HC Deb 18 March 1847 vol 91 cc159-86
MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN

said, that as long as there was such a large remittance of the rents of absentees to England, the evils attending the circumstance to the country whence they came, would not make much impression here, as this country derived all the benefit attending the expenditure of so much wealth. He had observed repeatedly the emaciation of his own country from the constant withdrawal of wealth from it, by the payment of the rents to the absentees; he therefore had felt it to be an imperative duty on him to bring the subject under the consideration of the House at this period, when they were so much called upon to adopt means of meeting the calamity which so severely afflicted Ireland. He had the more readily brought it forward, as it was not likely that the question would be taken up by the Government in the first instance; and if he should not be able to induce the House to adopt his resolution, he trusted that the impression which would be produced would still have a beneficial effect. All experience as well as authority coincided as to the evils of absenteeism. He was aware of the opinion formerly expressed by Mr. M'Culloch on the subject; but that gentleman had greatly modified his opinion as to the results of absenteeism, and no longer held the opinion that the country did not suffer from its produce being expended out of it. It was almost unnecessary for him to allude to the importance of having a large body of resident proprietors, who by their assistance, advice, and example, could afford most important aid to the country. He would show the difference that there was between a resident and non-resident proprietor, by referring to individual cases; and in doing this, he should endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, giving any offence. He would refer, in the first instance, to a case which existed in the two counties with which he was more immediately connected—he meant Clare and Limerick. The rental of the estates of the late Lord Egremont in these counties amounted to 25,000l. a year. He believed that the late Lord Egremont never saw those estates; and he (Mr. S. O'Brien) had reason to believe that the expenditure on those estates by the landlord, beyond the expense of collecting the rents, did not exceed 500l. a year. The late Lord Egremont was admitted by every man to have been one of the very best landlords in England; and if he had resided in Ireland, it is probable that he would there have fulfilled the same duty in the same way. Let them compare the conduct of the landlord of such an estate with that of Sir Robert Gore Booth, whose exemplary treatment of the people on his estate had been so properly alluded to the other night by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. If Sir Robert Booth had been an absentee landlord, and drew his rental from his Sligo property and expended it in England, what would have been the situation of the people on his property? He could not discharge by deputy those duties which he now so admirably performed in person. According to the most accurate calculations which had been made as to the amount of the absentee rent drawn from Ireland, it could not be less than 4,000,000l., which was nearly one-third of the whole rental of the country, and this was quite independent of other remittances. He had gone through the Peerage to make out a list of those who were absentee proprietors of estates in Ireland; but he found that he could not make out the list of individual proprietors who were not titled. The list which he had was very imperfect; but still, it would furnish an indication of what he meant. In the first place, however, he would mention the London Companies, and the Irish Society, which drew very large revenues from Ireland. He had heard a statement with regard to those London Companies, which the hon. Member for Southwark could probably give some explanation of, and he therefore should not then enter into it. He should merely observe, that under the present circumstances of the country, it would become them to make greater exertions for the amelioration of its condition. But to proceed with the list of large absentee proprietors. There were the London Companies, Irish Society, Duke of Devonshire, Duke of Buckingham, Duke of Bedford; Marquesses of Hertford, Conyngham, Thomond, Lansdowne, Anglesea, Clanricarde, Donegal, Abercorn (occasionally visit), Bath, Ely; Lords Fitzwilliam, Cork, Palmerston, Essex, Clan-william, Orkney; Viscount Chabot; Lords Stradbroke, Limerick, Beresford, Audley, Dillon, Southwell, Maryborough, Middleton, Trimleston, Albemarle, Portarlington, Dungannon, Boyne, Darnley, Clifden (occasionally resident). Sandwich, Normanton, Vaux, Congleton, Ranfurley (occasionally resident), Lady Bray, Lords Galway, Ashbrooke, Stanley, Arden, Portsmouth, Lifford, Lisle, Stanhope, Strafford, Fortescue (occasional visitor), Hawarden, Templemore, Valentia, Templetown; Count de Salis, Colonel Wyndham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Kelly (county Roscommon), Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. Greville, Mr. Fox Lane, Mr. O. Gore. A great portion of these proprietors never visited their estates at all. Some were occasional visitors only, and a very few were occasional residents. He did not produce that list of names for the purpose of raising any invidious feelings against those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who were probably all, and certainly very many of them, most amiable characters in every point of view. But he wanted them to join him in doing something for the benefit of the country. His object was to induce the House to impose such a tax as would leave only a choice to proprietors between residence upon their estates, or the sale of them to others who would reside upon them; or if it should fail to compel the adoption of either alternative, it would at least give to the country some sort of compensation for the loss sustained through an absent proprietary. There was nothing new in the proposition. It could not be said that there was any fear of setting a novel precedent by it. For a long series of years the course of legislation had been in favour of an absentee tax. In an able letter written by Mr. D'Alton, the following passages showed the early adoption of such a measure:— 'All writers,' says the accomplished Sir John Davis, Attorney General to Queen Elizabeth and James I., 'do impute the decay and loss of Leinster,' then the extent of the English pale, 'to the absence of those Lords who married the Ave daughters of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke, to whom that great seignory descended. These great Lords, having greater inheritances in their own right in England than they had in Ireland in right of their wives (and yet each of the co-partners had an entire county allotted for her proportion), could not be drawn to make their personal residence in this kingdom, but managed their estates here by their seneschals and servants. The grievance did not long elude the vigilance of the English Justinian; and accordingly, in a few years after the titles alluded to had vested, viz., about the year 1295, it appears from that venerable muniment of one of our metropolitan cathedrals, the Liber Niger of Christ Church, that at a general Parliament, or great council, then held in Ireland, it was enacted, inter alia, that absentee English Lords, who drew the profits of their Irish territory, without any return, should be compelled to contribute a portion for the safety of their estates and tenantry. Again, Mr. D'Alton states that— In 1310 an ordinance of a yet more cogent character was promulgated by the authority of the chief governor of Ireland, and the whole council. It directed an absolute estreat of the rents of all the lands of absentees, and that they should be deposited in the treasury, to be appropriated by the king for the conservation of the peace and defence of the land. Again— In the year 1331, when King Edward III. meditated coming over to Ireland, he recognised the policy of suppressing absenteeism as essential for the peace of that country. In 