Commons Sitting of 29 July 1848

REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR IRELAND—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Adjourned debate resumed.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLobserved, that in the absence of all the Cabinet Ministers he felt some difficulty in addressing himself to the Irish policy of the Government, especially as he should follow four hon. Members who had spoken in support of the resolution. He must add his feeble but earnest remonstrance against the do-nothing policy which Her Majesty's Go-
980
vernment had come to the conclusion of adopting. He had frequently complained of former Administrations, that their measures were not calculated to serve or to assist Ireland; but they had, at least, this merit, that, whether their measures were good or bad, they carried them. Her Majesty's present Government could not, he regretted to say, lay claim even to that virtue. It had been said that, in the present state of Ireland, to do nothing was to do wrong; and, paradoxical as that observation might appear at the first view, it was essentially true, for really nothing had been done whilst much was required. It was true that, in the course of this lengthened Session, three successive measures had been passed with the view of suppressing outrage, and putting down popular discontent. As to the two first, he should not allude to them, and only to the third to say that his absence from the House, when it was finally carried, arose not from any wish to shrink from the responsibility of supporting it, but from accidental circumstances. Painful as it might have been to his feelings, he should have given to that measure all the support in his power, believing that, harsh as it unquestionably was, it was really necessary for the welfare and benefit of the Irish. He could not avoid expressing his regret, that after the speech of the noble Lord last night, which, though it did not hold out much hope of remedial measures for Ireland, had at least the merit of betraying no angry feeling, his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex should have entered into some topics which, at the present moment, should not have been touched. Should disturbances unhappily break out in Ireland, he hoped they would be put down with determination coupled with all possible mildness, which the country had a right to expect from the character of the noble Earl at the head of the Irish Government. He came now to consider the questions upon which the absence of legislation had been the subject of just complaint. First, there was the Church question, on which his observations should be made with a view to conciliate rather than to irritate. Religious considerations appeared to him to be excluded from the present disturbance or discontent of Ireland to an extent that was perfectly unprecedented; but if civil war should unfortunately break out, he did not believe it would be possible to keep them out of view. He feared that this strong element, which now lay concealed in the

981
rural mind of Ireland, would in that case soon develop itself; so that the contest, which might have begun in the first in-stance between the supporters and the opponents of the British Crown, would soon turn into a war between the Catholic and the Protestant. As to the Church question itself, he was convinced it could never be settled except, as all great questions must be, upon the principle of compromise; and that in the principle of compromise there must not be left out of view the feelings of the Protestant laity of the middle and lower classes. He should have been glad to have seen the Government Bill for the improvement of the franchise pass in the course of the present Session; but its passing either this year or next was of very little importance, compared with measures that would give the people the power to live. Employment and food—food and employment—Were the first questions to be considered, in discussing the remedial measures necessary for the welfare of Ireland. These subjects brought him to the omissions of which he conceived the country had a right to complain of Her Majesty's Government. They were unquestionably right in postponing the consideration of a settlement of the Church question, and also the question of the franchise; but before this Session closed, or, if it were too late, early in the next Session, he implored them to do something towards promoting the great object, an object vitally essential for the welfare of the people, namely, finding them employment. The noble Lord said that English as well as Irish measures had necessarily been postponed this Session. That was true; but there was this difference between the English and the Irish measures—that the English measures had not, year after year, been recommended for consideration by seventeen or eighteen Committees of that House, and by different Royal Commissions. In 1844 a Commission recommended legislation upon the subject of landlord and tenant. Three Bills had been brought forward in relation to it; one this Session, which had been considerably amended in Committee; but it now appeared that all their labour and care were to be thrown away. He particularly alluded to this question, because the subject was far from being popular in Ireland. The public mind of that country had gone to such lengths in looking for interference between landlord and tenant, that it was important some measure should be passed as soon as possible, in order that
