Commons Sitting of 26 July 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.1° Paymasters Offices Consolidation.
2° Life Policies of Assurance; Piracy.
Reported.—sale of Beer; Regent's Quadrant Colonnade.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. W. J. Fox, from Kirtle-bridge, and its Neighbourhood, Dumfries-shire, for the Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Lord Rendlesham, from Woodbridge, Suffolk, respecting Clerical Offences.—From the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Cirencester, for Rating Owners in lieu of Occupiers of Tenements—By Mr. George Thompson, from John Smith, of the City of Bristol, for Inquiry respecting his Suit in the Court of Chancery—By Mr. Monsell, from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, to Prevent the Desertion of Seamen—From the Guardians of the Cirencester Union, against the Poor Law Union District School Bill.—By Lord Charles Wellesley, from the Guardians of the Ramsey Union, in the Counties of Hants and Wilts,
878
for an Alteration of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill.—By Viscount Morpeth, from New Windsor, in favour of the Windsor Castle and Town Approaches and Improvement Bill.

PARLIAMENT (IRELAND)—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Union, adjourned from the 11th of April.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, that as the hon. and learned Mover of this Motion (Mr. J. O'Connell) was absent, and with him the greater part of the Repeal Members, he would move that the debate he adjourned until that day three months.
SIR B. HALLthanked the hon. Member for saving him the trouble of making this Motion. It was better that the order should be discharged, or the debate adjourned on the Motion of the chief promoters of the repeal question, because it showed the fallacy and absurdity of the whole proceeding. He believed the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward this Motion had never had the intention of going to a division upon it. He had not been in the House since he made a speech of four hours' length in introducing the subject; then away he went, and no more notice was taken of it. He hoped the House would, after this, hear no more of hon. Members going over to the other side of the water, and saying that the House of Commons would not entertain the subject of repeal. Lot them in future say, on the contrary, that there were a great many Members ready to discuss it, that it stood first in the Orders of the Day, and that it came on after a promise that it should be persevered with. On Monday last he inquired whether the Repeal Members had made up their minds to resume the debate, and he was then assured that the debate would be resumed to-day. A circular had also boon sent out that morning to state that the matter would be brought on, and now, at twelve o'clock, the Repeal Members had the modest assurance to move that the Order of the Day should be discharged. Such conduct rendered the whole thing contemptible and ludicrous; and he hoped they would hear no more of the repeal of the Union, unless Irish Repeal Members would, at the same time, say that they had withdrawn the proposition themselves.
MR. REYNOLDShad a sufficient catalogue of errors and omissions of his own to answer for, and was not prepared

879
to take any part of those chargeable upon his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell). He was not disposed to vindicate him from the attack of the hon. Baronet, because he appeared to have a kind of right to lecture his hon. and learned Friend. It was a portion of the hen. Baronet's stock in trade, and he would not therefore interfere with it. But, having expressed his determination to join the other Repeal Members in bringing forward this subject, he begged to state that he had acted with perfect candour on the subject. On the night alluded to by the hon. Baronet all the repealers that could be mustered together, amounting to nine, being all the Members of Parliament friendly to repeal who were then in London, assembled in a room in that House, and unanimously resolved upon bringing on the Motion for Repeal to-day. He ought to state, that although they finally resolved as he had stated, there was some difference of opinion between them in the early part of the discussion. The minority, however, being disposed to bend to the majority, he (Mr. Reynolds), who formed one of that minority, joined in the resolution that the debate should be resumed today. He believed that his hon. Friend (Mr. R. M. Fox) when he entered the House was determined to take the sense of the House upon the question, and he was only dissuaded from doing so by consulting with the Repeal Members present. [A Member: There are only four.] There were more; there were seven. Altogether, there were 37 Irish Members in favour of repeal, of whom 30 were absent, and it was thought undesirable to put the question to the vote in the absence of those thirty. The hon. Baronet had expressed his belief that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. O'Connell) had never intended to take the sense of the House on his Motion. He begged to dissent from that assertion; and, on his own part, in the strongest language which the forms of the House permitted, he totally, distinctly, and entirely denied having been guilty of such political hypocrisy. He did not answer for his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. O'Connell); but for himself (Mr. Reynolds), and the other Repeal Members, he said that they were not actuated by such base and hypocritical motives. The circular to which the hon. Baronet had alluded had not been issued by the repeal party, although it might have proceeded from the hon. Baronet himself. He denied the allegation of
880
the hon. Member for Marylebone that the revolutionary spirit commenced in the Repeal Association; the revolutionary spirit was in perfect opposition to the spirit which had governed that body. Let not the brand of political disgrace be stamped upon his brow, or upon those of the men with whom he had acted—men as loyal and disinterested as the hon. Baronet himself could be. The moral-force repealers comprised nine-tenths of the population of Ireland; and if the hon. Baronet had alleged that the revolutionary spirit had its origin in the Act of Union itself, he would have stated a political fact more correctly. It was wise and prudent under present circumstances to postpone this question; it would be little less than madness to take the sense of the House in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought forward the question, and of those who acted with him. At the same time, the question was rooted in the hearts of the Irish people, and nothing could prevent them seeking by every means in their power the restoration of those rights of which they had been deprived by a measure which had inflicted poverty and misery upon Ireland.