1352, the ordinance of 1310 was again confirmed by Act of Parliament. In an ordinance of 1368, it was set forth— So that by the default and negligence of those absentees, all the beforementioned evils have brought Ireland to destruction. In the succeeding reign of Richard II. (in 1380), it was ordered by the King that all persons having estates, revenues, benefices, &c. should repair thither before St. John's Day of the next year, and there abide to defend and keep the peace of said lands, under pain of forfeiting two-thirds of the profits thereof. Henry IV., in the tenth year of his reign (1409), commanded the enforcement of the Statute of 1380; and "two years afterwards," according to Dr. Leland— The Irish Parliament passed an Act of a preventive and certainly very arbitrary nature in reference to this offence, directing as it did that the person and goods of an Irishman attempting to transport himself from his country without leave under the great seal of Ireland, might be sued by any subject, who was to receive one moiety of the goods for such service, the other to be forfeited to the King. And in 1431— Immediately after the coronation of Henry VI., the provisions of those Acts were reiterated and enforced by two proclamations, and yet more, the records attest the frequent exaction of the fullest penalties. 'Amongst the rest,' says Davis, 'the Duke of Norfolk himself was not spared, but was impleaded upon the ordinance of King Richard fos two parts of his lands in the county of Wexford.' In the seventh year of the reign of Henry VIII. (A. D. 1516) an Act was passed whereby all grants of licenses of absence were absolutely repealed; and subsequently in the 28th Henry VIII., a Statute was passed whereby, after setting forth that —"it was notorious and manifest that Ireland had grown into ruin, desolation, rebellion, and decay, by reason of great proprietors of it residing in England, and not providing for the good order and surety of the same; it was enacted that —"the King, his heirs, &c., shall have and enjoy all houses, manors, lands, liberties, advowsons, &c., of certain nobles and great religious fraternities therein-named. And Mr. D'Alton proceeded to state— This legislative sanction was followed by a resumption of the immense estates of the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Berkeley, in the counties of Carlow and Waterford, those of the Earl of Shrewsbury in the latter county, with certain other most extensive districts. In 1634 the same spirit of legislation was again asserted by the Act 10, Charles I., sess. 3, c. 21; and in 1715— It was enacted in the Irish Parliament (2 Geo. I., c.3, s. 51), to the effect that during the two ensuing years (it was subsequently continued) all persons having any office, salary, place or pension, on the establishment here, who shall live out of the kingdom for six months during one whole year, shall pay unto his Majesty, his heirs, &c., 20 per cent out of their salaries or profits, same to be deducted yearly by the paymaster, &c."—And "the total revenue from this section of absentees, during the two years to 1717, was certified to Parliament by the receiver-general, as 10,320l. 4s. 10d. He had heard amongst the objections to the proposal, that it violated the great principle of national and civil rights. But residence was one of the duties owing by those who claimed the privileges of those rights; and every well-minded and just man should admit it to be an incontestable position that some return should be made by the proprietor to the land from which he derived a large amount of his income. It was also urged against the principle of such a tax, that by its imposition voluntary exertions would be checked. But that was the old argument which had been advanced against the enactment of a poor law for Ireland. As to the difficulty of effecting the sale of estates, he should support the giving of every facility for their exchange. But it was urged that the great difficulty would be how to settle the question of residence. It was asked, why not tax a man, whose estates lay in Mayo, for residing in Cork? But the question had arisen, and had been solved before; for when a part of France belonged to the English Crown, and absenteeism prevailed, it was stopped by an ordinance of Edward III., which compelled all Englishmen, having estates both in France and England, to sell their French estates, notwithstanding an entailment, to a remainder man, and made it a case of forfeiture if the estates were not disposed of; and as to the explanation of what might be deemed residence, he would refer to the proviso in clause 90, 5 and 6 Vict., c. 35 (Income and Property Tax):— Provided that no person (other than a Member of either House of Parliament, entitled to be exempted from the duties of assessed taxes, under the provisions in that behalf contained in the Acts relating to the said last mentioned duties) shall be deemed to be resident in Ireland, within the intent and meaning of this Act, who shall have been absent from Ireland at one or several times for a period equal in the whole to six months or more during the space of one year, immediately preceding the day on which such annuities, dividends, and shares, shall respectively have become payable. A six months residence in the year might be therefore deemed sufficient; and as to the mode of collecting and employing the tax, the boards of guardians of the poor-law unions could easily ascertain what was the amount of property in the districts, and whether the proprietors were resident or otherwise. If any man should then be taxed improperly, it would be easy for him to come forward and show that he had been resident during the six months required by the Act of Parliament. He was not prepared to say that was the best possible mode of carrying out the principle of the Bill; but if that principle were affirmed, there would be no difficulty in deciding upon the best mode, though he was in favour of using the already existing machinery of the boards of guardians in imposing the tax. The next question was the amount of the tax. He should say the minimum ought to be 10 per cent. He knew some would say that was too moderate; but he would also take powers to increase that per centage, if it was found to be ineffective. With regard to the argument that the measure would have a tendency to lower the value of property in Ireland, he entirely dissented from it. Large masses of property might change hands; but he thought the amount greatly exaggerated; and he thought that those very changes, by removing incumbrances, would throw so much capital into the market, as would, in point of fact, create an increased number of bidders, and prevent depreciation. He expected to be met on that occasion by the exception so often used by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, that his proposition was only a resolution, and therefore of no practical good; but he would, with all respect for such high authority, contend that a resolution was the best of all methods in that preliminary stage to ascertain the opinion of the House as to the principle of the proposed measure. If the principle were ascertained, he would undertake, without delay, to submit a Bill. He had not, however, the remotest idea that it was possible to carry the Motion. He knew that the mere proposition of an income tax was enough to subject him to the ridicule of the House. He merely brought the measure forward, though fully convinced of its justice and the benefit it would be to Ireland, to show those who cried out for practical measures to prevent absenteeism, how small a minority of the House would support such a proposition. At all events he had done his duty to Ireland, and he appealed to the House to perform its duty also. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That, inasmuch as the non-residence of landed proprietors in Ireland is one of the causes of social disorganisation of that kingdom, it is expedient to impose a charge by way of special assess- ment in aid of local objects of an useful nature, upon the estates of absentee proprietors, with a view to make some compensation for the evils resulting from their non-residence.

