country.
MR. M. GOREsaid, there was one circumstance that had not yet been alluded to in the course of these discussions, and as it bore materially on the condition of Ireland, he should now allude to it. He referred to the fact of a very inferior species of potato having been cultivated in Ireland for some years past. This had been pointed out some years ago, and the opinion was then expressed, that it could not fail to lead to disease. He held in his hand a statement on this subject, which could not be suspected, as it had appeared in a railway report of 1838, and was never intended to be brought forward in a discussion of this nature. This passage stated that want of employment in Ireland had led to a great deterioration of the food of the peasantry—that the species of potato cultivated, was much inferior to what it had formerly been—and that the great tendency of such a state of things, was to lead to disease among the potato crops generally. This was in 1838, and the evil had gone on increasing since, so that there must needs be no great surprise at finding that there was a failure, and that disease should have succeeded. He wished to take that opportunity of pressing upon the Government the great importance of attending to the fisheries of Ireland, which, by giving employment to the population, and at the same time producing supplies of food, was a matter which ought to attract their most serious attention; the propriety of diffusing information among the people by providing them with instruction as to the different kinds of fishing tackle, &c., to be used, was also a matter deserving attention. He also hoped that measures would be be taken to promote, on an extensive scale, the drainage of land throughout Ireland. These were matters which he trusted the Government would not overlook, as the best means of giving employment to the population, and attaching them to the interest of this country, making Ireland in peace a source of wealth to England, and in war one of its strongest bulwarks.
MR. B. ESCOTTsaid, he would tomorrow ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), if it was his intention to continue, under existing circumstances, and

799
in the distressed condition of the people, the laws imposing restrictions on the importation of food?
LORD J. RUSSELLthought the hon. Gentleman himself had given a very distinct answer to the question, when he said the Corn Laws were settled. And to-morrow he should certainly say no more than he said now, that it was not his intention to unsettle that Corn Law.
Resolutions agreed to. The House resumed. Resolutions to be reported.

CARRYING TRADE WITH THE SPANISH COLONIES.
On the Question, that the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply be read,
LORD G. BENTINCK, rose to call the attention of the House, pursuant to his notice, to the state of the carrying trade between this country and the Spanish Colonies. In doing so, he begged to apologize to, and express his sympathy with, his noble Friend at the head of the Government, that he was not in the Highlands: and to assure his noble Friend, that in calling the attention of the House to the subject in question, he intended to make no observations of an aggressive nature on Her Majesty's Ministers. The grievance of which he had to complain was one of many years' endurance on the part of the commerce of this country—it was a matter upon which the merchants of Liverpool had been continually remonstrating for the last twelve years. They then in vain called the attention of his Grace the Duke of Wellington, at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to this grievance. From year to year they had since applied to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and upon the change of the Whig Government—from 1842 to the present time—it had been a complaint with the merchants of Liverpool, that by the regulations of the Spanish Government—by the non-reciprocity of the Spanish Government—by the free admission the Spanish Government afforded to Spanish in comparison with British vessels—they had lost, not certainly the whole, but the very much larger part of the carrying trade with the Spanish Colonies. He was bound to apologize to the House for the imperfect manner in which he should be obliged to bring the question forward; it was only within the last few days he had been called upon by the merchants of Liverpool to interpose with Her Majesty's Government, that justice might
800
be done to British interests in this matter; and therefore he had had no time to obtain those returns which would give him the latest information on the subject. But for the purpose of calling the attention of the House and the Government of this country to the question, it would fortunately be sufficient to lay before them that information which regarded former years; while at the same time he stated that no change whatever, for the better, had taken place in the conditions referred to, as affecting at that period, British interests in these Colonies. He should begin, therefore, by stating to the House the difference that existed between the charges made upon. British goods exported into the Spanish Colonies in British bottoms, and British goods sent thither in Spanish ships; and having pointed out that great discrepancy—amounting to so much as necessarily took the greater part of the carrying trade to these Colonies from British ships—he would show the House that this was the case in fact. He held in his hand a statement of the case laid before his Grace the Duke of Wellington eleven years ago, which he should beg to refer to for the information of the House; first reminding them that the facts therein stated remained the same to the present moment. It was a statement of the amount of duties of all kinds charged on two cargoes of British merchandise sent from. Liverpool, the one in an English ship, the other in a Spanish vessel, to the Spanish colony of the Havannah. The cargo was one of general goods. It included woollen goods, linen goods, and cotton goods; and the value of the goods exported—the export value of the goods—was 1,975 l. There were 1,000 blankets, of the value of 150 l.; 1,000 yards of blue cloth, of the value of 100 l.; 1,000 yards of linen, of the value of 100 l.; 100 mantillas, of the value of 100 l. These were some of the articles. By a valuation made in Havannah, the distictive duties levied were at the rate of 21¼ per cent upon goods exported in Spanish, ships, while they were at the rate of 30¼ per cent, ad valorem, upon goods landed, from British ships. This cargo also included 1,000 printed calicoes, of the value of 500 l., and other articles of a value making the whole amount, as he had stated, 1,975 l. Well, upon this cargo the duties levied by the Spanish Government, when it was carried in a Spanish ship, were 582 l. 11 s. 9d.; but when it was carried in British ships the duties levied

801
amounted to no less than 826 l. 0s. 6d., making a difference of 243 l. 8s. 9d. upon the same goods when imported into Havannah, by a British ship, as compared with the amount when they were imported by a Spanish. But this discrimination in the duties was over and above another discrimination in the tolls taken in port. The difference in port dues and wharfage was almost equally restrictive against the British merchant. The port dues were 5 rials per ton upon Spanish ships, and they were 12 rials a ton upon British vessels. Then with regard to the expenses of wharfage—the wharfage was six rials a day upon every 100 tons for Spanish ships; but it was 10 rials a day for every 100 tons of English vessels: and the hemp dues were 1–6th of a rial per ton upon Spanish ships, while they were twice that amount per ton upon British bottoms. The result of all these duties was, that it rendered it so much more advantageous to export goods in Spanish ships rather than in our own, that whilst, in 1833, a Spanish ship, laden from the Spanish Colonies, was never seen in Liverpool, it was now almost as rare an occurrence to see an English ship in the port of Liverpool, laden with goods from the Havannah. The difference of the duty on the import of goods was 12 l. 6s. 6d. per cent, for when imported in British ships the duty was 41 l. 16 s. 6d. per cent, and when imported in Spanish ships it was only 29 l. 10 s. per cent. Well, this grievance had been enduring for twelve years. America felt this grievance as well as England. Spain endeavoured to run her rigs on that country; but our American neighbours knew how to resent the attempt. Within two months America brought forward and passed a measure of retaliation, by which that country enforced higher duties on goods or produce imported into American ports by the ships of Spain, and higher rates on ships of Spain, equivalent in amount to those duties attempted to be imposed by Spain on goods and ships trading to Spanish ports. And the Americans did not stop there; they allowed no Spanish ship to leave the ports of America without imposing on goods exported in those ships duties equivalent to what would have been imposed if the goods had been sent to the Spanish Colonies in ships of America. The result of this conduct was, that Spain abandoned her restrictions, but retained them with respect to this country; so that while England was precluded from carrying goods to Spain on an equal footing with Spanish and American ships, the
802
produce of Spain was allowed to be imported into this country without any differential duty being demanded. He admitted that as far as pilotage and lighterage charges were concerned, Spanish ships paid double the amount compared with the charges levied on ships of this country. Dock dues were also higher; but there was no distinction as to goods, and the result was that in the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, he found this to be the state of the carrying trade between Liverpool and Cuba. He found in the year 1838 the total declared value of cargoes, these cargoes consisting of various descriptions of merchandise — earthenware, glass, nails, hardware, machinery, coal, and cases and bales of manufactured goods, comprising, indeed, all the great manufactures of this country — he found that in the year 1838 the declared value of the cargoes exported to Cuba was 472,927 l.; of this amount there was carried by the ships of Great Britain but 61,487 l., by the ships of America 92,781 l., and by the ships of Spain 318,534 l. value. In 1839 the amount of merchandise carried to Cuba by the ships of Great Britain was 35,997 l., by the ships of America 69,930 l., and by the ships of Spain 265,106 l. in value. In 1841 the declared value of the cargoes to Cuba was 518,399 l., of which amount but 33,308 l. was carried by ships of Great Britain, 49,446 l. by American ships, and no less than 428,254 l. carried by ships of Spain. So that, in point of fact, the ships of Spain were carrying thirteen times the amount of goods carried by the ships of Great Britain. This was the effect of admitting the ships of foreign countries into free competition with the ships of Great Britain. And here was the tendency of such doctrines—for by their operation, some of the worst-sailed ships, manned by some of the worst sailors, were able altogether to beat the ships of Great Britain in the carrying trade on the Atlantic Ocean. He had spoken of the years 1838, 1840 and 1841: he had not been able to get returns down to a later date; but he knew what was going on at Liverpool at that moment, and he found at this very time there were six Spanish ships and but one British ship loading for Havannah—the one British ship measuring 176 tons; the six Spanish ships measuring 1,296 tons. That was the state of British commerce at Liverpool at the present moment, He found that by this state of things a great advantage was given to Spanish over British ships—in