MR. GRATTANcondemned the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone for indulging in the habit of attacking the Irish Members, and warmly defended the Repeal Association from the taunts which the hon. Member, with a smile upon his countenance but bitterness in his heart, had thrown out against that body. The question was not now pressed forward, because the advocates of repeal did not wish to follow the example of the hen. Baronet in exasperating the public mind. But the hon. Member did not understand the case of Ireland, nor did that House, which was utterly incapable of legislating for that country. One object he had in supporting repeal was to keep the Irish nobility and proprietors at home; and he hoped the time would ere long come when, to quote a sentiment of the late Mr. Grattan, the common sense of both countries would repudiate an Act which was beneficial to neither, and utterly distasteful and injurious to one. If he might venture to say so much without running the risk of adding to that discord of which there was already too much, he would call the attention of the House to the direful calamity which was said to be approaching the country in the shape of famine. He advised hon. Gentlemen to look to it. He had said before, and still believed, that

881
there would be no insurrection or outbreak. The war, if carried on, would be a war against landlords and their rents. Ireland last year produced 6,000,000 quarters of grain—twice as much as was sufficient to feed the Irish people—but the Government had sent to America for bad corn to feed them, while they took the good Irish corn out of the country and brought it to London. He thought the people would not allow the next harvest to leave the country. In pursuing the discussion of these topics, he did not know where to stop, but he could not conclude, and, at the same time, altogether pass by the argument against discussing the present question, which argument was founded on the disturbed state of Ireland. In the year 1797, when there really existed a well-founded apprehension of that rebellion which in 1798 did break out—at that period of doubt and alarm, Mr. ponsonby brought forward a Motion for reform, and Mr. G. Ponsonby a Motion for Catholic emancipation. Why, then, should they not now listen to a Motion for the repeal of the legislative Union? The Catholic question had first boon mooted in the year 1779, and it was not carried till 1829. He, therefore, saw no reason to despair of repeal, and no reason whatever to abandon it as a subject of Parliamentary discussion. It was in vain to say that the great majority of the Legislature was opposed to such a change—they had been opposed to many things which eventually they gave up—they frequently altered their views upon great national questions—upon Parliamentary reform, for example, and he might even add, upon the sugar duties. He was no friend to separation; but he was an ardent friend to a separate Legislature, because he believed the change would be better for both countries, and be was sure it would be better for Ireland. In private life he highly respected the Members of that House; he believed them to be men of honour, and fond of liberty. But when they engaged in the business of legislation they appeared to him to want common sense, especially in their mode of legislating for Ireland; he would say, therefore, that in private he admired, while in public he detested them. He would tell them, however, that notwithstanding all their misgovernment, they had not yet been able to extinguish in Ireland that love of liberty which filled the breast of every man in that country, and which no amount of injustice seemed suff-
882
icient to eradicate—not even such injustice as had recently been perpetrated—not such unequal justice as sentencing an Englishman to two years' imprisonment at home, and transporting an Irishman to Bermuda for 14 years, both on account of similar offences. Englishmen ought to maintain the Union, not because they loved legislation, but because they loved gold. Let them give the poor man in Ireland, not a thatched cottage, but a slated mansion; lot them make him comfortable, and he would then become the best customer that England could possess; but at present he purchased nothing from England except a pot in which to boil his only food. He had nothing to do but grow potatoes and get children. They talked of justice while they took away her scales, and left nothing in Ireland but her sword. he wished the Crown of England and Ireland to be one; he wished to live with this country in honour, and peace, and glory; but Irishmen, if they were not to live with equal rights, would rather not live at all.