MR. H. M. TUITE

seconded the Motion. He had observed a strong spirit of hostility in the House to the Irish proprietors, and he admitted that some of them had not done their duty in the manner in which they ought to have done; but were there not also a great number of English proprietors who had also neglected that duty, and who possessed at the same time large properties, who had considerable influence in that country, and who derived large incomes from it? He would take a practical view of how the system of absenteeism acted on the country. Great injury had been caused under present circumstances by landlords being absent from their estates; and he attributed to their absence from their duty the failure of the Labour-rate Act. Had they been resident, an early application of reproductive labour, such as drainage and other improvements, would have commenced at the earliest approach of famine, and the results of that visitation would not have been nearly so fatal. In the county of Longford there were many resident landlords, and the people were employed in useful works. In one district Mr. Edgworth, Major Blackstock, Mr. Fox, and himself, had carried on such a system for a long time; but the want of assistance from the absentees rendered it a difficult task. In that same county of Longford there were a number of what were called "Cromwellian debentures," small properties given by Cromwell as rewards to his soldiery or political agents. The holders of these tenures had little or no connexion with the tenants except to screw the rent out of them. They did not attend to the social or charitable duties incumbent on landlords; and although the rents they received amounted altogether to 16,000l. a year, they only subscribed 410l. In the county which he represented (Westmeath), there was in one relief district 604l. subscribed by the resident proprietors. Ten farmers, who held from 60 to 300 acres of land each, gave 67l. 10s.; but what did the English proprietors in the same district do? Five of them never subscribed a farthing, but regularly as the 2nd of November or the 2nd of May came, they sent their agents down for the rents. The resident proprietors, besides subscribing, kept 240 labourers employed up to the time when the Labour-rate Act came into operation, at which time they were obliged to discontinue that employment, solely because the non-residents did not join in it. The non-residents did not employ a single labourer, or subscribe a single penny to the relief committee. One of these was a Scotch lady, whom they could never find, though she always contrived to get her rent. Another was an insurance company, which received 300l. a year, and did not subscribe one farthing. Of those who did give, one was a reverend doctor, in the receipt of 3,000l. a year out of the district, and he subscribed 18l. Without dwelling further on the injury the absence of landed proprietors did to the poor, he must also say it was an injustice to the landowners who were resident. The absentees escaped all county duties, at sessions or grand juries, and as magistrates. In Longford sometimes they were not able to make a grand jury, and they had been obliged to appoint a stipendiary magistrate, because those who should have done the duty were non-resident. He was bound to say, however, that there were some absentees who did their duty admirably, as far as regarded subscriptions and measures for alleviating distress. The Marquess of Lansdowne and the Duke of Devonshire set noble examples of munificence, which if followed more generally would have greatly aided the resident proprietors. He also mentioned, in high terms of commendation, the Marquess of Londonderry and Lord Devon, as samples of that class of laud proprietors who gave some personal attention to the management of their estates. In the Queen's County the absentee rents amounted to 25,878l., and their subscription to 208l.; the residents received 4,550l., and subscribed 459l. Lord Stanhope had observed that proprietors who had no houses on their estates could not be expected to reside, and he had neither house nor inn on his estate at Ballykill; but he could assure the noble Lord that there was an excellent inn at Abbeyleix close by, where he could get a good well-aired bed, and even in these times a rasher of bacon. He, therefore, considered that it was no excuse for neglect of duty to say there was neither house nor inn. It had been said that no Government had a right to interfere with a man's residence; but he thought that if Government, on instituting an inquiry, found great evils and injuries inflicted on the country by absenteeism, they were bound to interfere. With regard to remarks often made respecting the outrages committed in Ireland, he did not agree in thinking that they could not be suppressed. On the contrary, he knew cases in which a change of agent often had the effect of quieting a large body of tenantry. Within his own knowledge some eight or nine years ago an agent of the Courtenay property, who appeared to have made himself extremely hostile to the people, had been changed by the present Earl of Devon when he came into possession of the property, and the consequence was that everything appeared new upon the estate, the people peaceable and industrious, and affairs went on in the most satisfactory manner. His own experience of Ireland had always shown him that when the law was administered in an equitable and fearless manner, that personal violence and intimidation disappeared. An hon. Baronet, in his own neighbourhood, who was a large landed proprietor, had ejected a number of people from their holdings on his estate, and he had excellent reasons for so doing, but he never had been visited with any agrarian outrage. He believed that nothing could be more beneficial to Ireland than the institution of a severe scrutiny into the whole question of absenteeism. The present drain of revenue extracted from the country now amounted to four millions per annum; and could it be supposed that any country could be happy or prosperous as long as the proprietors of the major part of the soil lived away from it, and expended their incomes wholly regardless of the duties which attached to the possession of property? The injury which resulted from not attending to small properties was a fruitful source of crime in Ireland, and occasioned a great amount of misery to the country at large. Believing that the imposition of an income tax would to some extent afford a remedy for these evils, he cordially seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Limerick.