982
the expectations which were rife should be checked. If there were opposition, it was certainly not likely to be overcome by the readiness which the Government had shown to yield. Numerous other measures had been recommended by Commissions and Committees from the year 1811; and from the time of the Poor Law Commission to that called the Devon Commission, there had been a regular series of recommendations, tending to the productive employment of the labouring classes. One measure had been secured, namely, a poor-law granting a full right of relief to the poor, and in certain cases to the ablebodied. This measure was not popular in its working; but, unpopular as it might be, he had no hesitation in stating his adhesion to the principle. Its severity was a necessary evil. He could not help reminding the noble Lord that, in 1846, before he was convinced the poor-law was necessary, he declared that a measure for the reclamation of waste lands was essential for Ireland. He repeated that a measure for the employment of the poor in the reclamation of waste lands, as an aid to the working of the poor-law, and to enable the distressed districts to bear the pressure inseparable from that law, had been promised, but, in point of fact, not given. What was the history of the measure to which the noble Lord referred? Something like the Landlord and Tenant Bill of the present Session. It was not, however, referred to a Select Committee to prepare the way carefully, but at once thrown out of the window. One or two of the Members expresssed their doubts; some wanted emigration, some had their heads full of railways—some had one notion, and some had another—when the truth was that the condition of Ireland required not one panacea, but a series of combined measures, any one of which would have been imperfect without the assistance of the other. [Lord J. RUSSELL: 500,000 l. had been transferred for the purposes of land improvement.] He admitted that money advanced to proprietors for drainage had done good; but there were some districts where the landlords were poor, and where to charge the land-lord with the interest of the instalments would add to his burdens to such a degree, that, instead of conferring an advantage upon him, it would add to his losses. The measure, however, for the improvement of waste lands had been abandoned. Then, with regard to proposals for railways and

983
public works, Ireland had been the victim of several mistakes in this respect. The plan of the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) was too extensive, both in the amount proposed to be advanced, and the object to be accomplished. These circumstances caused the rejection of that measure; but the principle of aid by the State to railways was sound and valuable in itself. Last year a minor plan was proposed by the Government; and he called upon the House to look at the results of even that limited amount of public money advanced to a railway company. The great line between Dublin and Limerick had been opened by it; 700 l. per week had been added to the receipts; and when the line was opened to the large towns south of Cork, the increase would be still more striking. He would put it to the strictest economist in the House, whether it was not cheaper to govern Ireland by paying labourers than soldiers. One or the other must be done; for so long as distress and destitution prevailed in every variety of form, there would be discontent. Employment, therefore, was the first essential; and he earnestly recommended the Government to take this subject into their earliest consideration, and whatever measure they determined upon, to carry it—shrinking from no opposition, whether from without or within. He had no doubt that the individual intentions of every Member of the Government, whether belonging to the Cabinet or not, were sincerely favourable to the welfare of Ireland; but Ireland had reason to complain that those individual intentions produced few collective results. Somehow or other there was always wanting an unity of will and purpose in the Members of the Government—great readiness, certainly, to take everything into their consideration; but just when the subject was ripe for being carried into effect, some opposition started up, or some screw became loose, in the Cabinet or out of it, and then there was equal facility in allowing the whole project to fall to the ground. Now, if this policy were allowed to go on in future, it needed no spirit of prophecy to tell the House what the inevitable result must be. If promises were to be made and expectations encouraged, of good and useful measures, which were not realised, the history of Ireland for the next ten years might be written in blood. Present disturbances would be put down—he hoped without bloodshed; but put down they would be. The cause of law and
984
order was safe in Ireland—the authority of the Sovereign would triumph. But when disturbance had ceased, when the fury of popular excitement was passed, Ireland would be, as she had been for many years, a burden upon the resources of England, and a cause of weakness instead of power to the British name, if her evils went unredressed.