MR. URQUHART: Sir, I cannot suppress my regret that an Irish Member, possessing the rare attributes of integrity, earnestness, and courage, has at such a moment opened his lips in this assembly, to add only to the mass of error and the depth of blindness unfortunately obscuring Ireland. Nor can I convey my astonishment to hear a man clothed with the historic name of Grattan unable to defend repeal without justifying rebellion.
MR. GRATTANdenied that he had in any way justified rebellion.
MR. URQUHART: I am happy if I am wrong in my first interpretation. I am happy to be corrected. If what the hon. Member has said was liable to doubts, I am glad that he has removed them: the hon. Member did defend the men who have incurred this guilt. In the course of his speech the hon. Member complained of having been misunderstood and misrepresented. It would be difficult not to misunderstand and misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, for he evidently does not know his own mind.
The hon. Member has given us at least a sentence which has value in itself, independently of the authority it must possess as coining from his illustrious parent: "The Union will be repealed by the common sense of both countries." A more simple reduction of a great and a complicated problem was never made. I trust

883
it is a prophecy soon to be fulfilled. But I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is by such acts as those which we see now in Ireland that either the common sense is to be proved, or the end to be realised. I have listened to the defence and explanation by that hon. Gentleman, and by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Reynolds), of the party called Repealers, and certainly with every disposition to deal candidly by them—with every sentiment that could be favourable to those who profess repeal. But, Sir, I cannot say that those who have taken the quieter course, and who have succeeded to and managed the repeal agitation as a business and an inheritance, stand acquitted of the charges brought against them—I will not say with what spirit or in what intent, but the very specific charges brought against them—by the hon. Baronet the ember for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall).
I do not think that the question of repeal could have been a paramount object in their mind: that zeal for its advancement is incompatible with the reason brought forward this day for adjourning the debate—the absence of the Mover. With unfeigned respect for the character and confidence in the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman himself, I cannot do otherwise than most strongly condemn those men with whom he is associated, and of whose views I believe very ignorantly he has constituted himself the advocate in this House. They have, indeed, agitated Ireland for objects which they have not pursued—where legitimately they were to be obtained—in this House. The facts are patent and notorious; but if evidence was not before mo, I should find in the circumstances of the country reasons to suspect that the given class of men would adopt this very course. Sir, I should think it very extraordinary if those men who are at the head of the repeal movement should be desirous to see the repeal carried. When I look to Ireland—when I look to the distinct character of its different counties—to the relative condition of its divided population—when I see superiority and strength against inferiority and disunion—when I contrast the stern character and purpose of the united organisation of the north, with the total want of self-reliance or of mutual confidence in the population of the south—to say nothing of property, station, and influence—I can have no doubt that if tomorrow repeal were carried, it would not
884
be the hon. Member for Limerick who would be the princeps senatus of College Green. This may not have occurred to hon. Members; but it is and can be no novel or strange thought to the hon. Member for Limerick and those who are in his counsels. As, then, the effect of repeal would be to place the Orange party in power in Ireland, I see a very cogent reason for the course that has been pursued. I see a very natural explanation of the contradictions that appear, and of the avoidance to bring forward this question on the only field where it can be legitimately discussed, and by the only means by which it can be ultimately carried. That question can be carried only when Ireland is united, and those who have got the monopoly of it have taken good care to make it as distasteful to their Irish as contemptible to their English fellow-countrymen.