ALDERMAN HUMPHERY

observed that if he had known the hon. Member for Limerick had intended to bring charges against the London Companies, for not properly discharging the duties they owed to their Irish properties, he would have come prepared with documents to show him the very fallacious nature of the foundation upon which he had made his charges. The London Companies possessed large properties in the north of Ireland, and some of them spent, not the tenth part, which the hon. Member for Limerick considered an equitable absentee tax, but four-fifths of the entire rentals, in improving their estates. The rental of the Irish Society, of which he had the honour to be president, amounted to 9,000l. or 10,000l. a year, and they expended annually in Londonderry 7,000l. of that money in promoting the cause of education and religious instruction. They never refused an application made by the clergy for assistance in improving their chapels and churches, neither did they ever refuse any money to be applied to purposes of education. He believed there were no less than sixty schools which received annually various sums of money from that society. As for the hon. Gentleman saying they did nothing with their money but expend it upon feeding Gentlemen of that House, he begged to say that the hon. Member never could have attended any of those "feeds," as he was pleased to term them, otherwise he would have heard statements of a different kind. The entire sum spent in feeding the Members of that House only amounted to 450l. a year out of the whole funds derivable from the estates. He was connected also with a company who possessed a large property in the neighbourhood of Coleraine, the rental of which was 7,000l. a year, and yet they had only expended, during the course of ten years, 3,000l. in London; the whole of the remaining portion was devoted to the improvement of the property. The Mercers' Company had also large estates in Ireland, and he believed they expended their funds pretty much in a similar manner. The hon. Member for Limerick had no doubt travelled through the north of Ireland, and thus must have observed the improvements which had been effected on the estates of the London Companies. The result of imposing an absentee tax upon those companies would inevitably be that they would pay the minimum 10 per cent or the maximum 20 per cent upon their rentals, but no more. They would not, in such case, expend the great proportion of their incomes, as they did now, among the people around their estates. The hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the Globe Insurance Office, and remarked that that corporation derived 300l. a year from Ireland, and had contributed nothing towards alleviating the condition of the people in the neighbourhood of their property. Now, it was most natural to suppose that the Globe Insurance Company had lent their money on mortgage on some Irish estate, and it was not to be expected that they would subscribe out of the 300l. a year which they received from that property towards the mitigation of the distress which might exist in its vicinity. It was unusual to expect a contribution from them under such circumstances; but he was sure if the Globe Insurance Company possessed estates in Ireland, they would cheerfully discharge those duties which would devolve upon them by such possession. He would be glad to know the amount of property which Noblemen and Gentlemen in that House possessed in Ireland, and what proportion of their annual rentals they expended in improvements. He thought they would find the absentee landlords who represented 4,000,000l. per annum of Irish property, returned 2,000,000l. in the improvement of the estates. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "No, no;" but if such were not the case, the hon. Member for Westmeath, who seconded the Motion, had thrown overboard the argument of the Proposer, because he mentioned gentlemen who spent the whole of their incomes in the improvement of their estates. [Mr. TUITE: Only one.] More than one. There was the Courtenay estate; the estate of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and the estate of the Marquess of Lansdowne. He should like very much to have a return showing the property of Irish absentees, and the amount of money they laid out upon such property; and he thought it would be found that there was more money beneficially expended by the absentee proprietors, whose names had been mentioned in the House that night, than by a great proportion of the resident gentry of that country. It should be remembered that not one of the Loudon Companies had mortgaged their estates; and, such being the case, it would be unfair to put gentlemen with deeply mortgaged estates on terms of parity with those companies, whose estates were wholly unencumbered. He should not have deemed it necessary to rise, had not a most unfounded charge been made against the London Companies and the Irish Society, that they had not spent their funds in improving their Irish estates. He denied that they squandered their resources in giving dinners to the Members of that House; and he could only say, if the hon. Member for Limerick expended the same proportion of his income that they did in educating the poor, in giving religious instruction, in building and supporting religious houses and schools in the neigh- bourhood of his property, as they did in the vicinity of theirs, he would speedily find Ireland in a changed position—he would find her with greater inducements to residence—he would find her condition prosperous, and he would find her people contented.