MAJOR BLACKALLsaid, that taking the Amendment abstractedly, there was no Irish Member who would not readily give it his support; but it had been followed by a speech from the hon. Mover containing views as to remedial measures from which he entirely dissented. He wished it to be recollected that there had been an obstructive as well as a do-nothing policy during the Session. It was said, that the coercive measure passed at the commencement of the Session had been inoperative. His own county, Longford, was one of the first put under it; and he could only say that it had restored tranquillity in a very short time. Longford remained tranquil to this moment, au example to many parts of Ireland. To what was this attributable? To the excellent example of the Roman Catholic clergy and gentry, who discouraged political agitation and the club system. Much mischief, he believed, would be done by the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex, in which he attributed nearly the whole of the evils of Ireland to the Church. That speech was likely to create feelings of sectarian bitterness; whilst, as he believed, it did not contain a true representation of the opinions of the Irish people. In all his (Major Blackall's) communications with the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he had always found them professing a wish not to do away with the Protestant Establishment; and he believed they were sincere. However much he might wish for reform in the Irish Church, he would never consent to its abolition. He had no confidence in many of the remedial measures proposed. The panacea for Ireland was to encourage employment—to support the law. He must say, that in the present state of Ireland there were considerations which should induce the Government to treat her with great caution. The great mistake had been in adopting permanent legislation at a moment of temporary distress; and the House was now passing measures which would rather involve her in further difficulties. The measure which had met with most success,

985
would force into the market a large proportion of Irish property. Another law had been passed, which all were unanimous in thinking required amendment. He was not opposed to a poor-law in principle. He had endeavoured, as far as he could, to carry out the Act; and in his own district he had no reason to complain of it; but he could not help saying that it was in consequence of the advantageous position in which he was placed that he had been able to make it auxiliary to employment. His division being a small one, there being only four landed proprietors, who had a community of interest, the poor-law had been made auxiliary to employment. They had been able to keep every ablebodied pauper in employment since November. He did not think, however, they could trace disaffection to the existence of distress; he believed that the disaffection was created by those who had harped upon the subject of the injuries of Ireland until they had driven the people into discontent. There was one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex last night in which he cordially concurred. He was favourable to the proposition of having an annual sessions in Dublin, for the despatch of Irish business. He had not heard one word as an objection to that, He was perfectly convinced that a firmer knitting of the interests of the countries, the bringing over to Ireland English gentlemen and English capital, would be the result; the public opinion in favour of such a course was daily gaining ground, and he had entrusted to him a petition from the grand jury of the county of Meath, signed by gentlemen possessing property to the amount of 80,000 l. per annum, in favour of the proposition. He thought that the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale, however fair in the abstract, was not borne out by the circumstances of the case; and, particularly, disagreeing with him in the reasons which he had given for bringing it forward, and disagreeing with him that it was advisable at the present moment, he should support the noble Lord.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that the state of Ireland was important to England was plain from the events of the last two years, and the events of the last two days. If the Irish remained in a discontented state—if civil war were to break out, would not the English people have to pay the expense of the maintenance of troops? and the loss of tranquillity would produce ruin in this commercial country, England would not
986
only pay for it in that manner, but in the loss of reputation in the eyes of Europe—in the loss of strength, power, and position amongst the nations of the earth. He, therefore, hoped the English people would seriously take into consideration the state of Ireland, and no longer trifle with a question which had attracted the attention of Europe, It was not many years since one of the most eminent men that Ireland had produced (Dr. Doyle) said, that the unrelieved poverty of Ireland would continue uncorrected by British legislation until pauperism executed on their heads the vengeance of Heaven. He asked whether that prophecy did not appear to be in the course of completion? That eminent man died of a broken heart from despair, at seeing no improvement in the condition of the Irish. Last year was passed the Irish poor-law—forty-seven years from the Union; whilst for three hundred years England had enjoyed the right. It had been deferred until the second year of famine, and that famine had completed the difficulty of working the scheme. That law was accompanied by a clause which had exasperated the clearance system; it gave facility to landlords to clear their estates. The Landlord and Tenants Bill, he believed, would be a delusion, rather than a remedy, unless it was materially modified and altered. The state of the law of landlord and tenant operated as the most cruel and pressing grievance on the people of Ireland, and was at the bottom of the discontent of the Irish peasantry. Unless