803
fact so great was this advantage, that merchants were willing to pay 60 s. per ton for Spanish vessels, in preference to 10 s. per ton for British vessels engaged in this trade. Now, considering the alteration in the law with regard to sugar, and the probability of the importation of sugar from Cuba, hitherto forbidden, he must say he thought the present was an appropriate moment to press the matter on the attention of the Government. It had been calculated by the First Minister of the Crown that we should get from Cuba 20,000 or 25,000 tons of sugar the next year, or the year following, which, at the rate of 25 l. per ton, would make the value of the sugar about 500,000 l. sterling, for which this country would have to pay to Cuba. It was reasonable, therefore to expect that a considerable part of this payment should be made in British merchandise, and that an increased exportation of British manufactures should take place. Well, then, as we were about to give an additional impulse to the trade of Spain, this appeared to him to be the proper time to press the Spanish Government to remove those duties which gave that country nearly a monopoly in the carrying trade. He observed, on a former occasion, there was also another consideration connected with this question—that you were going to exchange the trade with the West Indies for trade with Cuba and Brazil—that you were going to exchange a trade of which you had the monopoly, for another trade of which we could only expect a share; and that, as far as Spain was concerned, she was at this moment enjoying twelve-thirteenths of the carrying trade of Cuba. It was time, then, for Her Majesty's Government to exert themselves to obtain some redress for the merchants and ships of our own country. He had before adverted to the course taken by the American Government. He took leave to recommend to Her Majesty's Ministers an imitation of the course so successfully adopted by the United States of America. The United States of America did not trust to the moral example of the liberality of their country. The United States of America had at once recourse to energetic measures of retaliation; and those measures were successful. We had tried to conciliate for twelve years—we had tried the effect of conciliation with Spain—we had tried the effect of giving all we could yield, without asking anything in return; but we had not yet induced Spain to be generous. We
804
found it uniformly the case that nations, like individuals, will keep all they are allowed to keep, and will give up as little as they can. The new system of policy, and the new doctrines propounded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that it was beneath the dignity of this country, or rather beneath the dignity of free trade, to haggle about inconsiderable matters, he confessed that for one he totally disagreed with that doctrine. If it were vulgar to have recourse to this haggling, it was certainly the more prudent course when commerce was concerned; and he even said if this course was not effectual, it would be better to have recourse to measures of retaliation, and to have some kind of understanding with foreign nations before we made gifts to them from ourselves. They had been told by the right hon. Baronet that free trade was the only true commercial policy, and the only true principle of commerce. Against this authority he would quote another great authority across the Atlantic, Mr. Webster, with whose opinions he coincided. In 1843, Mr. Webster said—
"With respect to the navigation laws the only true principle of politics was that principle to be found in the old navigation laws of England, which had been invented by some old statesmen in Cromwell's days."
His object in calling the attention of the House to this matter was to rouse Her Majesty's Government to make some effort: not to trust to simple negociation; but to hold out threats of retaliation if the Spanish Government would not consent to remove those restrictive duties which yielded to her a virtual monopoly of the carrying trade between Great Britain and her Colonies, and which deprived the ships of Great Britain of almost all participation in that trade. He begged to say he had not made his Motion, or called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the subject, with any hostile intention towards Her Majesty's Ministers. They had had as yet but little time to attend to the commercial policy of the country; and they could only share with their predecessors a proportion of the charge of neglect with which the shipping interest of Great Britain had been treated. It mght be said it was not right to bully a country like Spain. He conceived, however, this was not the true view of the case. We were bound to look to the interests of Great Britain, and to advance those interests consistently with honesty and justice. His noble Friend,

805
above all others, would have the best right to insist on justice, for when in office in former times he had never shrunk from insisting on the rights of Great Britain. He who had maintained those rights against a powerful country—he who feared not the power of France—need have no delicacy in pressing on the attention of Spain this matter, and further requiring Spain to remove those restrictive duties which shut out our ships from the carrying trade of her Colonies. If Spain, however, continued to shut out our ships, he hoped the Government would shut out the trade in sugar sent from Cuba to England. If things remained as they were, he feared the effect would be that British ships, thrown out of the West Indian, the Mauritius, and the East Indian trade by the rivalry of the sugars brought from the Brazils and the Spanish settlements, would be able to find no employment by the way of set-off in the carrying trade required by the sugars of Porto Rico and the Havannah sent to this country. Though it was a late period of the Session, he hoped he should be considered as having done no more than his duty, and be pardoned by the House for having transgressed on their time, while he called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the great grievance he had detailed, and to the consequent depression and disadvantage under which the shipping interest of Great Britain now laboured.
MR. MILNER GIBSONdid not think that the noble Lord was called upon to have made any apology for having dwelt at such length upon this subject. The question was one of very great importance; and it was desirable that it should be submitted to the consideration of that House. The noble Lord had truly stated that there was at this moment prevailing in Cuba a tariff which, by favouring Spanish ships, had well nigh excluded British vessels from the carrying trade with that island — both with reference to the importation of manufactures into Cuba, and with reference to the exportation of produce from Cuba. The noble Lord had been correct in his statement that this tariff had existed for some time; but recent changes which had taken place in that tariff, and which had effect from the 1st of March in the present year, had in some respects made its operation more favourable to British interests, while in others it had tended to mitigate it. For instance, there had been a change in the tonnage duties; but that change had
806
been found to work favourably for the interests of England. The change had been brought in for the purpose of compensating for the difference between the tonnage as measured by the Spanish regulations and by the laws of England. The shipowners had now their option whether they would pay the 23 per cent tonnage duty as imposed by Government, or submit to their ships being measured according to the Spanish system; and those who had submitted to the alternative found that it worked well for British interests, and could not be said to be anything in reality but a mitigation of the duty. In respect, however, of certain duties on goods brought in by British ships, and of certain fees imposed by the quarantine laws, the discriminating duty as against England and other foreign places had been increased. It was quite true, that although formerly all ships paid the same quarantine fees, yet at the present time British and other foreign ships had to pay twice as high a quarantine fee as was paid by the ships of Spain. The noble Lord, however, should not be surprised at the apparent indisposition on the part of Spain to remove discriminating duties as affecting British ships and goods, for it must be in his remembrance that on a very recent occasion, when an effort was made on behalf of Spain to place such a construction on the commercial treaties between that country and England as to entitle the goods of Spain to be brought into the English ports at the same rate of duty as those of any other country, even the most favoured, England declined to sanction any such interpretation of the Treaties, and distinctly repudiated the idea that there were between this country and Spain any thing like Treaties containing the "favoured nations" clause or clauses of reciprocity. Spain had demanded that the sugars of her Colonies should be admitted into England on the same terms as those of other countries; England declined to accede to the demand. He did not mean to say, that if England had adopted the opposite course, and acceded to the application, Spain would have been precluded from placing higher duties on British goods and British ships than on her own ships and goods coming into her own Colonies; but he thought he was quite safe in assuming that if a more liberal, and, as it appeared to him, a juster construction had been put upon the Treaties, Spain would have been induced to act in a more kindly spirit, and to reduce her differential duties. It was

807
not for him to say what course Government would pursue for the future; but for his own part, he would not hesitate to express a hope that it would not be such a one as was pointed at by the noble Lord—a course of retaliation. Conciliation had not yet been tried. It was but yesterday that the sugars of Spain were admitted on the same terms as those of other lands. England's commercial policy, until recently, had been illiberal—it had been one of general restriction, and under it these hostile tariffs had grown up. In conclusion, he had to express a hope that for the present, at least, the noble Lord the Member for Lynn would content himself with having brought this question under the consideration of the the House. The noble Lord had eloquently denounced monopoly in the Spanish Colonies; and it was to be hoped that he would be found equally energetic in protesting against it whenever he found it to prevail nearer home.
MR. M. GOREsaid, he had received a letter from a Spanish merchant in London, which stated, that—
"Spanish vessels enjoy advantages to an extent which amounts to an exclusive employ of the former. All goods exported from England to Spain and her Colonies, if in English bottoms or ships, are subjected to a duty of 25 per cent on their value; but transmitted in the vessels of Spain no duty attaches, and hence you will readily observe what sort of reciprocity subsists between us and Spain. This is an improper advantage, and it ought to be met by some countervailing regulation. It is true the wines of Spain are for the most part brought here in English vessels; but on inquiry into this seeming anomaly, I find it arises from a few ships of a peculiar size and despatch being used and built by us, and which enables us to effect the freight on cheaper terms than even the Spaniards can carry this particular traffic. England has so little attended to what is going on in Spanish shipping, that she permits without any retaliation ships to come from Old Spain and all her dependencies—from the Havannah especially—without reference to the excluding tariff of Spain; and one consequence is, that the commercial marine of Spain has increased to an amount of tonnage as large as in her days of prosperity."
At this very moment Spanish ships were now loading in London for Manilla and other places, both in Spain and in her Colonies; whereas of English ships loading for the same destination there were only two, and those only touched at Cadiz in their way to Gibraltar. In Manilla, Puerto Rico, and other Spanish Colonies, as well as in Old Spain, many Spanish vessels were now building.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The subject which has been submitted to the consideration
808
of the House by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, is, I admit, one of very great importance, and one in which the shipping interests of this country are very deeply involved. I share unaffectedly in the regret expressed by the noble Lord that a commercial policy, hostile in any respect to those great interests, should have been adopted in any country; but at the same time I feel, that however unfriendly to British interests may be the intention of certain tariffs, the energy and ingenuity of British merchants may in some cases succeed in mitigating the practical effect, and diminishing the real extent of the evil. I wish, however, to have it understood that I do not say this with the intention of leaving it to be implied that I do not believe it to be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do every thing in their power to reduce, and, if possible, altogether to remove, the evil of which the noble Lord complains. Most undoubtedly it is their duty so to do; but at the same time the noble Lord and the House will do well to bear in mind that the ground which any Government may take in remonstrating with other countries against evils of this kind, must very much depend on what may be the characters of the treaties and engagements subsisting between this country and the country against which we may suppose that we have cause of complaint. There are two descriptions of treaties affecting the international commercial relations. The first is called a reciprocity treaty; the other is that description of treaty which entitles the contracting parties, in their trade with each other, to be treated mutually on the footing of the most favoured nations. Reciprocity treaties are those by which two countries engage that the shipping of each shall be in the ports of the other on the footing of national vessels. Now, I am not aware that we are entitled, by any existing treaties between this country and Spain, to demand as a right that the British shipping in Spanish ports should, in regard of tonnage, and in all other respects, be placed on the footing of Spanish vessels. We had, however, treaties with Spain, which, according to the construction which I and those who were of the same opinion with me, put upon them, did entitle the respective parties, in their commerce with each other, to the footing of the most favoured nations. Therefore, undoubtedly, if it can be shown that Spain, yielding to the retaliatory measures of the United States, has exempted the shipping