MR. LABOUCHERE

was ready to pay his tribute of admiration to the temperate and argumentative speech of the hon. Member for Limerick. The hon. Gentleman commenced by stating that he could not expect the proposal he was about to make to the House would receive the sanction of the English Members, for although the present state of absentee property in Ireland was a drain and an evil to that country, that inasmuch as the money lost in Ireland was gained to England, he could not expect the English Members would sanction a measure the object of which was to tax themselves in consideration of that gain. He assured the hon. Member that if he resisted the Motion he would not do so on any such grounds, for no man could be more convinced than he was that whatever tended to the impoverishment and distress of Ireland, was inconsistent with the prosperity and security of the United Kingdom. And if he could believe that by acceding to the hon. Member's proposal he would be really consulting the best interests of Ireland, he should say it became the Imperial Parliament, not only on account of what was due to the interests of Ireland, but on account of what was due to the interests of the empire, to accede unhesitatingly to his proposal. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the objections which were sometimes made to propositions not being brought forward as specific measures, but embodied in the form of a resolution. He shared in that dislike; and he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in thinking that questions of this kind ought not to be dealt with by resolutions in preference to Bills. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick had brought the question forward so fairly, and had been so clear in the statement of his views, that he had supplied whatever there was of ambiguity in the resolutions, and had distinctly informed them of what he wished them to affirm. The hon. Member told them that he wished the House to sanction a proposal that it should not be possible for any one to hold property at the same time in England and in Ireland; and even went the length of saying, that persons ought not to be permitted to hold landed property in different parts of Ireland. He had no hesitation in saying, that neither the Parliament of England, nor the Government of any other country in the world advanced in civilization, ought to adopt such a principle, which, in his opinion, would be absolutely destructive to the first principle of property. With regard to absenteeism in Ireland, he did not deny that it was a grievous misfortune that a large proportion, of the property in that country was held by persons who did not reside in it. This was a great evil, which he trusted would be amended; and he thought they ought to counteract it as much as possible, by fair and legitimate means. In order to effect that desirable object, there were two measures in contemplation; one had been proposed to the House, and the other had been announced by the Government, for the consideration of the Legislature. These measures would, he hoped, counteract the evils which Ireland had so long laboured under from an absentee proprietary. The first of these measures was the poor law lately discussed in that House, the strongest recommendation of which, in his mind, was, that it would oblige; proprietors, whether absentee or resident, to contribute a fair share towards the maintenance of the poor. For he was willing to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Tuite), that in the course of his official experience in Ireland he had been much struck with many cases in which the honourable exertions of resident proprietors to meet and avert the distress which existed around them, had been thwarted and checked by the refusal of those not resident to co-operate with them. Upon this account he rejoiced to think it would be no longer possible for them to avoid contributing by purse, if not by personal exertion, towards the mitigation of the distress which prevailed in the neighbourhood of their properties. Such was one of the measures to which he had referred in order as likely to attain the object sought by the resolution of the hon. Member for Limerick; but the other was of equal importance. He believed the great evil of Ireland was not so much that the property was in the hands of absentees, as that it was in the hands of persons so incumbered with debt, that, whether resident or absentee, they were unable to perform the duties which attached to property, or to the nominal possession of it. He did trust the facilities that would be given by the Bill to render more easy the sale and transfer of estates, would have a beneficial effect in placing property in the hands of persons with means and disposition to improve that property, and to perform all the duties of landed proprietors towards their poorer neighbours. He believed, also, it would naturally have the effect of throwing the property of Ireland much more into the hands of resident proprietors. He knew that many absentee proprietors did their duty; but he was not prepared to say, that there were many others who did not. But where hon. Gentlemen talked of absentee landlords, he could not include in the list those who passed a portion of the year in Ireland, and the other portion on their estates in England. There were many such proprietors; and among them he could mention the names of the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Abercorn, and the Earl of Devon, all of whom passed a portion of the year on their Irish estates, and were among the best landlords in Ireland. So far from deprecating the partial residence, he approved of it; for he considered the mutual intercourse between the gentry of the two countries could not but prove beneficial to the interests of both. He had only to look across the House to find instances in corroboration of what he stated. There was, for instance, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. S. O'Brien), the representative of an English county, but who owned estates in Ireland; and, usefully to that country and honourably to himself, he resided a portion of his time upon them, and by his excellent example stimulated and encouraged his neighbours to perform those duties which attached to the possession of property. He was quite willing to agree with those who censured that class of proprietors who were really absentees, and who never went near the country; but even admitting they were persons of less humanity and less benevolence, it was but natural they should not so readily relieve the distress they did not see, nor discharge so efficiently the duties of property which they had never visited. He had lately been looking into a pamphlet, written a hundred years ago, by Mr. Thomas Prior, who founded the Dublin Society. It was on absenteeism, and had made considerable noise at the time. The writer said— We must own that there are many of our gentlemen abroad who wish well to our country, and would abhor having a hand in the ruin of it, and who, when they come to consider the difficulties of poverty and misery under which we labour, will act as becomes them—will see that they must share in it, and that it is their duty to endeavour to prevent it. He went on, however, to inveigh against others, of whom he said— Some of those have drained from 100,000l. to 300,000l. within the last twenty years, yet have not contributed so much as the meanest person who pays the least part of the taxes. We cannot suppose that such rich landlords will relieve any poor whose miseries they never see, or that they will ever make the necessary improvements on their estates. But I hope the Legislature will take care that those who thus spend their fortunes abroad shall not be the only persons exempted from taxation. The writer then went on to state what he thought ought to be the remedies; and, although favourable to an absentee tax, yet he laid much greater stress on other remedies of a more definite nature. For instance, he advocated "a change of the laws with respect to land, so as to secure a better distribution of property, that property might be more equally divided; his reason being, that "overgrown estates were generally consumed abroad, while small fortunes were spent at home." He fully agreed in this remark; and he trusted that the measure announced by the Government for facilitating the division of estates would produce a good effect, and that the lands which might be parted with would be placed in the hands of persons able to discharge their duties as landlords. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, however, proposed that a tax should be imposed upon the estates of absentee proprietors. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not think the word "tax" was the proper word to apply to this imposition with the object and intention which the hon. Gentleman would impose. If an imposition of this sort were merely made with a view to raise the revenue, it ought to be laid on all property alike. He thought the object of the resolution was to frame a principle that the imposition should be more as a penalty, by a tax to compel the sale of estates. This sounded to his car very like confiscation. He thought it would be unjust to affirm a principle that no person who owned English estates should have Irish estates also, or that no owner of an Irish estate should possess an English one; for the principle, if applied at all, ought to apply to both. Such a principle would be inconsistent with the political and social union of the two countries. No State in the world, either free or despotic, ever laid down the principle that its subjects should not possess property in different parts of the empire. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick that it was highly desirable that at this moment, and in the present distressed condition of Ireland, that Irish proprietors should be found discharging the duties which now so urgently were required of them to perform. He also agreed that it was desirable they should take care in their legislation, by all fair and legitimate means, to facilitate the division of large properties in such a manner as to favour the growth and development of that which he conceived to be a great and essential benefit to any country—a landed gentry. All these were legitimate—all were questions which he trusted would not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government in the new poor law, and in the Bill for facilitating the sale and transfer of landed property; but with regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick, that they should assert the principle that British subjects should not hold estates in both countries, he entirely dissented. He was opposed to the principle, because it was inconsistent with the union or amalgamation between the two countries, which he wished to see preserved in all its integrity, and consequently he should feel it his duty, if the hon. and learned Member pressed for a division, to record his vote against his resolution.

SIR A. BROOKE

agreed with the hon. Member for Westmeath, that many of the evils of Ireland resulted from absenteeism. Two years ago, when a similar question was before the House, he had taken the liberty of suggesting a measure with that view, the purport of which was, that a tax limited to 15 or 20 per cent should be levied on all absentee property, the amount so levied to be expended upon the property in draining, sub-soiling, fencing, building farm-houses and labourers' cottages, and so forth, the works to be under the superintendence of an officer to be appointed by the Government. If the Government, instead of the out-door relief measure, had brought forward a measure for the improvement of property generally in Ireland, he would have gone any length to support such a tax. He could not approve of the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick, that a man should be obliged to give up his property in Ireland because he happened to hold property in England. That would be practically carrying out a repeal of the Union. Besides it was perfectly possible for a man holding property in both countries to discharge the duties devolving on him as a landlord. He knew Irish landlords of large property who resided in England, and when applied to by relief committees for subscriptions on behalf of the poor in Ireland, they only sent over 4l. or 5l. Other proprietors, such as Lord Devonshire, Lord Fitzwilliam, Colonel Wyndham and others, looked so well after their property, and performed their duties as landlords so properly, that they could not be called absentees. These, however, were solitary instances of good landlords. He could mention hundreds of absentees, some of whom had not visited their properties for forty years. Was it possible that gentlemen, with even the best disposition to promote the welfare of their tenantry, could, under such circumstances, rightly appreciate their condition? It was not in the power of any agent to afford that relief and assistance to the people which a landlord could do in person. But the advantage derivable from a resident gentry did not altogether consist in the amount of money that might be expended; the moral influence exercised by the landlord and his family on the minds of the poorer classes, was of still greater importance. He was quite happy to add his testimony to that of the worthy Alderman (Humphery) as to the excellent manner in which the properties of the London Companies were managed. He wished that all the properties in Ireland were as well attended to. If all the Irish landlords performed their respective duties as well as the London Companies, Ireland would not be in its present wretched condition. If the hon. Member for Limerick should divide the House on the question, he (Sir A. Brooke) would vote with him.