I shall not trespass upon the attention of this House in a blind debate. I rose merely to protest against that indistinctness between the line of right and wrong which at this present moment is distracting Ireland—which at a future day may deluge that country with blood. They mix up and confound what is lawful, nay, what is most praiseworthy, with what is criminal. On both sides the same confusion prevails; and there can be no order or peace now in Ireland until it is understood that to repeal a statute is one thing, to break the law another; until it is understood that repeal is not rebellion. But I repudiate that word repeal. A statute may be repealed; but the Union was no statute. The Union with Ireland was by treaty: for that Union there was, indeed, a statute in both countries, though these statutes could never be law; the treaty may be rescinded, but it cannot be repealed. Your act was judicial in this sense—it was a warrant of execution against the Parliament of Ireland. I cannot, therefore, in any sense use the word repeal; and in lieu of it I say the restoration of the Parliament of Ireland. I distinguish between the thing and the word. I distinguish between the cause and its advocates. That cause I hold most noble. It is the restoration of ancient law—the maintenance of ancient rights. With it are associated national power and sense—individual morality and well-being. It is the only safety left for Ireland—the only remedy for England. Such is the cause, but as to its advocates, there is no repealer in Ireland,

885
Sir, I put upon the books at the beginning of this Session a Motion in connexion with repeal. I must beg the indulgence of the House for one moment while I allude to it. I cannot allow this debate to close without stating what that Motion was. It was not a Motion for repeal, and for this simple reason, that I would not come to this House to propose that which tills House has no power to do. I deny the power of this House to extinguish itself: it cannot commit suicide; and, if so, the Irish Parliment could not commit suicide; and therefore at this hour I bold the Union as if it had never taken place; and I challenge any lawyer in this House to deny the power of the Crown at this hour to summon the Parliament of Ireland in that kingdom precisely as would have been done if the Union had never passed: that was the purpose, that the limit of my proposal. It did not go to disturb any recent law, or to change the condition of things as existing by the Union, and its consequences. It did not go to replace the Catholics and Protestants, in regard to suffrage, upon the footing on which they stood in 1800; but simply to advise the Queen to use her undoubted prerogative of assembling her Irish Parliament. This measure had no legislative character, it was purely executive; it would have been carried into effect under the responsibility of the high officers of the Crown—now called Cabinet Ministers—to whom it would have been left to decide whether or not the decisions of that body should be adopted by the Crown so as to become law, or to be submitted merely to the Imperial Parliament. That was the object of my proposal, which was suggested as a standing ground between two extreme positions, and as an experiment which being made and satisfactorily tried might have facilitated the adjustment of this great question, which, after forty-eight years, has proved every year less near its solution than the year before. The successive events in Ireland, and decisions in this House, have induced me to postpone from time to time the consideration of this matter. It may appear to have been an act of great presumption on my part to venture to deal with such a subject. My reason, and I trust my justification, is this. I conceived this matter to have been falsified, by its being put forward by Irishmen, and in a manner peculiarly offensive. That it should be brought forward on its English merits appeared to me most essential, and there was no other Member of this House,
886
not Irish, not adverse to it. I stood alone. Unless I attempted it, the attempt would not be made. I was further placed in this peculiar position, that I had been commissioned by my constituents to urge as the remedial measure for Ireland the restoring of self-government.
Sir, I have been commissioned by my constituents at a public meeting at which every shade of opinion, I will not say was represented, but assembled—the clergy of every denomination—the different classes, as well as the different parties, to urge the repeal of the legislative Union with Ireland. The purpose, the grounds of that recommendation were, that this House was unfit, because of Irish affairs, to attend to the business of England—that both countries there by were mismanaged—and the evils of the Union were reciprocal. They certainly were of opinion that the Irish were not fit to govern themselves; but they also were of opinion that they could not govern themselves worse than you govern them. They were also of opinion that the presence of Irish Members in this House was an indignity as well as an evil: they looked upon their presence here interfering with matters of church government and domestic policy for England, as unendurable; and they could not sec without indignation an Irish faction, in the balance of parties, imposing on England a Ministry against her will. They, therefore, wished the Irish Parliament to be restored in order that Ireland might take upon her own shoulders the burden of her support, and upon her own conscience the responsibility of her misgovernment.
MR. RICEacknowledged that he had not heard one word from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grattan) in justification of rebellion and insurrection in Ireland. He did not wish to say one word on the question of repeal, nor bad he ever ventured to address the House on Irish affairs, because he felt his in competency to do so; yet he had not on that account less feeling for the good of Ireland, or a less sincere desire to remove the evils of that country. It was desirable that all language which might be deemed offensive by the people of Ireland should be avoided; but he believed that all the English representatives were animated by a good feeling for Ireland; and he could assure the Irish representatives that he and his constituents had no other feeling but that of kindness for their country.