809
of the United States in Spanish ports from the duties to which British ships are liable in their ports, that would be a fair ground on which we could take our stand for resistance. I am not just at this moment in possession of sufficient information as to how this matter stands; but I am sorry to say that the treaties and engagements between England and Spain, which were in themselves complicated in their nature, from the circumstance of their depending on many old treaties, of which the language was in some places obscure, and in others might appear self-contradictory, has been rendered more uncertain still by the interpretation which of late has been placed upon them. At the same time, the measure which Parliament is now adopting with respect to the sugars of the Spanish Colonies, does, I think, as the noble Lord remarks, afford an opportunity of putting these matters on a clearer, more certain, and more satisfactory footing. Of course the Queen's Government will feel it to be their duty to avail themselves of every favourable opportunity to make these relations as satisfactory as possible; but at the same time I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade in thinking that one of the methods advocated by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn would be most unwise and inexpedient to adopt. I cannot think that the policy of retaliation for which he contends so strenuously would be either wise or useful. The noble Lord, as it appears to me, rather mistook the grounds taken by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in stating his objection to this retaliation system. The right hon. Baronet did not state his objection to that system to be one founded on the ground of dignity or national honour. He stated that it was one founded simply on the ground of practical advantage—and he was right. Most assuredly we do not object to retaliation, because we do not think it a dignified mode of enforcing treaties. Our objection is, that it is an inexpedient and ineffectual mode of remedying an evil. If you could reasonably expect that retaliation would at once produce its effect, and that the country on which you retaliate would be led thereby to concede what you desire, it might perhaps be worth while to endure a temporary evil for a great permanent advantage; but I am sorry to say that experience does not warrant the opinion that such a result can be reasonably depended
810
on. And it is clear that if you have recourse to retaliation, and fail, notwithstanding, in accomplishing your purpose, the consequence is, that instead of one, you voluntarily subject yourselves to two evils which you cannot prevent. What happened in the case of your commercial relations with Naples attests this. Some years ago, when the present Government was in office before, we conceived that we had a just cause of complaint against Naples; and we did resort to retaliation. When the duties on foreign oils were very much reduced in this country, we still retained a high duty on Neapolitan oil, because Naples had not chosen to do what we were entitled to expect with respect to our commercial relations with that country. Our retaliatory proceeding had no effect in reducing the high duty of which we complained as being imposed by the Neapolitan Government; but it had the effect of subjecting our commerce and manufacturing interests here at home to great inconvenience and annoyance by the continuance of the high duty; and I believe the ultimate result was, that the late Government at last found it expedient to adopt a different course of policy altogether. I only mention this, that the House may understand that we now, in Her Majesty's Councils, are not prepared to resort to a system of retaliation. I am clearly of opinion, that it is not a wise nor an expedient policy, unless, perhaps, in very extreme and particular cases, and for this reason I will not advocate its adoption; but I will exert myself to the utmost not only to remedy the evil to which the noble Lord has adverted, but also to place the commercial relations of both countries generally on a more satisfactory footing.
MR. DISRAELI: I consider, Sir, that the adoption of measures of retaliation must depend entirely upon circumstances; and the success of such retaliatory measures must depend, of course, upon the forming of a prudent judgment with reference to those circumstances. With regard to the case to which the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has referred, it affords no proof of the inexpediency of retaliation. The noble Lord has confounded (perhaps not unintentionally for the purposes of debate)—the noble Lord has confounded retaliatory duties upon articles of commercial exchange with retaliatory duties upon the means of conveying those articles of commerce from another country—the retaliation to which my noble Friend

811
the Member for Lynn has referred; and the fact is, that there is not the slightest analogy or similarity between the two circumstances. Undoubtedly if we retaliate on a foreign country by laying an excessive duty on articles of which we are in want, our retaliation produces no effect on the policy of that foreign country, while we are suffering by depriving ourselves of articles of necessity; but that does not refer to a retaliatory policy with respect to navigation. If in the present instance we should retaliate by laying a duty on the use of Spanish ships, we cannot, under any circumstances, prevent this country having the advantage of the article on which the duty is laid; and if we prevent the Spanish ships from coming to this country, we succeed in our object; whereas when we prevent Neapolitan oil from coming to this country, as we have succeeded in preventing it from coming here, we inflict a great injury and inconvenience on the manufacturers of this country. The instance which the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) has brought forward as a warning to us when we recommend a retaliatory policy to the Government, has really little bearing on the question before us; and I think I shall have little difficulty in showing to the House that although a retaliatory policy with reference to an article of commerce often fails, a retaliatory policy with respect to a matter of navigation almost always succeeds. I have an instance in my hand which bears on the question before us. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn has referred to returns so late, I believe, as the year 1841; and he regretted that it was not in his power to refer to returns of a subsequent date; but I happen to have a return of July 18, 1846, of the ships loaded on that day in the port of Havannah; and if the House will permit me (it is a very brief return though sufficiently full), I will read the result. It throws a considerable light as to the effect the policy of the United States has produced upon the employment of their shipping. Now, on the 18th of July, 1846, of ships of three masts, there was one British, nine American, five Spanish, three French, two Danish, and of other natioas, two; in all twenty-two. Of two masts—five British, twelve American, twenty-six Spanish, French, Dutch, and other nations, seven; there was no British schooner, six American, eleven Spanish, and two French; in all nineteen, making altogether ninety-five ships loaded in the harbour of Havannah on the 18th of July;
812
and of those forty-two were Spanish, twenty-seven American, and six British. So it seems from that return, that the Act passed 1st Session, 21st Congress of the United States (that must be in the year 1834) produced in the course of those twelve years a considerable effect. But let the House remember, that while twelve years have elapsed since the United States determined to pursue in matters of navigation with Spain, as regards their commerce with her Colonies, a policy of retaliation—that while twelve years have elapsed since Congress resolved upon that retaliatory policy, the result of which is exemplified to the House in the returns which I have just read, that is exactly the period during which Great Britain has been trying a policy exactly the contrary. During those twelve years England has been displaying towards Spain and her Colonies a policy most conciliatory: she has admitted Spanish ships under similar advantages to her own into this country—America has prosecuted, in self-defence, a policy exactly the reverse. I now leave the question to the House and to the country, with this fact which I have brought under their notice, and its two specific results to which I have referred. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade to make a speech, which recapitulates every sentiment and argument almost that have been used by my noble Friend, but holds out to us a most vague and general prospect of relief—it is extremely well for the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to do as he always does, give a most agreeable and lucid exposition of the peculiar form which diplomacy may have assumed in reference to the subject under argument; but I want to know what prospect of relief is held out by them to those persons who are engaged in the carrying trade in Liverpool and elsewhere, while the noble Lord the Member for Lynn has shown us that the carrying trade between England and the Spanish Colonies is almost entirely enjoyed by Spanish ships. I am not one of those who would be frightened at hearing that eight Spanish ships are in the river Thames, as the hon. Member for Barnstaple informs us. I should not object to eighty Spanish ships being there; but I do not want those ships to be there because they enjoy an advantage that English ships do not enjoy in Havannah, Manilla, or Porto Rico; and have obtained the carrying trade between England and the Spanish Colonies in consequence.

813
The Americans have pursued a retaliatory policy; and the result is, that at this moment there are loading in the harbours of Havannah five times as many American ships as British ships. The traders of England feel that they have suffered much. They feel also that there are means of giving them relief, and can refer to a statement, the accuracy of which eannot be denied, to prove it. They refer to a statement, which cannot be denied, to show what the remedy should be; and what do the Ministers of the Crown? I do not blame this particular Ministry—they are fresh in office, and are only following the policy of their predecessors. What do the Ministers of the Crown?—or what, for the last twelve years, have they done? Do they promise relief? No; but, on the contrary, they tell us that the very policy we recommend, the specific remedy which we suggest, is one of which they do not approve; but no single argument has been brought forward to induce any hon. Gentleman to believe that the objection on the point is not deserving of consideration. With reference to the Treaty of Utrecht, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade has referred, I would observe that I always took the same views of the rights of Spain under that Treaty which have been professed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I rose when that question was discussed; and if, Sir, I had caught your eye, I would have answered the observations which were then made in support of the views of the individual who recently occupied the office of Secretary of State. I regret the policy that was then pursued, and I think that the construction which was put upon that Treaty by the noble Lord was accurate. But after all, it does not bear upon the question before us. Here is a grievance that cannot be denied. Here is a remedy, or that which we allege is a remedy, for that grievance; and it is not a question of existing treaties, or a question with reference to the construction or interpretation of treaties; but the question is this, whether, under the circumstances of the case, a powerful Government may not, with firmness and temper, obtain relief. It is a case in which a powerful Minister may obtain that relief. I do not say from Spain, for it is a weak Power; but it might be obtained, under the circumstances of the case, from the greatest Power of the world, if it were
814
going to enjoy the commercial advantages which the country in question is about to obtain. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State, when he gives more mature consideration to the circumstances, will find there are means by which a remedy may be obtained. I do not say that a retaliatory policy should necessarily be adopted; I say that it is the specific remedy before us if it should be necessary; but I cannot doubt but that a representation from the British Government to the Spanish Government at this moment would be received with the greatest consideration; and when I learn that it is the conviction of the commercial public of England that a retaliatory policy might obtain for this country the same remedial consequences that it has obtained for the American public, I cannot doubt that, if it shall be necessary, a retaliatory policy will be adopted, or some arrangement come to that will satisfy the necessities of the English public.
MR. HUMEcould not but think that the hon. Gentleman had given an answer to himself. On reference to the return of shipping at Havannah, he found for one English vessel, fifteen or twenty Americans; and on examining the exports and imports, the hon. Member would find that America was able to supply staves, provisions, and all the articles the colony wanted, and took from that colony its sugar and produce. The Americans, had therefore, the double advantage—they went there with a cargo of the produce of their country, which was required by that colony, and they brought back the produce of that colony in return. But what did they (the English) do? They had not provisions or other articles which that colony required. They had manufactured articles, it was true, but they went in very small bulk compared with the produce of that colony. America, from its proximity, was peculiarly favoured in carrying that produce; but what did they (the English) do? Did they take any of its sugar? No, they rejected its sugar; and could they be surprised that the Americans, going with a cargo and taking a cargo in return, were able to have the carrying trade, while they were deprived of it? But they had done something for the cure of this during the present Session; and the moment they received in England the produce of that colony, they would see that English shipping would be employed. It was their own fault that they had hitherto been excluded; but now that Government were taking

815
measures for admitting the produce of those colonies, they would thereby be enabled to obtain the advantages of which heretofore they had been deprived.
Order of the Day read.