MR. BELLEW

disapproved of absenteeism, but did not think a tax on absentees would have the desired effect. He did not believe that absenteeism was the cause of the evil, but the want of capital. There were several estates in Ireland, the property of absentees, which were admirably managed; while estates alongside of them, and belonging to residents, were so much neglected that the occupiers were in the most wretched condition. Absenteeism was only an incident, and not the cause of the evil; and he thought it was misleading the public mind, and giving a wrong direction to popular feeling in Ireland, to propose an absentee tax as a remedy for the evils of Ireland. An efficient poor law would correct the evils of absenteeism, by giving confidence to those able to invest capital in the country. We could not lay out of our minds the causes of the evils of Ireland. These were mainly the cultivation of the potato and the subdivision of land. There were several concurrent causes, such as the penal code, the 40s. freeholds, the middlemen, and, after the middlemen were destroyed by the termination of the war, the ejection of the people from their holdings. All these things tended to make property insecure in Ireland. In 1830, there was a law in existence sufficient in itself to account for a considerable share of the outrages that were committed. That law made the occupying tenant responsible for the rent of the middleman. He conceived that the power of selling property would be a principal means towards the regeneration of Ireland. But if absenteeism were put an end to to-morrow, and those measures not passed, Ireland would be very little better than she was at present. In addition to a poor law, he thought it would be essential to have a system of emigration, and for public works. All that was wanting in Ireland, was confidence for the investment of capital; and confidence could not be had so long as 2,500,000 people were in a state of destitution. Dr. Kane, in his work on the industrial resources of Ireland, stated that what Ireland wanted was capital to develop her resources. He should be sorry for one moment to admit that all the absentee landlords had done their duty. He was sorry to say that he knew instances of men who derived upwards of 5,000l. a year from their estates, and when applied to for assistance by a relief committee, they wrote back to say that the distress was greatly exaggerated. But when told that if they did not subscribe to the relief of the poor, the committee would publish the correspondence, then they sent in their contributions; and one agent, connected with a property worth 5,000l. a year, gave 35l. There were many such cases; but, nevertheless, it would be misleading the public mind to say that absenteeism was one of the main causes of the distress of Ireland. He believed that a poor law, by securing the lower classes from the danger of starvation, would give security to capital and greatly improve the social condition of Ireland.