the House set to work earnestly and thoroughly to settle that question, they would not put down the insurrection which threatened Ireland, or, if it were put down, it would break out again. The cry was, "Ireland for the Irish." What they meant was, that the Irish should be allowed to live in Ireland by the exercise of their industry; that the laws which at present prevented them doing that, and robbed them of the fruits of their industry, should be altered in their favour; that justice should be done between landlord and tenant. He wished to say nothing that was irritating; but if what he said was true, he thought it desirable that it should be stated. It would rather have a soothing effect than otherwise, if it were known that in this assembly, and amongst English Members, there were some who sympathised with the Irish tenantry; and would encourage them to believe that, without force, sooner or later they would obtain redress. For some time

987
past, many of the landlords in Ireland, by the help of our army and the police, had attempted, and many of them in fact carried into effect, the clearance of their estates. The landlords, as a body, small as their numbers were—about 8,000 holding in fee—had the power of clearing from the face of Ireland the whole of the population—they might sweep off their estates the whole of the present inhabitants. He had brought cases of this kind before the House, one in which 140 houses had been cut down a few days before last Christmas. The landlords had mistaken views as to the clearance of estates, and the number of small farmers; and he was delighted to hear from the noble Lord his opinion that small farms might maintain the population in comfort and abundance. If the Irish landlords were of that opinion, there would be no danger for Ireland; but it was the contrary opinion which prevailed amongst them, namely, that the first step towards improvement was the clearance of their estates from small farmers, and the establishment of large farms, according to the practice of Lincolnshire and Norfolk. If they did not point to that, he believed that the discontent in Ireland would not be great; but when all these indications had been given of the conduct of landlords, was it extraordinary that we should see recklessness and discontent in the peasantry? They believed that it was intended to drive them off the land which they occupied, and that belief was at the bottom of the insurrection. He would read a word or two from one of the most recent documents put forward by the revolutionary party—an article from the Irish Felon of last Saturday, in order to show what the grievance was in the opinion of those who were now supported by so large a proportion of the discontented population of Ireland. It was—
"Our most suffering, most patient people have long humbly prayed the ruling faction to live by honest industry in their own land—in the land in which God has placed them, and in which Heaven has amply provided the means of maintaining them. We have claimed Ireland for the people of Ireland, and our rulers call that pillage. Is it worthy the name of robbery or pillage—the cry of the people of Ireland to live by their labour? We have begged that the produce of Ireland should sustain the lives of the Irish people, and our rulers call that plunder. We have entreated Irish landlords to act as Irishmen, to enjoy the advantages of their social condition, but to take that enjoyment with all its duties; to receive their rents, and revel in their wealth, but to make that wealth subservient to the happiness of the Irish people; and most of our landlords accuse us
988
of robbery, because they say, 'We are English, we have no part with the Irish. "Ireland for the Irish' excludes us."
The answer to that was—this is a demand for the confiscation of rents; but did the Irish people want any thing more than to live honestly by the sweat of their brows? How could they expect Ireland to be otherwise than disturbed? Houses had been levelled by the landlords to an extent which was unparalleled; but when one house had been levelled in Surrey, and levelled in the most legal manner, it produced the greatest excitement throughout the neighbourhood. In one district in Ireland, within the last year, 9,000 persons had been turned out upon the world houseless and homeless, whilst in another district, in one union in Kerry, 1,000 persons had been turned adrift since the commencement of the present year. He had a letter from Dr. Brown, the Catholic bishop of the diocese in which the occurrence took place, stating that upon the property of the late Major Mahon 600 families or 3,000 persons had been turned out upon the world. In Castlebar, in Ballinrobe, in Carrick-on-Shannon, similar evictions had taken place; and how could they expect that the consequences would not be disturbance and discontent? Let the House remember that a similar system of proceeding prevailed over a large extent of country. Was it to be wondered at, then, that the small farmers, who were every moment afraid of being turned out of their land, and left to die in the ditches, should be ready to join any movement which promised a chance of amelioration of their condition? when such clearances and depopulations were attempted in England centuries back, the same results were produced which had taken place in Ireland; but depopulation of districts was against the common law of England, and landlords had been tried and punished for it. There was no surplus population in Ireland; but on the contrary, if every agricultural family got twenty acres of waste land, allowing eight for cultivation, and twelve for other purposes, they would repay the cost of so locating them in a very short time. The Government ought to apply extraordinary powers, if necessary, to enforce this cultivation of the waste lands, and their motto ought to be in such a case—
"Salus populi lex suprema."
If they adopted some course of this description, they would find Ireland, in a very short time, contented and well off.