THE OCCUPATION OF CRACOW.
On the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
MR. HUMEsaid, he had given notice on a subject which for many months had occupied much of his time. In the month of April last, he had asked whether there was any objection to lay on the Table of the House copies of correspondence, or whether there was any, with respect to the unfortunate state of Cracow. On the 22nd of February, the army of Austria, and afterwards of Russia and Prussia, took possession of that place, and the atrocities that followed in Gallicia were appalling to any individual who read them, and it appeared they took place under circumstances where we were in some degree entitled to interfere. The right hon. Baronet then at the head of the Government very candidly stated his abhorrence of the accounts that had been received. He said he could not believe them, and begged of him not to press his Motion at that time. The right hon. Baronet said information might be obtained at a future period without embroiling the Government by any interference in that House. He would be the last person to interfere in any question that would risk the peace of the world or the peaceful relations of this country with any State; but here there were circumstances in which they were placed by treaties which rendered it absolutely necessary—nay, which rendered it the imperative duty of that House, in the maintenance of the honour of the country—to demand the observance of those treaties by which they were bound. The Treaty of Vienna was a treaty which he had always complained of, inasmuch as they became bound by it to maintain the continental system. It might have led them, as it did in some degree, to be embroiled in the disputes of the Continent; and he had often regretted that those treaties had been entered into; but Administration after Administration had thought fit to maintain those treaties, and it then became a question whether there was any portion of them that more immediately deserved the consideration of the House than another. It became a question whether they, in that House, having to maintain the honour of
816
their country, and to support that Treaty, should not interpose when an inferior State was interfered with, and the liberties of that State attempted to be destroyed. He was sorry to say that nothing had been done since the year 1830, when they lost the opportunity which then occurred of restoring to Poland her rights that she had lost. He regretted that Earl Grey had not used in 1830 the language which in 1793 he had used in that House. He regretted that, as Minister of England, in conjunction with France, he had not demanded the restoration of the rights of Poland when that country was in arms in assertion of its own rights. He regretted that the honour of England was sullied by allowing other States to trample upon a Treaty to which she was a party, and the liberties of Cracow to be interfered with. The Government had been, on a former occasion, called upon to send a representative to Cracow as consul, there being consuls there from the other three States, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. The noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign department was then also at the head of that department; and his answer then was, that the Government were taking steps to send out a consul to take upon him the duties of that office. Who had interfered he did not know; but in the following year, when a noble Lord, not now in the House, who had always taken a praiseworthy part in the affairs of that country, and up to the present moment exhibited the same regard for its liberties, was asked in 1837 why the noble Lord had not fulfilled his pledge and sent out a consul, he said the Government had given up the intention; but never stated why or wherefore. Were they to remain in the peculiar position they now occupied? It would be discreditable to a powerful State like England. They had guarantees in the independence of Cracow; but they had not the courage to assert it, or to place before the public the demands they had made. He, therefore, thought, on the part of the public, as well as on the part of the unfortunate individuals who were placed in this unhappy position, they were entitled from the noble Lord to an answer exculpatory of the conduct of the English Government. He should be sorry they did any thing to promote a breach of peace between that and any other country; but it behoved the British nation to renounce those Treaties altogether, or to demand their fulfilment, and not allow those Treaties to be hanging over them,

817
and becoming, at a future period the means, perhaps, of embroiling them, while at the present moment, they would not, though possessing the power to do so, demand that they should be observed. If they made that demand, and Austria, Russia, and Prussia should refuse to comply with it, it would become a question whether that refusal would free them from the bonds which the Treaty of Vienna placed on them. It appeared, by the general Treaty of Vienna, that there were two points connected with this subject. The first had regard to the Poles generally; the second had special references. The 1st Article of the Treaty declares that—
"The Poles who are respective subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia shall obtain a representation and national institutions regulated according to the degree of political consideration that each of the Governments to which they belong shall judge expedient and proper to grant them."
This part of the Treaty remained to that hour unsatisfied. The Power mentioned in it had failed to fulfil the stipulations of the Treaty, and England was cow-hearted enough never to have demanded that it should be put in force. From thence had flowed all the evils which had fallen upon that unfortunate country. This country sent fleets and troops in cases where inferior Powers refused to fulfil Treaties, and we sent them to coerce such countries because they were weak. When, however, we had to deal with Austria, Russia, and Prussia, we shrunk into our shells, and thus this country has become the reproach of all the Liberals on the Continent as well as in this country. By the 6th Article of this Treaty, the town of Cracow with its territory is to be for ever a free, independent, and strictly neutral city, under the protection of Austria, Russia, and Prussia. In the 9th Article, the independence of Cracow is distinctly put forward.
"The Courts of Russia, Austria, and Prussia engage to respect, and to cause to be always respected, the neutrality of the free town of Cracow and its territory. No armed force shall be introduced upon any pretence whatever."
This Treaty was signed at Vienna on the 9th of June, 1815; and he found that the British Ambassadors put their signatures to it, and pledged the honour of England to act in conjunction with the three Powers with regard to Poland and the maintenance of the independence of Cracow. If there had been only a single treaty on the subject, it might be said that there was some mistake in the matter. But there was an additional Treaty relating to
818
Cracow, signed by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, and dated the 3rd of May, 1815, in which it was expressly engaged that there shall be no interference with the independence of Cracow. The 6th Article said—
"The three Courts engage to respect, and to cause to be respected at all times, the neutrality of the free city of Cracow and its territory, and no armed force shall enter it under any pretence whatsoever."
In subsequent articles of this Treaty, the free city of Cracow was guaranteed the enjoyment of its independence. This was a clear question on paper; but the Treaty had failed to be fulfilled, and Great Britain had never remonstrated on the subject. This country might not have succeeded; but still it was her duty to remonstrate. Why there had been no remonstrance it was for the noble Lord to explain; but, at any rate, they must be informed why anything of the kind had taken place. There was another Treaty of the 3rd of May, 1815, with respect to Poland, and in which there is a guarantee to Cracow of a constitution, and that it should be ensured in the enjoyment of all commercial benefits which could arise from independence. He believed that our non-interference in this matter had been productive of great mischief. He would not go into details on that occasion: it would be sufficient for him to say, that on the 20th of February last there arrived a force of Austrian troops at Cracow, which took possession of the place without any remonstrance on the part of this country. After a short time these troops were removed, and took with them all the public authorities. Soon after the Russians marched there, and, after remaining some time in the place, disturbances broke out naturally from such treatment as the people were exposed to; and this had led to the most lamentable results in that city. He had with him details of the atrocities committed in the neighbourhood of Cracow, which were so unlike the occurrences of the present age, that it was with no small difficulty that any one could believe them. This was the case with the right hon. Baronet lately at the head of the Government, who stated that the accounts were of too horrible a nature for him to suppose that they could have taken place under the Government of Austria. He and others believed that the Austrian Government was guilty of these proceedings; and this Government was what was called a paternal Government—

819
a word used on the Continent to describe it. The population in those districts had been urged to butcher the landowners, without any reason that he knew of, by the Government under which they lived. The Austrian Government was accused of having taken steps to encourage and reward assassination. Such proceedings appeared almost incredible; but from statements before him he believed that they had taken place. What he wanted to know was, whether England had interfered in the matter, as she had a right to do, and asked on what grounds these proceedings had taken place. In Cracow they were told—but there was no proof of this—a certain part of the population had combined and corresponded with committees sitting in Paris, London, and elsewhere, which were endeavouring to promote a revolt against the three Governments. Surely it would have been easy for these Governments to have proved this, for they had seized all the documents within the walls of the city, and might easily repel the charge which had been brought against them. It would at least be satisfactory to know that there was some ground for interference, and that it was not a gratuitous culpability on the part of those Governments. He must express his earnest hope that the day would come when they would again see Poland an independent nation. He thought that it was possible, before long, that a change might take place. By proceedings in that place they might tend to buoy up the spirit of independence in that unhappy country. What right had Austria, Russia, and Prussia, those despotic States, to deprive the Poles of the privileges given to them by the Treaty of Vienna, and which were guaranteed to them as strongly as possible by England? There had, however, been a direct infraction of the Treaty by these three Powers, and every promise given to the Poles had been broken. In spite of the Treaties existing between this country and Austria, Russia, and Prussia, Austrian troops still held military possession of Cracow. It would be far better for the honour of this country to be no longer a party to the alliance, if it took no steps to ensure the fulfilment of the pledges and engagements entered into with regard to Poland. The nationality of Poland had been destroyed; and now the llttle spot which had been preserved had been invaded and overrun by a military force. He hoped that the noble Lord would be able to remove the doubts which he felt as
820
to the conduct of the British Government in these transactions. He should like to know why this country did not take the part she ought to have done in 1831, and which was essential for the honour as well as for the protection of British interests. He felt that he had inadequately brought the subject before the House; but he had no wish unnecessarily to detain the House, and would conclude by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence between the Government of Her Majesty and the Governments of Cracow, Russia, Prussia, or Austria, relative to the appointment of a British Consular Agent at Cracow, since the declaration made by the Minister of Foreign Affiairs in the House of Commons, in the year 1836, of his intention of sending a Consul to reside at Cracow."
MR. M. MILNESsaid, that no one was more unwilling than himself to occupy the time of the House. On a question like the present, however, individual Members of that House might have advantages which did not fall to the Members of the Government. Words might fall from a Member of the Government which might be considered as an improper interference with the affairs of foreign countries; but the observations of private Members could only be regarded as an indication of public opinion in the country, which must be looked on with respect. He believed that the principle of non-interference was becoming the favourite foreign policy in England. In this country, where there was no frontier but the ocean, there might be a pretence for letting the affairs of the Continent go on without interference on our part, when it was not likely to bring them to a successful issue. The question brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was a matter in which we were engaged, and a matter in which pledges had been put forth, and engagements had been entered into with the people of Europe. The Treaty of Vienna was accomplished by means of the blood and sacrifices of England, and but for the exertions of this country it was more than probable that the arrangements entered into by that Treaty never would have taken place, and matters would have appeared under a very different aspect. It was therefore not only a question of right of interference on our part, but also a question of justice. The arrangements in connexion with that Treaty had been brought about by England, and she was responsible