MR. J. O'CONNELL

thought that English Gentlemen who had considered carefully the effects of the poor-law system on their own country, would not be too ready to recommend the application of a similar system to Ireland. The hon. Member for Limerick proposed an absentee tax as one of the remedies for the evils of Ireland, but not as a measure that would of itself regenerate that country. The hon. Member for Louth attributed the distress of Ireland more to the cultivation of the potato, than to the drain of capital caused by absenteeism. But agriculture alone could not insure the prosperity of a country. The assistance of manufactures was necessary. The people of Ireland had been thrown altogether on the resources which agriculture supplied; this led to an undue bidding for land, and consequently to rack-rents, and caused the people to be reduced to the lowest scale of comforts—to live upon potatoes. The misery of Ireland was chiefly owing to the destruction of her manufactures, and the removal of her resident Parliament; which led to the abstraction of her capital. The work of Sir Robert Kane had been referred to; but that writer had entirely overlooked the circumstances which caused capital to be drained out of Ireland. Ireland had suffered most peculiarly from the evils of absenteeism. Other countries had suffered from the same cause; but in Ireland absenteeism was always felt to be so great an evil, that the word was adopted into the English language, and explained in Johnson's Dictionary by a reference to the conduct of the Irish landlords. In Ireland, absenteeism existed even during the continuance of the Irish Parliament. And why did it exist? Because that Parliament had been for a long time held in the most unconstitutional bondage. The prosperity of Ireland was restricted by laws against her commerce and native industry. Of course, under such circumstances, there was no inducement to the proprietors of the soil to remain in the country. At the end of the seventeenth century, the absentee drain was calculated at 136,000l.; in 1769, it had increased to 1,221,980l.; and in 1782, to 2,233,232l. At this period the Irish Parliament was made free and independent; commercial restrictions were almost entirely abrogated, and freedom of trade secured. From 1782 to 1800, according to Lord Clare, who could not be supposed to be a too favourable witness, no country in the world ever made such progress in manufactures, commerce, and general prosperity, as Ireland did in those eighteen years. During that period, the annual absentee drain was diminished to 623,322l.; but immediately after the Union the absentee drain rose again, until, according to a statement of Lord Cloncurry in the House of Lords, it readied 6,500,000l. According to the statements of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson, it had been the policy of England before the Union to deprive Ireland of the use of her resources, and to restrict her manufactures. Since the Union, several Acts had been passed tending to draw away every shilling of her surplus capital. The grand effort of English policy at this time should be to stop those drains, and to keep Irish capital in Ireland. Ireland should have the use not of English, but of Irish capital. But to say that English capital was kept out of Ireland by Irish disturbances, was the silliest thing that ever entered into the brain of the shallowest theorist. It was well known by those who were connected with Ireland, that it was impossible for the people of that country, in the absence of a rich resident proprietary, to compete with the English in manufactures; the English capitalists were able to drive them out of their own market, in consequence of the absentee system. It was, then, the object of his hon. Friend, in bringing forward this Motion, to remedy that evil. Ireland was drained of the funds that were absolutely necessary to sustain commerce or manufactures in that country. England, with her large capital, was able to take small profits, and grant long credit in her commercial transactions; and every effort that Ireland had made to carry on trade or commerce had failed in consequence of the advantages enjoyed by the English manufacturers. When Ireland essayed to became a manufacturing country, she was immediately stopped by the ruinously low prices at which England was enabled to sell her goods. He did not mean to say a hard word against English capitalists driving the Irish manufacturer out of his own market; but he would maintain that the Legislature ought to have stepped in and given aid to Ireland, by preventing the annual drain from her resources, without which it was impossible for her to maintain her proper position. If Ireland would not make an effort to develop her resources, then indeed she did not deserve commiseration, then her people deserved impoverishment; but since it was well known that she had often made efforts to develop her natural resources by manufacturing industry, but failed in consequence of the evils under which she laboured, which could be remedied by the Legislature, he contended that it was the duty of Parliament to remove those evils. Parliament could cure the evil, and abolish the impoverishment of Ireland, and they ought not to shrink from doing so. It had been said that, in many instances, the absentee landlords of Ireland had properly and faithfully discharged their duties to their tenants. He was quite prepared to join with the hon. Member who had made that statement, in bearing testimony to the excellent conduct of a few individuals, who, though absentees, had, through the medium of their stewards, conferred great benefits upon the tenants of their estates in Ireland. He regretted that he had not been able to bring down to the House a letter which he had received last year from a most estimable clergyman, the rev. Dr. Fogarty, the parish priest of Lismore, who acknowledged in the most grateful terms the great good which had been conferred upon that district by the Duke of Devonshire, who possessed the greater part of the property there. Great credit was also due to the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Abercorn, and other noble Lords, for the benefits which they had respectively conferred upon their Irish tenantry. But it was absolutely beside the question to quote such solitary instances of the good conduct of the Irish absentee landlords, until they could prove that the effect of their going back to reside in Ireland would instantly make them bad landlords. Why, if they were good landlords now, should they become bad landlords the instant they went to reside in Ireland? Cœlum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt; would their natures be changed by the sky or the soil of Ireland? Would the mere fact of their returning to Ireland make them bad landlords? If they went back to Ireland, their good example would have a beneficial influence upon their tenantry, and the capital and prosperity of Ireland would increase. Let them tax the Irish landlords as much as they pleased, Ireland never could prosper unless she had the benefits of a resident proprietary. It had been stated on good authority that the annual drain from Ireland by absenteeism amounted to 6,500,000l., but whether that was correct or not he would not undertake to say; but he was confident, in taking the amount at 5,000,000l., he was not overstating it. He wished the House to pay attention to the statements which he was about to lay before them as to the expenditure of Ireland. He held in his hand a paper which was a return (numbered 662) which he had moved for in May, 1845, as to the amount of Irish remittances Into the British Exchequer. The House would find, by that return, that there had been, up to the year 1845, an excess of Irish remittances over the British into the national Exchequer of upwards of 19,000,000l. He was glad to see that the hon. Member for South Lancashire had moved for papers which would bear out his argument on this point. He was not quite sure whether that hon. Member had the same object in view as he had, in moving for those returns; but he was glad to be able to show by those returns which had been presented to the House on the 23rd of February, this Session, that during the years 1842, 1843, and 1844, whilst there had not been a single penny remitted from England, there had been 550,000l. remitted from Ireland into the national Exchequer, which, together with the previous sum, showed the aggregate amount of remittances from Ireland since the Union to be 20,000,000l., which was equal to an annual remittance from Ireland, over and above that remitted from England, of 250,000l. And if to the sum of 20,000,000l. they added what had been on the importation of British and foreign manufactures, &c., it would give a total of 22,250,000l. It had been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, that the present was not an opportune time for introducing such legislation as that proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick. But surely this time of distress and general poverty in Ireland was the very time in which the Legislature should compel the landlords of that country to do their duty faithfully to their tenants, and so mitigate the evils under which they laboured. At present there was no inducement for the Irish landlords to live in Ireland; and what he desired was to supply such inducement, for, without it, they would never have prosperity in Ireland. He called upon the House to forget awhile the strict principles of political economy, of which they had heard so much, and to help Ireland to the establishment of commerce and the development of her natural resources. If another year of distress should unfortunately come upon Ireland, they would then regret their apathy in this matter; they would find that they had been acting in any but a wise manner in refusing to encourage the landed proprietors of Ireland to spend their money in that country.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, but merely to express his concurrence in the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Bellew), to the effect that absenteeism was not the sole or even the greatest evil of Ireland. If anything could induce the proprietors of Ireland to reside on their estates at present, surely the distress which prevailed there should. He was glad to know that there were many resident landlords in that country, who were attending to the wants of their people during the present calamity. He entertained a confident hope, that the proposed poor law for Ireland would have the effect of reducing the greater portion of the evils with which Ireland was afflicted. With respect to this Motion, he admitted that he was not prepared to repudiate it; but under the present circumstances of Ireland, and when the Government bad promised to introduce Bills to facilitate the sale of landed property in Ireland, he thought it would not be wise to adopt this Motion, which would have the effect most probably of deterring Englishmen from purchasing those estates, and the objects of the Government in introducing those Bills would be thereby frustrated. He thought that the present was an inopportune occasion to introduce a measure which would damp the efforts of the Irish landowners during the present distress. He would advise the House to wait until they saw the results of the new poor law, which would make the landlords responsible for the poverty of Ireland. He thought that if that law were made to extend to the holders of jointures, mortgages, &c., it would be but acting justly towards the people of Ireland. In many instances he knew that the agents of absentee Irish landlords had lessoned in a great measure the evils which flowed from Irish absenteeism; but at the same time he must say that no steward or agent, however humanely disposed, or however humanely he was instructed to act by his employer towards the tenantry of whom he had charge, could be as serviceable to that tenantry as the landlord himself. He hoped sincerely that the spirit which had been manifested in that House, and on this side of the water generally, towards the Irish landlords, would have the effect of inducing them to discharge their duties in a faithful and liberal manner. He regretted that two hon. Gentlemen of that House had thought fit to make what he might perhaps designate as vicious attacks upon the Irish landlords. He alluded to the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), who appeared to show them up as much as he possibly could. He found that the hon. Baronet had already had his reward; for it appeared by the newspapers that the parish which he represented had passed a vote of thanks to him. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Rocbuck) was not in his place, because he could have assured him that there was in Ireland no small number of landlords who had done their duty faithfully to their tenants, and who were anxious to submit to all the inconveniences of poverty, that they were, in fact, prepared to lose their estates sooner than see their fellow-countrymen die of starvation.