SIR G. GREYsaid: As the speech of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has included every topic connected with the question before the House, it will be unnecessary and unjustifiable for me now to occupy much of the time of the House; but it would hardly be considered respectful to the House if the discussion were allowed to close without some other Member of the Government addressing; it after the speeches which have been since made. A complaint has been made that the speech of my noble Friend, though mild and conciliatory in its tone, has held out no particular encouragement to Ireland as to those legislative measures in the power of the Government to propose, and of the Parliament to adopt, for the purpose of remedying those evils which unfortunately exist in Ireland. If that complaint were well founded, I must say that, having listened to every speech which has been delivered in the course of the present discussion, I should not be able to feel anything but discouragement in respect to the application of a cure fur those evils, when I observe the want of agreement existing among hon. Gentlemen themselves as to the suggestion of any remedy which they think practical. No two Gentlemen have concurred in a remedy, though they all agree in admitting that grievances exist in Ireland; and, while acknowledging the difficulty they themselves experience in agreeing upon the legislative remedy to be adopted, they nevertheless think it the bounden duty of the Parliament and Government to devise the proper remedy. I am not disposed to say that Parliament can do nothing to mitigate the evils in the condition of Ireland; and still less do I think that it is the duty of the Government to look with apathy—as the hon. Member for Middlesex has unjustly accused the present Government of doing—at the existence of those evils without attempting a remedy. I will recall the attention of the House to the circumstances which followed the present Government's accession to office; and I ask whether the social condition of Ireland was neglected by the Government or the Parliament in 1846 and 1847? Immediately after the present Government assumed office, the disease in the potatoes—unfortunately the main staff of life in Ireland—accompanied by a deficient harvest in Europe, brought on the calamity of death in a most aggravated form, which pressed with unequal severity on Ireland, reducing the popula-
990
tion of that country to the border of starvation, and in many cases to actual starvation. Symptoms of the coming calamity had previously appeared, and the Government had asked for and obtained measures calculated to avert it, or to mitigate its severity. It fell on Ireland in the winter of 1846 and 1847; and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that day after day, and week after week, the attention of Parliament was occupied with the affairs of Ireland; and the Government would have neglected the duty which then devolved on them, if, instead of attempting to mitigate the distress in Ireland, they had brought in Bills with respect to the Irish Church, or any political grievance in that country. The hon. Member for Middlesex has said, that since the accession of the present Government to office, they have sat with folded arms, doing nothing. I do not know in what part of Ireland the hon. Gentleman's property is situated, though I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman discharges his duties as a landlord as every person of good feeling would; but I appeal to others connected with Ireland to say, whether the Government at that time were not fully engaged in directing their honest endeavours, at least, to mitigate the severity of the calamity which pressed on the people? Put the hon. Gentleman said, that not only had the Government done nothing to mitigate the evils of Ireland—the great evil then being the famine, which pressed the people down—but that the only measures brought in by them were two Coercion Pills, and the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to stand up and deny the necessity of any one of those measures? The hon. Member for Longford has handsomely borne his testimony to the result of the first of those measures in his county, which, being one of the first places coming under the operation of the Act, and having been before in a most disturbed state, has been restored to tranquillity. That first Act which passed was eminently successful for its purpose; and those dastardly assassinations which were the justification of the measure, have since, with one or two exceptions, actually ceased. Then, with respect to the other two Acts, which received the assent of the immense majority of this House, the hon. Gentleman will remember that the French Revolution in February last gave an impulse to feeling in Ireland which deranged the whole state

991
of society in that country. The present state of Ireland is not the result of ordinary causes; and, with respect to the recent suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the hon. Gentleman only a week ago stated, in a manly and honourable way, that he at first thought of abstaining from the discussion, and absenting himself from the House, but that on reflection he determined to act the more open part of avowing the necessity of the measure, and of supporting the Bill by his speech and vote. What right, then, has the hon. Gentleman to taunt the Government with bringing forward that measure, when he himself has acknowledged its necessity for the maintenance of order and law, and for the protection of the lives and property of the loyal subjects of the Crown? It is, then, no reproach to the Government that they have brought forward that measure, postponing to a future period the consideration of other measures, which in more ordinary times would have received the early and special notice of the House. But the hon. Gentleman has not confined his remarks to the present Government, but has said that in 1803 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and that in 1848 the same circumstance occurred again; and he has treated the interval as one dreary blank, as if no legislation in respect to the interests of Ireland had taken place during that space. Now, I feel it to be unnecessary to weary the House by adverting to the many Acts which have passed affecting the interests of the great body of the inhabitants of Ireland since 1803. Let the hon. Gentleman contrast the state of the Statute-book as to the penal laws respecting the Roman Catholics in 1803 with its state now. Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked the struggles carried on in Parliament for years until 1829, when Catholic Emancipation passed, by virtue of which political equality was given to all the inhabitants of Ireland? I will not go into a history of all the measures carried, but will say, that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in conveying the idea that, from 1803 to 1848, Ireland and its interests have been neglected by the Legislature, and that no Acts deeply affecting the prosperity and welfare of that country have passed during that period. On the contrary, many measures of that nature have been carried; and, though I will not advert to other measures relating to municipal corporations, and to the extension of the franchise, because I am not prepared to deny that much re-
992
mains to be done, yet I am prepared to deny that this is the moment when under existing circumstances, those questions can be beneficially and advantageously considered. I listened with expectation to the hon. Gentleman's speech the other evening, because he had told the House that, whatever might be the case with others, in his case, at all events, there should be no ground of complaint for his not bringing forward some tangible and definite scheme for the cure of the evils of Ireland. We have now had the opportunity of hearing the scheme of the hon. Gentleman; and I think that the House will be of opinion that nothing could be more vague and indefinite. Mainly, the plan of the hon. Gentleman consists in the reconstruction in the first instance, and, as I understand, in the demolition in the result, of the Protestant Church in Ireland; and the hon. Gentleman conceived that that would tend more than anything else to remove the evils of Ireland. I am not prepared to retract any word which I have formerly uttered on this question; and if the hon. Gentleman looks to the speech which I made on the second reading of the Bill with respect to Maynooth in 1845, the last I addressed to this House in reference to this question, he will find that the opinions I then expressed were very much in accordance with those stated by my noble Friend the other evening. I am not prepared to deny, but affirm, that the existence of an exclusive Protestant Church in Ireland (the Protestant Episcopalians being a small minority only of the population) is an anomaly unjustifiable in its origin, and indefensible now. I know no other country in Europe in which the same experiment has been made—in which the same attempt has been carried out; and I am quite prepared to say that the wisdom and policy of the attempt in Ireland must be condemned by its results. I think it an unfortunate circumstance, materially affecting the peace of Ireland, and the efficacy of the Government, that the Roman Catholic clergy are dependent on those sources for their subsistence to which the hon. Member for Middlesex has referred. When, however, the hon. Member quotes from the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he should do so accurately; and the hon. Gentleman has incorrectly attributed to the noble Lord the unqualified assertion that it would be a crime to moot the question of the Church of Ireland. My noble Friend made no such, unqualified

993
assertion, but expressed opinions similar to those I likewise expressed in my speech in reference to the Bill brought in by the Government of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in reference to Maynooth. I then stated that I supported the Bill not only because the principle was just on which it was founded, for improving the means of education for the Roman Catholic clergy, but because it involved the first recognition of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and because I bad hoped that it would lead to further measures; but I added, that I would not press that or any other Government to bring those measures forward, because I knew the difficulties with which they are surrounded, and felt that Government would not be right in setting this question loose by proposing some plan, unless they saw their way through it—I will not say with a certainty of success, but with some reasonable ground of belief that their proposition would meet with the assent of the people and of Parliament. My noble Friend distinctly stated, strong as is the feeling in England and Scotland on this subject, that that should not deter him from proposing a measure in respect to it, if he thought it would be acceptable to the Roman Catholic clergy and the people of Ireland; the former of whom had, however, as my noble Friend stated last night, raised arguments against the adoption of any such measure. I should be sorry to think that these objections should continue; but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Limerick in believing that the time would come—and he cared not under what Ministry—when public opinion in this country, having altered through longer experience, would enable a well-matured and well-considered plan to be brought forward, and procure for it the sanction of Parliament. I hope the hon. Member is not too sanguine in the expectation that that time is not far distant; I, for one, shall hail its arrival, and, whether in office or out of office, no one will be more ready than myself to concur in any practical plan for the accomplishment of what I believe would be a great benefit to Ireland. In alluding to this Church question, I agree with the hon. Member for Kerry, a Roman Catholic, who differs from the hon. Member for Middlesex, a Protestant, in opinion as to this being the time when it could be advantageously brought forward; and I think that the censure of the hon. Member for Middlesex is not well founded when he blames