821
for the infraction of that Treaty. It had been said on more than one occasion, "What was the use of interfering if we were not prepared to go to war? If not go to the ultima ratio regum, why interfere at all?" He did not believe that the influence of England was so little on the Continent that we could not interfere effectually without enforcing our remonstrances by physical force. The question of Cracow had on former occasions been brought before the House in 1836 and 1840, on both which occasions his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs took part in the debates. On both of these occasions his noble Friend said that he regarded the encroachments on that place as essentially unjust, and if he had abstained from remonstrance, it was on the ground that it was difficult to give effect to our remonstrances. But was there to be no end to encroachments without remonstrance? It was because we did not effectually remonstrate, that these things had gone on. His noble Friend said, in 1836, that it was not for the dignity of this country that it should appoint a consul when it was probable that his exequatur would be refused by the three Powers. Now, if England and France, under the Treaty of Vienna, had appointed consuls, he did not believe for a moment that the three Powers would have refused them, for the independence of Cracow was declared as far and as formally as words could do it. Cracow was as independent a town as Hamburgh, and was entitled to receive her representatives from other countries, and be never could understand the ground of refusal. There appeared to be a culpable neglect on the part of this country, for from our proceedings the three Powers might assume that they might do with Cracow what they did with Poland. The 9th Article of the Treaty of Vienna distinctly stated that no armed force should be introduced into Poland under any pretence whatever. There seemed to be some difficulty with respect to the other part of this article. It was distinctly stated that the town of Cracow should give up fugitives, deserters, and persons under prosecution belonging to the country of either of the high Powers. It did not appear that any means were provided for enforcing these provisions on the republic of Cracow if it refused to give them up. Nevertheless, they had never seen a case which should justify the invasion of the rights of Cracow, that no armed force should be introduced into that town on any pretence
822
whatever. The protective Powers might have found that this was a place to which refugees resorted, and it might have been a matter of consultation how to get rid of them; but what did they care for the opinion of the other Powers which were parties to the Treaty when they took possession of the town by an armed force, which was as gross a violation of a treaty as had ever occurred? He had heard no reason assigned why the Austrian troops retained possession of the place. He was induced to support the Motion by the hope that by doing so they should get some explanation on the subject. He had no desire to make a statement or come to a decision on the documents of the plaintiff alone; but the difficulty was that the defendant would not enter on her defence. It would not do for the Austrian Government to say that this country took the case on the statements of its adversaries only. This country wished to see the grounds which induced the Austrians to commit a violation of the Treaty of Vienna. The occupation of Cracow by the Austrian troops was an avowed fact. After a short time they left the place, taking with them the civil authorities of the town; and some persons, who were fond of notoriety in the place, came forward and formed themselves into what they called a Provisional Government, and Cracow was then declared to be in a state of insurrection. There must be some explanation on this point, for the result was that Cracow was in the possession of Austrian troops. In the proclamation which had been issued on this subject, there were two statements which were as contradictory as possible. The first was that Cracow was declared to be as free as ever; and by the second it was declared that the citadel which commaded the town should remain in the possession of the Austrian troops. So much for the liberty of the town. The matter did not end there; for what was the corollary? A few refugees went over the frontier into Austrian Poland. He must say however, that the facts were so difficult to get at, that it was not possible for him to give any very distinct account of what had taken place. But immediately those refugees had passed over the frontier, there happened in Gallicia one of the most frightful events which had ever occurred in modern times. He must express to the House his astonishment at the manner in which it had been attempted to smother this question in Germany, and particularly in the

823
Government of Austria. Such proceedings almost established the truth of statements so extraordinary and horrible as to be unexampled in history. The statements he was about to make were taken from documents which had not been contradicted. In Gallicia there existed the old relations between the proprietors and the peasantry, or rather the old system of that country. The mass of the nobility represented not only the large proprietors and gentry, but all freeholders; while the people were in almost a servile state. When the refugees came over into Gallicia, the whole of the local authorities there seemed to have been struck with a most extraordinary terror. They seemed to have imagined that all the proprietors of that country were about to rise in rebellion; and they considered themselves authorized to issue an order to the peasantry of that country to possess themselves of the persons of the proprietors in any way they could. On the 26th of February this order was issued by the Prefect of the province:—
"I call upon the inhabitants of Tarnow that they shall take possession of the turbulent spirits (meaning the proprietors). To do this they may arm themselves with their scythes and their hatchets. They shall deliver them up to the Government; and I am authorized for this immediately to give to those persons who shall so deliver them up a sufficient recompense in money."
So it appeared the peasantry were authorized by the Government to give up to the local authorities the gentry of their country; and they were told to do so with their scythes and their hatchets, and that they should receive an adequate reward, Now, in any country such an order as this would be followed by the most injurious and disastrous consequences; but that was not all. They were told to bring in the proprietors living, if they could; but if they could not bring them in living, then to bring them in dead; and the local magistrate who made this proclamation said he was authorized to give the reward. There was no means of knowing whether he were or not; but it was to be hoped, for the honour of humanity, and for the honour of a great European Government, that he was not justified in making the announcement. That proclamation was followed by the massacre of 1,478 of the proprietors. 1,478 corpses were brought in to the Government, and rewards paid for them. Of these from 60 to 70 were the priests of the country; and of the remainder a large proportion were women, including some ladies of the very highest class. In one family sixteen members
824
were destroyed. But there was no use in reiterating these facts. He was sure he had said enough to impress the House with a feeling of horror at the circumstance. But when it was over—when that awful sacrifice was accomplished—what then took place? Did the Austrian Government come in and repress those outrages? Did it declare that such things were horrible, and that the authors of such cruelties should be treated as criminals? No. The men who committed the most frightful of these atrocities were assembled together when an order came out, on the 12th of March, in these words:—
"Faithful Gallicians: you have aroused yourselves for the maintenance of order and law; you have fought for the law, and you have destroyed the enemies of order."
This was the way in which their atrocities were acknowledged. And again, when one man who escaped demanded justice, justice was promised to him, but accompanied with this remark—"You have come dressed in mourning, but you have no right to mourn for the victims who have fallen;" and this was the only survivor of a family of which sixteen members had been murdered. If such events occurred in any country with which England had relations of even the most distant amity, he would say they would be perfectly authorized to speak of them in that House, and to call upon the Government to remonstrate—it might be in the most friendly spirit—with the Government which permitted such things to take place; but it was impossible to deny but that by the same Treaty of Vienna, the Poles subject to Austria, to Russia, and to Prussia, were, to a certain degree, placed under the protection of this country. The hon. Member for Montrose had quoted the article in which England guaranteed their constitutional rights; and if he spoke in over harsh terms of the manner in which these rights had been violated, it was simply because they were left in doubt by the Austrian Government as to the part which it had taken in these transactions. That Government knew what had taken place in this country on the subject—it knew also how strongly its conduct had been protested against in the French Chambers; and yet nowhere could he find that it had given the least explanation on the subject, or that it had attempted in any way to modify the opinion entertained of its conduct. On the contrary, there was published in the Government Gazette of the 28th of April, 1846, a statement from

825
Prince Frederick of Schwartzenberg, in which, the acts that had taken place were declared to have been authorized by the Austrian Government. Should such events as those which had occurred in Cracow be allowed to pass without remark on the part of our Government? When the subject was discussed, in another place, much was said of the general humanity and the paternal character of the Austrian Government. He was not there to deny the truth of that character. On the contrary, he knew that the greater part of the subjects of that Government lived in as happy a relation with the State as was consistent with absolute government. He believed that of the absolute Governments of Europe, Austria claimed the foremost place in securing happiness to its people—at least as far as Germany was concerned, for as to its Italian States he would not speak—and in affording cheap and ready justice from man to man. Austria maintained an enormous army and an enormous police; but yet it adopted the brutal policy of setting class against class, and of putting arms into the hands of the lower, in order that they might massacre the class above them. He would not enter into the subject of the conspiracy in which those proprietors were said to be engaged. It was said that there was a great conspiracy hatching; and it was by these means that it had been frustrated. The Austrian Government said they were aware of this conspiracy; could they not have met it then with legal measures? Could they not have entrusted its suppression to the ordinary military and political power? They had not the excuse of a sudden outbreak; and if any had been attempted, the Austrians had not less than 80,000 troops within call. He would ask the House to imagine the Government of this country guilty of such acts—of its suspecting that some political difficulties were about to arise in any part of this kingdom, and of its arming the peasantry of England or of Ireland against the gentry, in order to prevent the conspiracy from proceeding farther. He hoped his noble Friend would not consider that he had in any degree compromised the right of this country to interfere. The few remarks which he offered were made in a spirit of moderation, and with an earnest hope that the Austrian Government might be able to cleanse itself of this great stain. He trusted they might be able to show that they were not guilty of those great crimes with which they were charged. To refer
826
for a moment to the subject with which he had commenced, namely, the continued encroachments made upon the Treaty of Vienna, he should say that he thought it most injudicious for these German States to be continually setting aside the provisions of treaties. They had seen up to very late years a declaration expressed by other nations and people, that they were determined to tread under foot the Treaty of 1815; and if the German Governments used in this manner treaties towards the weak, they would perhaps find in the day of danger, when they appealed to those treaties themselves—when they were driven to call upon Europe to preserve those treaties on their behalf—they might perhaps not find the public opinion of Europe so ready to stand by and protect them in their rights as they would if they themselves had perfectly maintained and respected the rights of such weaker States as Cracow, which, however small and weak it might be, had still its rights guaranteed to it by the great Powers, one of which was England.
VISCOUNT PALMERSONsaid: Sir, nothing can be more painful to men of proper feeling than discussions turning on the subject of Poland, because they relate to a great and a noble people, who, in former times, held a prominent position in the community of European nations, and who, by injustice of the greatest magnitude—though at a period now remote—were deprived of their national existence, and have gradually been absorbed within the territories of neighbouring countries. But the events to which these recollections apply are events which are now matters of history; and whatever may be the aspirations, of those who belong to that nation, who, looking back to the ancient glories of their country, think that the time may arise when the former condition of Poland may be re-established, we, sitting in this House and knowing what are the treaties and engagements by which the Powers of Europe are bound, and by which the present distribution of Europe has been regulated, cannot in our considerations go farther back than the Treaty of Vienna. But to that we are ready to go, and on that we have a right to take our stand. Sir, the Motion which my hon. Friend has made, is one that I cannot think it my duty to accede to. My hon. Friend has moved for the production of correspondence which took place between the British Government and the Governments of Austria, Russia,