MAJOR BLACKALLsuggested the propriety of allowing the discussion to be now

887
brought to a conclusion. He concurred in the sentiment expressed by his hon. Colleague (Mr. R. Fox), that in the present state of Ireland any debate likely to lead to acerbity should be avoided. He had heard with regret the uncalled-for speech of the hon. Member for Marylebone.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I quite agree in what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that those who are favourable to the repeal of the Union have shown a wise and considerate feeling, when they postponed the discussion of the measure of which they are advocates, in order not to create any acerbity in addition to the irritation which may now be felt. I only beg it to be understood that I have no objection myself personally to the renewal of this debate. I have not at all shrunk from the discussion of the question of the repeal of the Union—I was ready to enter into it whenever the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin might have told me it was to come on—and I determined to attend the House and take part in the debate. Therefore I have no personal objection or unwillingness to enter into that discussion. Of course, having thus shown what my intentions were, I leave it to those in whose hands the Motion is to decide whether or not they will bring it forward; and I think that they deserve credit for the course they have now taken. I may perhaps say further, that one of the many grounds of objection which I should have urged to the Motion, if it had come on for discussion, would have been that, in my opinion, the repeal of the Union and the establishment of a separate Legislature in Ireland would tend to that very degradation of Ireland to a province which some hon. Gentlemen belonging to that country so very much complained of. I think the honour of having a seat in this House and of taking a part in the government of a great empire is a distinction of which Irishmen ought to be ambitious—which they ought to feel as being one which raises and elevate them into a component portion of the Parliament of this mighty empire; while at the same time they may in this Legislature promote Irish legislation. Men of very great abilities and of those masterly talents which fitted them for the government of mankind arose in Ireland towards the end of the last century. We had Edmund Burke sitting in this House, and the speeches he made will ever be the subject of admiration for all succeeding generations. But Ireland being
888
then separate from England, he could not take a part which would influence the legislation of this country towards Ireland. Strong as were his opinions, and remarkable as were his views in reference to Ireland, they were then, of necessity, expressed in letters written to the Members of the Irish Parliament, in essays, and in various ways; but they could not have any influence or direction in the legislation which regarded Ireland, and those talents which he possessed were of no value as regarded that particular part of the administration. Another great man was produced about the same time—of talents nearly as remarkable, whose name will always be remembered, and whose character was most patriotic—and he devoted his abilities in the Irish Parliament to the consideration of Irish affairs—I allude to Henry Grattan. But, devoting his abilities to the affairs of Ireland, he could not, so long as the two countries were separate, take a part, as his talents qualified him to do, with regard to imperial affairs—with regard to any question of the foreign policy of the empire—with regard to any colonial question, or any of those questions which must be decided by the Legislature sitting at the centre of affairs. His talents, therefore, were lost on imperial questions, in respect to which Burke could take a part. Therefore, it is a distinction and an advantage to Irishmen that they can now combine the formerly separate capacities of discussing these various questions; and if a man like Burke were again to arise, he might in this House declare his opinions and point his talents to the improvement of the legislation for Ireland; and a man like Grattan might sway, as he had the opportunity of doing after the Union, the decisions of this House on the most momentous questions of peace and war, and of imperial policy. This would have been one of the considerations, and one certainly not insulting or affronting to Ireland, on which, had the debate proceeded, I should have objected to the Motion; but the hon. Gentlemen who have the charge of the Motion having, as I think, wisely taken the part they have done, I can now only say that I trust that the distinction at present will be not between Gentlemen who differ from one another on the question of repeal, but, looking to the important and critical situation of public affairs, that the distinction will be between those who wish to maintain the general institutions of our country—who wish to pursue a loyal course, and to make such

889
improvements and such alterations as they think ought to be made, however wide and extensive they may be, through the means of public discussion and Parlimentary debate—and those who are attempting by force and insurrection to overturn the institutions of the country. I trust that that may be the distinction, and that Gentlemen connected with Ireland, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, whatever their views may be in respect to measures which may be adopted, will, if they hate and abhor these traitorous designs now on foot in Ireland, employ all their energies in putting down the rebellious spirit, and in aiding the Government and the country in maintaining the peace of the united kingdom.
The Motion that the debate be adjourned fur three months put and carried.