COLONEL RAWDON

wished for a moment to call the attention of the House to the wording of the resolution before the House. He was sure that the hon. Member for Limerick deserved great praise for the language in which he had couched his Motion. It appeared to him, that if the Motion were carried, it would really have the effect of conferring a benefit upon the absentee landlords of Ireland; for the tax that would be levied from them under this resolution would have to be laid out in the improvement of their own estates, on which they refused to reside. Why surely no one could object to such a resolution as that. They had already examples of the excellent effect which such a measure would have upon Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) did not reside upon his estate in Ireland; yet all the rent he received from that estate was expended in the improvement of it. He was inclined to say with the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that this resolution scarcely went far enough; and that in his opinion holders of jointures, mortgages, &c., should be included in it. He thought that the House and the country had a right to expect that such parties should contribute as well as others to the support of the poor of Ireland. He believed that in many instances the tax proposed by this resolution had been voluntarily imposed upon landowners in Ireland, and that it had produced the most beneficial results. He agreed with the noble Lord who preceded him, that one of the great evils of Ireland was not merely the non-expenditure in that country of the rents which her landlords received from her, but also the absence of that moral in- fluence which resident proprietors conferred upon a country. He thought that it was impossible for any one to travel through Ireland without instantly seeing the great difference between those parts of the country where there was a resident proprietary and those where there was not. The face of the country proclaimed at once whether or not there had been a kind and beneficent landed proprietary to superintend the labouring classes. The wives and daughters of the landed gentry conferred a benefit upon the neighbourhoods in which they resided by visiting the poor and promoting their comforts. Great praise was certainly due to the ladies of Ireland for the benevolent exertions which they had made on behalf of the suffering people of that country during the present crisis. By voting for the resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, he wished it to be implied, that in his opinion it was right to make such landlords as neglected to perform their duties to their tenants pay a penalty for the destitution which their neglect brought upon the country, and that the moral influence which their residence amongst their tenantry produced, was as beneficial to the country as the expenditure of those rents amongst them. He wished it to be implied that those proprietors were highly culpable for depriving their tenants of the advantages which they ought to confer upon them, by discharging amongst them the duties of magistrates, grand jurors, &c. He had not the slightest wish to throw blame upon any one of the landed proprietors of Ireland who was at present faithfully discharging his duty; but he contended that it should not be left to the mere caprice of a landlord as to whether or not he should discharge his duties to his tenants. He conceived that the scenes of woo which at present exhibited themselves in Ireland, should induce those Irish proprietors who had hitherto absented themselves from their estates, now, at least, to return to them, so that they might alleviate the sufferings of the people of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member read a letter from a lady in Armagh, which represented that county to be in a lamentable state of destitution, notwithstanding the boast of the Premier that the small holdings of the north of Ireland had made that part of the country prosperous and happy. He concluded by stating, that he conceived it to be his duty not to shrink on this occasion from voting in accordance with his hon. Friend's Mo- tion, although he did not wish it to be understood that in so doing, he attributed the whole of Ireland's ills merely to the non-expenditure of her rents amongst her people.

MR. FITZGERALD

thought that the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Rawdon) had given to this question a more important phase than it appeared to have before. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken in the course of this debate, had said that absenteeism was not the great evil of Ireland, but a want of capital. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had never heard a more absurd argument than that. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there was an annual drain of 4,000,000l. out of Ireland in the shape of rents to the absentee landlords; and yet he said not absenteeism, but want of money, was the great evil of Ireland, forgetting that the drain which was annually taken out of that country was its legitimate capital. Unfortunately England had thought it politic not to remedy that evil of absenteeism, and Ireland was now ruined by it. The hon. Member for Southwark had made some most extraordinary statements that evening. That hon. Gentleman had said that no charge could be justly brought against the London Companies who possessed property in Ireland, because nearly the whole of the rents from their Irish estates were expended in the improvement of those estates. Indeed he said that they actually spent more in Ireland than the resident landlords. Now he happened to know that that was not the case in Galway at least, for the resident landlords there, actually spent more than they received. He admitted that the London company of which the hon. Gentleman was president, had spent more of their rents recently than formerly on their Irish estates; but that improvement had only occurred within the last few years; and he believed that what improvement there had been in that respect in Ireland, was due in a great measure to the statistics which had been repeatedly brought before the public by the members of Conciliation Hall. He fully agreed in the resolution, and felt that he should not discharge his duty if he did not express his gratitude to the hon. Member for Limerick in bringing it forward. The instances of the evil effects of absenteeism were numerous—he could mention one, where the owner of the property (Mrs. Oliver Gascoyne), which was situated in Cork, had not seen her tenantry for forty years. Lord Ormonde sold his English property, and resided upon his Irish estates in Kilkenny; and Lords Glengall and Mountcashell likewise resided on their property, and took care of the interests of their tenants and dependants.

MR. R. YORKE

wished to propound two questions—first, how absenteeism was to be defined; and secondly, how the proposed tax upon it was to be reconciled with the great constitutional right of the subject to his liberty? If any Gentleman would answer these two questions as shortly as he put them, he would vote for the Motion.

MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD

agreed in the principle of the resolution, but found great difficulty in voting for it. As long as Ireland continued a part of the United Kingdom, it would be unfair to put a tax upon Irish proprietors residing in England, without also taxing English proprietors residing in Ireland. If such a law were passed, it might be productive of some good, but would be likewise attended with great evil. The proprietor who resided in one part of Ireland, whilst his property lay in another part of the same country, might neglect that property as much as if he resided out of the country altogether. Many of the absentee landlords had their estates much better managed, and a more comfortable tenantry, than some of those who resided in Ireland. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 70: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.
Berkeley, hon. C. Newry, Visct.
Blake, M. J. O'Brien, C.
Brooke, Sir A. B. O'Brien, T.
Browne, R. D. O'Connell, D. jun.
Callaghan, D. O'Connell, J.
Chapman, B. Rawdon, Col.
Collett, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Fitzgerald, R. A. Wakley, T.
Hall, Sir B. TELLERS.
Macnamara, Major O'Brien, W. S.
M'Carthy, A. Tuite, H. M.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Chaplin, W. J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Christie, W. D.
Christopher, R. A.
Bannerman, A. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Craig, W. G.
Barnard, E. G. Dennistoun, J.
Bellew, R. M. Dundas, Sir T.
Bowles, Adm. Escott, B.
Bowring, Dr. Forster, M.
Bright, J. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Brotherton, J. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Cardwell, K. Gore, W. O.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Moffatt, G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Monahan, J. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Morpoth, Visct.
Grosvenor, Earl Morris, D.
Hastie, A. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Hatton, Capt. V. O'Brien, A. S.
Hawes, B. Owen, Sir J.
Heathcoat, J. Palmerston, Visct.
Heneage, E. Parker, J.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Plumridge, Capt.
Hope, Sir J. Ricardo, J. L.
Hume, J. Scrope, G. P.
Humphery, Ald. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Stuart, W. V.
James, W. Thompson, Aid.
Jermyn, Earl Thornely, T.
Jervis, Sir J. Trotter, J.
Jones, Capt. Ward, H. G.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Lambton, H. Wyse, T.
Lincoln, Earl of Yorke, H. R.
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. TELLERS.
Mackinnon, W. A. Tufnell, T.
Mitchell, T. A. Hill, Lord M.