827
and Prussia, now ten years ago, turning on a state of things then existing, and bearing on intentions which the British Government at that time entertained of sending a consular officer to Cracow. Sir, I think it was my duty on a former occasion to explain generally to the House the grounds on which a similar Motion could not be agreed to by Her Majesty's then Government; and I took occasion to state, that at that moment there were circumstances in operation which had created much irritation among the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Vienna; that there were differences of opinion on rights and facts which grew out of the different views entertained by those Governments and the Government of this country, with respect to a matter then at issue. They entertained different opinions from us, and we maintained different opinions from them; and I think it not right to produce the correspondence which passed between this Government and the Governments I have mentioned; but I am confident that the House, if that correspondence were produced, would not think that we did not maintain those opinions with proper dignity and proper regard to considerations of justice. But, Sir, I think that after ten years have passed since that correspondence took place, it would be very injurious to rake up the differences that existed at that period, and which had not any bearing on this subject. I even think that, with respect to the interests which I know my hon. Friend has at heart, the production of that correspondence would be injurious; and that those interests would not be assisted in any degree by the production of that correspondence. I never did attach so much importance as some Gentlemen have attached to the appointment of a consul at Cracow. In the first place, it is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) has stated, that a consular officer is one whose functions require the consent of both parties before they can be exercised. He cannot act without an exequatur from the Government of the country in which he is to be placed; and it is acknowledged to be the perfect right of every Government to accept or refuse the placing of consular agents in any part of its territory. But I really, as I said before, cannot admit the great importance that is attached to this particular consular appointment. Whether the Treaty of Vienna is or is not executed and fulfilled by the great Powers of Europe, depends
828
not on the presence of a consular officer at Cracow. It depends on the communications which may take place between the Governments which are concerned in it; and these communications are totally independent of a consular agent at Cracow, whose only duty would be to furnish you with information of what was going on there. That information in the present instance has been unfortunately but too abundantly supplied from other sources; and I do not think that either my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. M. Milnes), or my hon. Friend who made this Motion, will say that we required information from a consul at Cracow to furnish grounds necessary for us to make a communication to Austria on this matter. I shall be quite ready, however, to give my hon. Friend the Papers connected with the correspondence with regard to the present state of things which have been moved for in the other House of Parliament, and which it is quite fitting this House also should have before it. It is impossible to deny that the Treaty of Vienna has been violated in the recent transactions. The Treaty of Vienna is explicit in regard to Cracow. It distinctly states that the republic of Cracow shall be a free and independent State; and to that condition not Russia, Austria, and Prussia alone are parties, but Great Britain and France, and the other Powers of Europe that were parties to the general Treaty of Vienna are also made parties to that arrangement. It was foreseen, no doubt, by those who drew up that Treaty, that a small State like Cracow, placed between other larger and more powerful States, would need protection; that it was liable to be overrun by some of its powerful neighbours in the course of events that might very possibly occur hereafter. It was, therefore, for the interest and safety of Cracow, that it was placed under the protection of the three Powers. It was not placed under the protection of any one of the three Powers; but it was placed under the protection of all three, in order that their conflicting interests with regard to Cracow might afford a greater security for maintaining the independence of that small republic; and therefore nothing can be clearer than this—that the Treaty of Vienna imposes on the three Powers the duty of maintaining the independence of Cracow, and gives to none of these three Powers any right to overthrow or suspend that independence. At the same time it must be admitted, that if you give to

829
Cracow the rights of an independent State, you also impose on Cracow the duties of an independent State, and the responsibilities dependent on those rights. That is to say, when my hon. Friend stated that he saw in the Treaty of Vienna certain obligations imposed on Cracow, namely, the obligation of not harbouring persons dangerous to the safety of the neighbouring States, and that he saw no condition which afforded the means of performing that obligation; one must admit that if Cracow violate its Treaty engagements, the remedy is war, and those means which war between different countries afford. In the present case I believe the general outline of the fact to be, that it was known to the Governments of Austria, of Russia, and of Prussia, that there were going on plots and conspiracies, if you choose so to call them; at any rate that there were going on communications, the object of which was to produce an outbreak in the Polish provinces or dependencies of each of those three Powers. I believe that information to that effect was timely given to the three Powers. In Prussia measures were taken which prevented them being carried out—warning was given to some of the individuals concerned; arrests, precautionary arrests, were made, and no explosion of any serious kind took place. Now what happened at Cracow was this. It was imagined by the Government of Cracow that schemes were in progress, the tendency of the accomplishment of which would have been to disturb the tranquillity of the city; and application was made by the Government of Cracow for the entrance of foreign troops into their territory. Now, it is a different question, whether, if that was not sanctioned by the Treaty of Vienna, it was a violation of the Treaty of Vienna. It would, I think, be difficult to say that; and, I think, that in a just interpretation of the Treaty, that article of it which says that foreign troops should not enter into the territory of Cracow, must mean that they should not enter without the assent of the Government of Cracow. However, be that as it may, I believe the original entrance of the Austrian troops into the territory of Cracow was in consequence of an application from the Government. But then those Austrian troops retired. Why they retired has never yet been explained. With them retired the Government and the authorities of Cracow; the immediate, at least the early consequence of that retirement, was the establishment of a provisional Government
830
in Cracow, and the inroad of troops from Cracow into the Austrian territory. That was undoubtedly an act of hostility. They seized the salt mines of Wieliczka, and some of the treasure there in store. No doubt the Austrian troops were justified in repelling that inroad, and it might have afforded sufficient reason for their pursuing those troops into the territory of Cracow, to prevent the recurrence of a similar incursion. Well, Sir, therefore in regard to those recent events in Cracow, I would give the three Powers credit for not having intentionally departed from the engagements of the Treaty of Vienna; but I maintain, undoubtedly, that when the emergency which they allege as the ground of their proceedings shall have ceased, it will be the duty of the three Powers to replace the republic of Cracow on the footing of complete independence, to which by the Treaty of Vienna it is entitled. Now, I hope that such is the intention of the three Powers: I have no knowledge to the contrary; but I rather think that the House will find amongst the papers which I shall be ready to produce, an assurance that that is the intention of the three Powers. I have too high an opinion of the sense of justice and of right that must animate the Governments of Austria, of Prussia, and of Russia, to believe that they can feel any disposition or intention to deal with Cracow otherwise than Cracow is entitled by treaty engagements to be dealt with; and I am quite sure that those Governments must be sufficiently sagacious to have seen of their own accord the force of the reasoning to which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) has referred, namely, that the Treaty of Vienna must be taken as a whole—that it cannot be permitted to any Powers to pick out from it articles which they choose on the one hand to have observed, or on the other hand articles which they are to be allowed to violate. And, Sir, I must say that if there are any Powers parties to that Treaty who have the strongest interest that the settlement of Europe which was effected by the Treaty of Vienna should be maintained, those Powers undoubtedly are the Powers of Germany; and it cannot have escaped, I am sure, the sagacity of those who govern those countries, that if the Treaty of Vienna be not good on the Vistula, it may be equally bad on the Rhine, and on the Po; and therefore I am convinced, that not only a sense of justice, but a sense of policy and of self-interest, will lead those Powers to see that the

831
Treaty of Vienna must be respected as a whole, and that it is eminently for their interests that that whole should in all its parts be observed. I need not, I believe, assure the House, that no efforts will be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring under the consideration of the Governments concerned all those reasons and arguments which may be necessary, if indeed any be necessary, to confirm them in that course of proceeding. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) expressed his regret that in 1830 and 1831 a different course was not pursued. He expressed his regret that the late Earl Grey did not in 1831 hold the same language with regard to Poland which he had held in 1793. But I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will see that the fact to which I have already referred, namely, the intervening circumstance of the settlement of Europe by the Treaty of Vienna was a sufficient reason why my late noble and lamented Friend could not in 1831 have taken the ground on which he might have stood in 1793. Of this too I am also sure, that every man who had the good fortune to know either publicly or privately that distinguished statesman, will feel that all that the most generous feelings of human nature, that the noblest sentiments which could animate man, that the highest intellectual attainments, coupled with the most statesmanlike abilities, could effect, was sure to be accomplished by Lord Grey. I think, therefore, Sir, that the character of Lord Grey must be a sufficient assurance to any man who may not know the circumstances of the case, that if more were not accomplished in 1831 than was achieved, it was owing to circumstances which made it impossible for this country at that time to have interfered more effectually than it did. My hon. Friend, carried away by his known warm and generous feelings in the cause of the oppressed, talks very lightly of making war with three Powers of the Continent in defence of Cracow or of Poland; but I am sure there is no man who would be more likely than my hon. Friend, on calm and deliberate consideration, to weigh, under such circumstances as we stood in 1831, on the one hand the chances of succeeding in such a contest, and to weigh on the other hand the chances of failing altogether even in attaining the object which he advocates. I say, then, with regard to Cracow, that I have, I trust, not an unfounded belief and conviction that the three Powers will respect
832
the Treaty of Vienna, and that when the circumstances of the moment shall have passed away (as I trust they may almost now be considered to have disappeared), they will take steps to establish the territory of Cracow in the condition in which the Treaty of Vienna stipulates that it should be placed. I hardly like to advert, even for a moment, to the other topic which has been touched upon by my hon. Friend who made this Motion, and by the hon. Gentleman who succeeded him, with regard to the events which have passed in that country which adjoins Cracow—I mean in the territory of Gallicia. It is perfectly true that Gallicia forms a part of the Austrian Empire; and I differ from my hon. Friend in thinking that there is anything in the Treaty of Vienna which gives us a right to interfere in the internal administration of that province. But I am also ready to admit, standing here as we do as the representatives of a great and free country accustomed to discuss freely events which attract our notice, that we cannot be expected not to have individual opinions upon such transactions, and that Members of Parliament must be at liberty to express their opinion, even in cases in which the Government of England may not claim by Treaty any right of diplomatic interference. My two hon. Friends have alluded to occurrences which have lately taken place in Gallicia, which must have been listened to with the most painful feelings. I am afraid my hon. Friends have rather understated than overstated the facts. I am not speaking from official information, but I am speaking from that information which is open and public to every man; and I say, if we may believe the details of atrocity which took place in that province, that they are such as I might say are without example, I would almost say in any age, but certainly without example in the modern history of the world. I cannot believe that those proceedings were either sanctioned or known of by the Government of Austria. I am not in a position to deny that these proceedings owed their origin to the local authorities. I am afraid there is too much reason to believe in the correctness of the statement which my hon. Friends have made; but I am convinced that those events must have been learnt with great grief and affliction by the Government of Vienna. I never can believe that a Government like that of Austria, which prides itself on the maintenance of order, on its parental principles,