WASTE LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee,
SIR J. WALSHsaid, that the measure was neither more nor less than an attempt to carry into effect a policy which had recently met in Prance with a signal failure, namely, to convert the Government into great employers of labour; and the mode by which it was proposed to attain this result was by invading, in the first instance, the rights and property of individuals. It was, indeed, practically impossible to carry out the propositions of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope). It was true that there was a great deal of land lying waste in Ireland, and much of it susceptible of improvement. It was true that capital might be profitably employed in a great many localities in reclaiming land; but it was not true that the Government could by any possibility be successful agents in carrying out any plan for that purpose. Neither was it true that, under the provisions of the present Pill, a remedy could be found for that destitution and overcrowded state of particular districts which formed the source of most serious evils and grievances connected with the social state of Ireland. He should be curious enough to know whether the hon. Member for Stroud had any practical acquaintance with Ireland—whether he had ever seen Ireland in his life, or reclaimed one single acre, rood, or perch of bog? The hon. Gentleman's experience was theoretical rather than practical. The case of Chat Moss had been referred to as showing what might be done in the way of reclaiming waste lands. But Chat Moss
890
was situated in the most dense manufacturing district of England; it was traversed by a railway connecting two of the most important towns of the country; and the facilities thus afforded for disposing of agricultural produce held out the strongest possible inducement to bring it into cultivation. Even in Chat Moss, however, a very small advance had been made towards the reclamation of that great waste; for, though a fringe of land near the railroad had been brought into cultivation, and produced fine crops, it would be found that—though the railroad had been in existence nearly twenty years—a considerable portion of the Moss was still unreclaimed. Now, he thought English Members should clearly understand what was meant by "waste lands" in Ireland. They were apt to picture to themselves large tracks like Salisbury Plain, or the commons which were to be seen in some parts of England. But what was termed "waste land" in Ireland was either down-right red bog, or mountain—which, in the Irish signification of the term, did not mean a hilly elevation, but land of a boggy nature, the boggy soil not being very deep, which afforded coarse pasturage. The reclamation of the deep red bogs, which he understood was the scheme the hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out by this Bill at the expense of the country, would be attended with great cost. But when a great expense had been incurred in draining tracts of land and placing them in a state fit for cultivation, the next step proposed to be taken under this Bill was to sell the reclaimed land in portions of from ten to 100 acres, or to let it on lease for ninety-nine or 999 years. Now, it must be remembered that the great mass of the population who crowded estates in Ireland were in so destitute a condition that they were utterly unable to purchase such lands, and they neither possessed agricultural implements, nor had they the means of buying them. Did the hon. Gentleman mean, then, to afford to the cotter a ten-acre allotment, and also to give him a grant of money out of the public funds, to enable him to purchase fanning stock and implements? If the hon. Gentleman thought that he would improve the existing state of Ireland by allotting the reclaimed lands in such small divisions as to multiply the cotter population, he was greatly mistaken, for the only effect of such a measure would be to spread more extensively that pauperism which was one of the great evils of the country. Believing that this measure would wholly fail

891
to produce any good effects, and that, at a moment of embarrassed finance, it would plunge the country into great expense, he would move that the House go into Committee that day three months.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) was mistaken in supposing that this was his (Mr. Scrope's) Bill. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), who was an Irish landlord, and the representative of an Irish county, and who possessed a local acquaintance with the state of Ireland, which the hon. Baronet had said that he (Mr. Scrope) did not possess. He (Mr. Scrope) might, however, claim to be well acquainted with the state of that country; for he had taken every pains to acquire information on the subject by a perusal of the blue books which had been presented to Parliament during the last thirty years. He had also turned his attention particularly to the subject of this Bill, and he believed that such a measure would tend very materially to improve the condition of the Irish people. He had that morning read a letter of Lord Cloncurry, which appeared in the Dublin Evening Post; and that noble Lord, after deprecating the excitement which at present prevailed in Ireland, observed that the great grievance under which the population of that country had been groaning for years, and which they were now attempting to repress by violent measures, might be stated in four words—"idle lands—idle hands." He agreed in opinion with the noble Lord; and on this ground he asked the House to consider the present Bill. The hon. Baronet had said that this Bill was an attempt to introduce into Ireland the same policy which had recently been adopted in Prance, and to establish in Ireland ateliers nationaux. He contended that this was an unfounded assertion. The characteristic of the ateliers nationaux of Paris was the support, in houses similar to the Irish workhouse, of large bodies of ablebodied men, without any employment; but the object of this Bill was to give productive employment to the ablebodied poor of Ireland, and thus to add to add to resources of the country. The hon. Baronet had called this a measure for invading the rights of property; but he (Mr. Scrope) denied that such a charge was justifiable. This Bill would not infringe the rights of property, but would only prevent property from being maintained in a state of barrenness in the