994
the Government for not, in 1846 and in 1847, inviting the attention of Parliament to a measure which must have led to acrimonious debates, without effecting a satisfactory settlement of the question. Now, one word with respect to the plan of the hon. Member for Middlesex. That is not an original plan; it is the congregational plan; and he did not allude to the time which it would take to bring it into full operation. I suppose he only meant that it should come into gradual operation. He, however, says that this was not the plan he would propose if he had his way—that he would willingly bring forward a much more complete plan; but he says the time is not ripe for that. The hon. Member, taunting my noble Friend on this question, proposed a plan which it would take half a century to bring into operation; but that is only as a measure in the first instance; and what the hon. Member looked to was the total abolition of every ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland. I am not prepared to agree in that; and I do not believe that the House is prepared to pass a vote of censure on the Government for not proposing, under existing circumstances, a comprehensive measure with respect to the Irish Church to Parliament. The hon. Member's second suggestion was so vague that I may pass it over very lightly. The hon. Member recommended the development of the industrial resources of Ireland; and the only means he pointed to for effecting that object was systematic colonisation. If any defenite plan could be proposed, it might be advantageous to England, Scotland, and Ireland that colonisation to a largo extent should be carried on; but although the hon. Member said that no man should have reason to complain of his want of definiteness, yet he has not told us how his system of colonisation is to be carried out; by what means and by what funds it is to be supported; what class of persons was to be affected by it; and to what part of the globe it is to be directed. I am not anxious to say anything discouraging of colonisation; but there are practical difficulties connected with it which will not allow the question to be settled in the slight off-hand style of the hon. Member for Middlesex. There is in Canada great objection to Irish emigration at the present moment on account of the class of emigrants. We have seen something of this class in England. They are that class which the landlords in Ireland are very naturally anxious to dispose of; while we

995
and the colonies are anxious to obtain the best. I hope that in any plan suggested by the hon. Member, it will be rendered feasible by the arrangement of all those questions between the mother country and the colonies, and by a due regard for all other considerations. But in reference to having an immediate effect in Ireland, the emigration must be on an extensive scale; while, if carried on according to the plan of the hon. Member, its effect would be slow and gradual, and hardly perceptible at the commencement. I will do justice, however, to the scheme of the hon. Gentleman in one respect—by admitting that it might, by raising the hopes and encouraging the expectations of the people, divert them from the wild schemes which they are disposed to entertain in the absence of any plan of this kind. It should be borne in mind, however, that in the poor-law there are regulations in reference to emigration; but the misfortune is that for a cure of all evils Parliament is looked to; and no sooner is one enactment passed than it is forgotten, and Parliament is applied to again for some new measure. The hon. Member for Middlesex, accusing the Government and Parliament of inaction, proposed, in addition to the abolition of the Irish Church and systematic colonisation, that there should be a modification of the Union, and that a Session of Parliament should occasionally be held in Dublin. This, however, I apprehend, might be done by Royal prerogative; and, therefore, in respect to that measure, the hon. Member has no ground for accusing the Parliament of inaction. The hon. Member also proposed that this House should address Her Majesty, praying Her in person to visit Ireland annually. I am not prepared to deny that the presence of Her Majesty occasionally in Ireland might have a beneficial and desirable effect; but in the present state of Ireland I question whether the House would not say that the Government is pardonable for not advising Her Majesty to go to Ireland, and attempt by Her mere presence in one or two parts to put down armed rebellion. However, a visit to Ireland by the Queen could take place without any legislative proceeding; and therefore the attack of the hon. Member on the Legislature for inaction is, in this respect, altogether ill-founded. The hon. Member also proposed that there should be a Secretary of State, to whom the government of Ireland should be confided—that the office of Lord Lieu-
996