833
treating in a kind and benevolent manner the subjects under its sway, could have learnt with any feelings but those of the greatest pain and affliction the disastrous events which have occurred in the province of Gallicia; and though it does not belong to the Government of England to interfere with a matter so exclusively within the competence of the Government of the country where those transactions took place; yet as an individual Member of this House, I may be allowed to express my conviction, that the enlightened men who govern the empire of Austria will feel it not only their duty, but their pleasure and satisfaction to take such steps as may be within their power, not to make reparation—for that I fear is impossible—but to mitigate, as far as is in their power, the miseries and calamities to which that unfortunate province has been subjected. I trust my hon. Friend will excuse me, if I do not feel myself at liberty to accede to the particular Motion he has made; but I think the papers I have offered will afford him information more practically bearing on the transaction, out of which, in point of fact, his Motion has arisen; and I can only assure him that, as far as proper representations on the part of the British Government can go, everything shall be done to ensure a due respect being paid to the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna.
DR. BOWRINGsaid, that whilst Poland remained what Poland was, she would still be the subject of disquietude—there would still be hopes, and efforts would be made for the redemption of that country. Those hopes would find a response in the bosom of every lover of liberty; and those efforts in spite of tyranny would find encouragement. It was not a question which would be easily settled; it had returned from year to year, and it would return again. He rejoiced that the Treaty of Vienna had been violated by those who made it—by those who had derived so much from it. The noble Lord said, wisely, that it would be very bold, impolitic, and reckless of the Powers of the north to treat that Treaty with indifference; yet they had done so—it was not respected for a moment when their interests prompted them to break it. He (Dr. Bowring) must admit that the noble Lord, who had just sat down, had done everything in his power to procure the appointment of a diplomatic agent at Cracow; and he for one, believed, that had there been a diplomatic agent in Cracow, such was
834
the force of the British name, that terrible catastrophe would have been prevented. In conclusion, he repeated that this question would not be settled, even if the troops should be withdrawn from Cracow. The Polish question, in its entirety, must be returned to again and again; and if he lived till next Session, he should himself attempt to bring it before the House, in order to show that the state of Poland required the attentive consideration of this country.
MR. M. GOREexpressed himself much satisfied with the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was a speech worthy of a British Minister. He (Mr. Gore) assured the House that he felt great interest in the welfare of Poland—a country so eminent in many respects, so distinguished for the public virtue and patriotism of her sons; and which in former times rendered such signal service to Europe and to the civilized world at large. He trusted that the remembrance of these services would never be effaced, and that both here and elsewhere, throughout the civilized world, every lover of liberty would feel himself bound to do what he could to favour the decendants of that high-minded, gallant, and honourable race. He trusted that we, at least, would show to Europe and to the world, that the spirit of freedom and liberty and respect for national independence, still glowed as warmly and as brightly within the breasts of Englishmen as it ever had done; and as he trusted it would ever do to the latest generations. He begged to add, that, although the hon. Member for Montrose might not get all the papers he wanted, still the agitation of the question in that House, and the expression of public sentiment which it elicited, could not fail to have a beneficial effect in favour of the unfortunate Poles.
MR. J. A. SMITHconcurred in thanking the noble Lord for the speech he had made. He thanked him for the frank and generous way he had admitted that the Treaty of Vienna had been violated. He thanked him for the confession of his belief in the truth of the charges which had been brought against the Government of Vienna, and the avowal of his belief that the statement of horrors which had been alluded to was fully borne out by the facts. He thanked him for that avowal, because he had an entire belief himself in the truth of those representations. The noble Lord had declared his belief that the Government of Austria must have been ignorant

835
of these horrors. He (Mr. Smith) wished, for the sake of humanity, that it was so; but he feared it was not. Austria, he contended, must have been cognizant of these horrors. He believed her to have been cognizant and approving of all that had occurred, because no one had been brought to trial, much less punished, for the revolting atrocities which had been committed; because the official agents of the Austrian Government had rewarded those who had taken the most active part in the massacres of Gallicia, and had never publicly been called to account for their conduct; and lastly, because the Emperor had officially and publicly expressed his thanks to the inhabitants of Gallicia, and had not even condescended to pay the homage which vice generally pays to virtue by affecting to condemn or regret the murders of a whole class among the population of one of his fairest provinces, and the commission of cruelties which were at first incredible, on account of their enormity; but which, authenticated as they had since been, would for ever be a stain and disgrace to the age in which they lived. He believed that the Austrian Government were not only cognizant of these acts, but that they prepared and instigated them; and however reluctant he might be to think the "paternal" Government of Vienna guilty of a crime of so deep a dye, he could not account for the withdrawal of Austrian troops from Cracow at a moment when the Government itself anticipated an immediate outbreak, unless they had meant to remove all restraints upon the actions of the misguided peasantry, and allow murder, robbery, and violence to revel in the possession of uncontrolled power. There was one man who, if any man was, was entitled to the highest esteem and love and veneration of Europe at large—he alluded to Prince Czartoryski; and he must say that the fact that, after the occurrences in Gallicia, Austria should have condescended to punish that man by the confiscation of the small remains of his property, did seem to him as the crowning reason for condemning that Government, and believing that she was justly charged with having shared in the evils and crimes which had occurred in Gallicia. He differed also with the views of the noble Lord in thinking that we had no right to remonstrate with Austria in regard to the occurrences in Gallicia. He had always understood that in the Treaty of Vienna it was an object of desire, on the part of all the parties concerned, that care should be taken to
836
preserve the national character of those portions of Poland which had been allotted to Austria, Prussia, and Russia; and if so, the conclusion inevitably was, that we had a right to protest against what had recently occurred in Gallicia. He would not have intruded on the attention of the House, if he had not felt that the case was one which justified strong feeling and strong speaking; and which also justified them in calling on his noble Friend to rescue England from the shame of allowing such horrors to be repeated, or of being accused with justice of exhibiting apathy or indifference on the present occasion.
MR. WYSEwas rejoiced to hear such language, so fitted to a Minister of the Crown, and to the Parliament of England, on an occasion like the present, as that which had just fallen from the noble Lord. He hoped his noble Friend was right in his charitable supposition that the Austrian Government was not cognizant of the atrocities which had been committed in Gallicia: it was the only palliation which could be offered, but it was not enough: what should we henceforth think of the pretensions of Austria to superior vigilance—what should we think of the vigilance of any Government—to whom such horrors and designs in the heart of its States should or could be unknown? It was the policy of the British Government not unnecessarily or forcibly to interfere in the interior government of other countries; but at the same time, it well knew the moral influence of public opinion on all Governments—it well knew how that influence was increased when its expression was free, and that in no assembly on earth was it likely to be more so than in that of the House of Commons. He hoped that this country would long preserve its claim so to think and speak of other countries; and in exercising fearlessly such high duty, he (Mr. Wyse) believed that they were not only maintaining their own position at the head of the constitutional Governments, but benefiting other countries who had a very different constitution from their own. This friendly public remonstrance would not be without its use. It was for the interest of Austria to listen to it; it was for her interest to hear how men judged her conduct beyond the precincts of her Court; what they thought and spoke abroad as well as at home. True, the outbreak and massacres had in some degree subsided; but what had happened once, might, if not prevented by some such expression of opinion

837
as had been heard to-night, happen, or be allowed to happen, a second time. To him it appeared one of the most dangerous, one of the most unaccountable of all political stratagems, for he could not dignify it with the name of policy. To incite the lower against the higher, the poor against the rich, the ignorant against the educated, the many against the few, might be in harmony with those fatal communist doctrines which had been allowed to be propagated of late years in more than one country in Europe; but striking as it did, not at external forms but at the heart and root of all government—of all order—of all security—and consequently of all industry and prosperity, it did appear to him most monstrous that such a state of things could have been suffered for one hour to exist in the heart of a monarchy which piqued itself on its wise conservatism and paternal regard for the very lowest of its subjects. Such doctrines had over and over again been denounced by every Government regardful of its duty and safety; and by none more earnestly than by Austria itself, as menacing with destruction the very foundations of all society. To find this same Government not checking, not correcting, but guiding and aiding these very same opinions in their fatal progress, and exciting one part of its population to carry them out against the other, did exhibit an inconsistency which in the present state of our information was utterly incomprehensible. No one could conceive that any Government could labour so earnestly for its own ruin; for true it was, whatever momentary advantage might accrue, it was at the expense of the deepest, truest, and most permanent interests of the whole community. This was a game not to be played in any country. The hand lifted up to-day against the aristocracy might to-morrow be raised against the monarchy. All Government rested on opinion, and they were the truest friends to Austria as well as to Gallicia, who like the noble Lord to-night proclaimed to her these truths in time.
MR. P. M. STEWARTreminded the House that the Treaty of Vienna guaranteed the nationality of the whole of Poland as it stood before 1772. The nationality of Cracow depended upon another and a separate treaty. He thought that recent events ought to have taught them not to depend upon the forbearance of the three partitioning Powers. His noble Friend had
838
stated, that he could not believe that there was any intention of destroying the nationality of Cracrow. But they saw other treaties violated, and why should not that in which Cracow was interested share the same fate? He did trust that the result of this discussion would be good to Poland, and the withdrawal of England from the suspicion of being a party to the violation of a Treaty to which she had been a consenting party.
MR. HUME, after the expression given by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) of his sentiments upon the subject, would readily withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY—RETIREMENT FOR NAVAL OFFICERS.
House in Committee of Supply.
The HON. W. F. COWPERrose to propose that a sum of money should be granted to Her Majesty for the allowance to retired naval officers. He said the proposition he had to make was a renewal of the vote of last year; but a sufficient number of officers not having applied, the money was not used. The subject had been since under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and another plan had been adopted for the regulation of the retired allowance to naval officers with due regard for their feelings. As the plan would appear in an official way, he would not enter on the details; but he might say that the vote would be kept to the same amount of money as before, and that as the terms proposed by the late Board of Admiralty were not considered sufficiently favourable by the officers, the present Board were disposed to make more advantageous offers. They contemplated a retirement of 200 captains. They proposed that the vacancies should be filled up by officers of twenty years' standing, who had passed fifty-five years of age, and that the 200 vacancies should be given to the applicants by seniority from the list of captains—those in the first 100 receiving 14 s. 6d. a day should have the rank and pay of rear-admirals, with the usual pension to widows. They proposed an addition of 7s. 6d. a day to the two lower classes of the captains' list, making up their pay to 1l. and 18 s. respectively. They contemplated a reduction in the number of officers, but could scarcely ascertain which would be the definite number. It was felt that it would act with severe harshness