892
midst of a population starving for want of food, and idle for want of employment. As to the supposed cost of the plan, it must be remembered that it was not proposed to locate paupers upon these lands; it seemed to be forgotten that there were thousands of farmers emigrating from Ireland to America with 50 l., or 100 l., or 200 l. in their pockets. The experiment of locating persons on the uncultivated land of Ireland had already been tried successfully by Captain Kennedy upon several estates of which he had the management; it was only because other landlords would not follow that example, but preferred seeing their lands lie useless and waste, that it was necessary for the Legislature to interfere. The hon. Member could scarcely have read the Bill when he spoke as he did respecting the expense. Besides, how were the able-bodied population of Ireland now maintained? Was it not by public money—by the money of the people of England? What was the new Public Works Bill but supplementing the poor-rates with a loan of 1,600,000 l? Why not put the "idle hands" to the" idle lands" of Ireland? The hon. Member might speak of waste land that was not worth reclaiming, but at all events there were millions of acres which might be reclaimed at a profit, just as well as Chat Moss, parts of which were now paying 10 per cent. The hon. Baronet asked if he (Mr. P. Scrope) was a practical reclaimer of waste land; surely it was not necessary, in order to his dealing with his subject, that he should himself have handled a spade; but certainly he had an interest in the reclamation of some land. However, he would refer to a recent letter from one who was at all events a practical reclaimer, and a most intelligent man, a member of the Society of Friends—Mr. S. Robinson, of Clara Hall. That gentleman said that it was the height of insanity to allow such a fine island to go to ruin for want of a few wise laws, and he stated, that in 1838 he commenced the reclamation of 104 acres, and this year there had been sold 710 l. worth of produce from them; that his expenditure in labour upon that land amounted to 300 l.; and that there were 2,000,000 of acres of waste equally capable of improvement; so there had been 4,000,000 l. lost this year to the produce market, and 6,000,000 l. had been lost to the labour market. Things could not go on as they were. Let Parliament legislate even at the eleventh hour, or though the twelfth was striking, for the

893
maintenance of the industrious population of Ireland upon the soil of Ireland, which was so well capable of returning an abundant profit. Want of employment had been the cause of disaffection; the flag of "Repeal" really meant—"If you will not legislate so as to enable us to maintain ourselves on the land God has given us, then let us legislate for ourselves." "Ireland for the Irish" meant that the Irish should be allowed to live in Ireland, and enabled to make use of the resources of a land which would maintain far more than its present population. But the land had been placed in the unconditional power of its few proprietors; they had been allowed to do with it and with the population what they pleased; to keep up those barren wastes to which this measure related; and to sweep the population off the face of the land.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he had been disappointed when he read this Bill, for his hon. Friend, on moving for leave to bring it in, said he should not require any Government machinery or any public money to carry it into effect; but he must say that that pledge had hardly been kept, because it was proposed that the working of the Bill should be under the superintendence of a Commission. His hon. Friend said the commission was to be unpaid; but he doubted whether the Government would not be called upon afterwards to provide salaries for the officers required. His hon. Friend suggested that the Poor Law Commissioners should be invested with the largo powers proposed to be conferred on the Government by this Bill; but be was of opinion that nothing could be more injurious to the operation of the poor-law than that those powers should be centered in the Commissioners. He was not prepared to deny that there were extensive tracts of land which were not occupied, and which might be brought into profitable cultivation; but much that was called "waste land" was private property, belonging to gentlemen who kept it as sheep-walks or moors. But how did his hon. Friend propose to find funds requisite for carrying the Bill into effect? The expenses must be immediate, whilst the profits of the scheme were future and contingent; and his hon. Friend could not be so sanguine as to suppose that any capitalists would advance the money that would be required unless on the direct credit of the Government. He thought that the best mode of reclaiming these waste lands
894
was by private companies; and, though he was not prepared to say that the assistance of Parliament might not be necessary for attaining that desirable object, yet he did not think that there ought to be any direct agency on the part of the Government in such reclamation, by which they would, in fact, become large purchasers and land agents. Looking, therefore, to the machinery of this Bill, he could not give his assent to its further progress, and he hoed his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
Bill put off for three months.
House adjourned at Six o'clock.