839
on junior captains and lieutenants if their promotion were restricted; and accordingly good-service pensions might be retained by those till they reached the rank of rear-admirals. They proposed to fix an amount which would not be overstepped, for the great advantage to the public was that extent of the list was to be fixed. The immediate vote would amount to 30,000 l. for the year; but if the whole plan were carried out, they hoped there would be an actual diminution of annual expenditure in consequence. It was felt that one cause of the inefficiency of our naval establishment was that men should be charged with the command of a fleet, who, however brave and experienced they might be, were unable to command it from age and infirmity. Promotion was clogged by the number of those who were placed on the lists after the last year. It was vain for us to have fleets of splendid ships, well equipped and manned, if they were under the command of men, who, however brave and skilful, wanted strength and energy. He thought the present plan would confer a boon on the officer, and lay the foundation for a better arrangement in the navy list in future.
On the Vote for 7,500 l. being allowed to Her Majesty on account of retiring allowance to Captains, commencing October, 1845,
SIR C. NAPIERto the hon. Member for Hertford: "Hand me that paper." [Mr. COWPER: I cannot.] The gallant Officer proceeded to say, he thought it rather extraordinary for the hon. Member for Hertford to bring forward a printed plan, and not allow him to look at it. It was quite true he knew something of the plan, having read it elsewhere, but he might have made some mistake in it. It was rather odd that the hon. Member would not give it to him. [Captain PECHELL: Report progress.] No, he would not report progress, he was too much interested in the question to do so. He had frequently, ever since he had sat in that House, brought the subject before them, and no one had ever supported him; but at last it was taken up by the Admiralty, and last year the Secretary of the Admiralty stated that the time was come for a sufficient retirement in the navy. The late Government brought forward their retirement. It was not so secret as this. Sir G. Cockburn was asked if it were definite or not, and said it was not so; and
840
yet the very next day his plan was promulgated to all parts of the kingdom; and the officers repudiated and refused it. 30,000 l. a year was granted for the purpose. The lowest class were to receive 100 l., and there was no limit to seniority. The consequence was, as he said at the time, one old officer, who had been promoted but twelve months, and was sixty years of age, sent in his acceptance. But then that was not what he wanted. He wanted to retire the old men at the top of the list, and not the old men at the bottom of the list. That was rejected, and the Admiralty had now been boggling about the new plan since February. This was a different plan. [Mr. HUME: What is it?] He did not altogether know. He thought it a most indecent thing to act as the Government had done. They would not tell the House what the plan was, but surely they had a right to know what they were to vote this money for, and if it were sufficient. He hoped the hon. Member would now hand it over to him, that he might explain the meaning of it to the House. He was most anxious to see out this affair, which had given great discontent to naval officers. They had been treated in a most infamous manner—to use no less a word—by the late Government. They were written to from the Admiralty—when the matter dropped their names were kept there as a rod hanging over their shoulders, so that when any of them applied for employment, the Lord of the Admiralty might say, "What is the use of employing this man—here is he applying to be put on the retired list?" They had been treated in a scandalous, and shameful, and most disgraceful manner by the late Board of Admiralty. As he understood the present plan, the first 100, who were very old captains, were to be put on a retirement of 25 s. a day. How inconsiderate that was! If the whole 100 captains took the allowance, they would retain it and become rear-admirals; but if ten of the first 100 only were to take it—[The Hon. F. COWPER: Then it falls to the ground.] Well, that might be an extreme case; but next there were 200 officers on 14 s. 6d. and 10 s. 6d. a day, who were to receive 1l. and 18 s. He had no doubt a great number of officers would accept it. They would retire with the rank of captain; but if they arrived within the time of their flags, they did not get into the position of those of the first class, and never rose beyond 364 l. a

841
year. Where was the justice of this? He would make the best he could of the grant of 30,000 l. He would give all officers within the first 100, 400 l. a year, which he thought was fair to them, if an officer got the rank of rear-admiral; those near the top of the list would not take the retirement alone, but if they got 400 l. a-year some years sooner than they could get 464 l. a year, and the rank of admiral, they would do so. The Admiralty expected that sixty or seventy would accept the allowance; but would it be fair to punish the remainder of the 100 who would not take it? According to the present plan, the man who wanted a month of fifty-five years of age, would have to remain years before he could get his allowance. If the first list were made 400 l. a-year, and the second list 364 l., the whole of the money of the grant would be absorbed. There was one insurmountable objection to which he would never give his consent. The Admiralty began by driving officers into retirement. The oldest captains at the top of the list, who might have asked for employment till they were black in the face, were obliged to take the allowance. He knew a case in point: Captain Gordon, who was senior captain, would have to go on the retired list in spite of his teeth. The Admiralty was doing away with the act of a Commission of which the Duke of Wellington was a member, when they restored all the officers on the forced retirement. It was a most illiberal and unwise thing to re-establish the state of things which that Commission had abolished. They were going to make a forced, not a voluntary retired list, and by their conduct to disgrace these officers. He contended that the plan was totally unnecessary, and he would never give it his consent. The country was going to give 30,000 l. for a retired list; but was there to be any assurance on the part of the Government that the list would be limited to a certain number? In 1830, there was a minute that there was to be only one promotion in three, and the country understood that that rule was to be rigidly carried into effect. But instead of one in three, the promotions were nearly three to one in some years; and the fact was, that the one in three was given for the private patronage of the First Lord of the Admiralty. If this retirement took place, it would give the First Lord of the Admiralty fifteen promotions in the year from captains to admirals. If the House granted the
842
money, there ought to be an understanding that the vacancies were to be filled up, but that no one should be promoted till there was a vacancy. It was high time there should be some right system in the navy come to with regard to manning the ships, and offering better encouragement to enter the navy. If Mr. Green, a private merchant, having a fleet of twenty-two ships, found it economical and to his advantage to found a seamen's home for his men, why should not the Government appreciate the same advantages to arise from establishing a similar institution, to protect the sailors from the vagabonds who lay in wait for them on their arrival on shore?
MR. HUMEobserved that, in 1827, when he exposed in that House various abuses which existed in the navy, an order was made that for every three deaths there should be one promotion. An order of date 28th of May, 1838, had put it into the power of the Admiralty to promote when they pleased. The House ought to have a list of the retired admirals, with their services, before voting the grant. With the present prospect of peace before him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better not call upon the House to agree to this half-prepared measure, respecting which the Government admitted they had not quite made up their minds.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should not be sorry to save any money; but he thought the Government could not in justice accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose. For himself, he never attached any great value to any plan of retirement; but a promotion to the value of 30,000 l. had been promised to the naval service. The present Government found the promise given; they had had but a short time to consider the plan; but, although they were of opinion that some of the details might be improved, they thought it would not be fair if they did not fulfil the promise made to the service by the late Government. He did not consider the House or the Government pledged to the details of the scheme, and he had left it open to amendment, after hearing the opinions of the hon. and gallant Commodore and other Members of the House. Of all the difficult subjects he had ever had to deal with, nothing approached the promotion of officers of the army and navy, but especially the latter.
CAPTAIN CORRYheard with great satisfaction that the present Government were favourable to a well-considered plan

843
of naval retirements. He would not find fault with the plan proposed by Government, though he did not think it so great an improvement on the plan of the late Government as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider.
ADMIRAL DUNDASthought it extraordinary that on one side it was said the compulsory clause ought to be insisted on, on the other that it ought not. It was said that no man ought to be made a flag-officer who was not fit for service; but there were men on the list who could not be passed over: he would mention names—there was Sir J. Pechell, who, from ill-health, was incapable of service; yet what Board of Admiralty would venture to pass him over?
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, they ought not to agree to this vote without having some distinct plan laid before the House; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had scarcely given any explanation of it. He would do the late Government the credit of saying, that they never asked for money without being prepared to state the reasons for the vote; now, for two successive nights they had been asked for two important votes without having had any knowledge whatever of them. He thought this was treating the House of Commons with contempt. If a plan was laid down for a retirement, with a limit fixed for promotions afterwards, there might be some advantage in such a plan. He had heard that the Duke of Wellington objected to the present proposition—["No, no!"]—he had heard it from good authority. The Duke said — and with sound reason—if they promoted the navy in this way, they must give him the power of promoting the generals of the army also; and there was nothing unreasonable in the demand. He did not see how the House could resist it from the Commander-in-Chief. Without some specific plan before them, he could not vote the money, and should divide the Committee against it.
MR. GOULBURNhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in dividing the Committee against the grant. It was very well to say he would not consent to the vote till they had some plan before them; but if one was proposed, would the hon. Gentleman support it? The proposition was in the nature of an offer to those officers who would accept it, and with this condition it was impossible to lay down an absolute plan.
CAPTAIN PECHELLsaid, the House
844
was still in the dark with respect to the material parts of this plan, which remained unexplained. They were in the dark as to the reasons which induced the Government to give to two classes of captains only 7s. 6d. in addition to their present pay. The late Government said they should retire 300 officers; the present Government said only 200. It was said the fund they had was small; but why not apply the 1½ per cent paid for the freight of specie on board ships of war to a fund of this description?
MR. COWPERsaid, that the hon. Member assumed that the Government had no plan. He, on the contrary, affirmed that the Government had a plan. Technically speaking, the House of Commons had nothing to do with plans which the Executive devised, or were to carry out. That which the House of Commons had to do was to vote or to refuse money.
CAPTAIN PECHELLwished to know if officers who had good-service pensions were to be permitted to retain those good-service pensions after becoming admirals, under the proposed arrangement.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the good-service pensions of captains were derived from a fund applied solely to captains, and the good-service pensions of admirals from a fund applicable only to admirals; and it had been the custom when a captain was promoted to the rank of admiral that the pension was not derived afterwards from the captains' fund.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed, and adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.