tenant should he abolished, and everything transferred to this country. [Mr. OSBORNE: No!] Then, if this new Secretary of State were to reside in Ireland, he would be only another Lord Lieutenant with a new designation. [Mr. OSBORNE: Lord Morpeth was in the Cabinet, and Secretary for Ireland.] I am not prepared to say that some regulation of that kind might not be beneficial. But to suppose that the mere substitution of a Secretary of State for Ireland for the Lord Lieutenant, would appease Ireland, and that instant calm and tranquillity would arise in that country, is an idea for which I think no other Gentleman but the hon. Member for Middlesex would have made himself responsible. I have now come to the end of the panaceas recommended by that hon. Gentleman. I do not want to enter into any crimination or recrimination. I should be very sorry to follow the example of the hon. Gentleman, and to discuss this question in a party spirit. I do not wish to avoid my share in any censure that may be cast upon the Government. I have stated fairly the reasons which prevented them from bringing forward measures with regard to Ireland, which, under ordinary circumstances. they might have felt it their duty to propose. Those reasons may be satisfactory to the House. Probably they will not be satisfactory to all hon. Members; but I think the House generally will agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Longford (Major Blackall), who said that, looking at the course of the debate in this House, he considered that the Government had been hardly dealt with in having the whole blame thrown upon them. The hon. Member for Kerry has alluded to the subject of waste lands, and has stated that this is one of the important questions upon which a measure was brought in by the Government and abandoned; and the hon. Gentleman expressed his conviction that such a measure would go far to remedy some of the social evils of Ireland. I think, however, that that Gentleman has inadvertently given evidence of the difficulty which attends any attempt to deal with questions connected either with waste lands or landlord and tenant rights. He has said that, on looking back to the records of Parliament, the eye is lost in a vista of commissions and committees on these subjects, all recommending that something should be done. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the Bills on this subject brought in by successive Governments; and I think we

997
may infer from that fact—not that the question is so free from difficulty that it might easily have been settled—but that it is encompassed by peculiar difficulties, which render it a subject of no ordinary embarrassment. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) has spoken at some length upon this subject of landlord and tenant right, and referred us to the Commission of Lord Devon, as if that Commission had recommended the same scheme as he himself proposes—that, irrespective of any agreement between the tenant and the landlord, the tenant—no matter what may be the conditions of his tenancy, or how he may have broken them—shall not be evicted from his holding till he has received full compensation for every improvement he has made upon the land during his tenancy. Now, Lord Devon's Commission made no such recommendation. The Bill now before the House, and which has been considered by a Select Committee, went beyond the recommendations of Lord Devon's Commission. That Bill, I know, underwent the most careful investigation before the Select Committee; and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Kerry in thinking that the labours of that Committee have been thrown away. I believe that it would have been impossible, in the absence of many hon. Members, to secure due and full consideration to the details of that measure; but I have no doubt that great benefit will be derived from the care and attention bestowed upon the Bill by the Committee, and from the amendments they suggested; and I trust there is now some hope of introducing a measure which may meet the sanction of Parliament. I believe, that it would be impossible, with any regard for the rights of property, or for the interests of the tenants themselves, to adopt the principle contended for by the hon. Member for Stroud. It is true, as has been stated, that the Government did bring in a Bill on the subject of waste lands. They proposed to appropriate a sum of 500,000 l. as the basis of that measure. The hon. Member for Kerry says that that scheme was altogether abandoned, and that no substitute for it was proposed by the Government. My noble Friend reminded him that the sum of 500,000 l., which it was proposed to appropriate under that Bill, was transferred, in addition to l,000,000 l. provided under another Bill, to the purposes of land improvements, and, therefore, to the employment of the people in
998
the improvement of that land. Therefore, whatever blame may attach to the Government, the Irish proprietors cannot complain that they lost the means of employing the people upon their estates by the withdrawal of the Waste Lands Bill, because the 500,000 l. which was to have been appropriated under that Bill was appropriated under another measures. With regard to those waste lands, however, I must say that the experience the Government have had with regard to the administration of a large system of public works, has not been such as to induce them to take upon themselves the management of a wide and extensive scheme for the reclamation of waste lands. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) tried his hand upon this subject during the present Session. He submitted a Bill to this House; and I believe that no Irish Member gave a very cordial assent to the principle of the Bill, and that there was not one prepared to defend the machinery by which the hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out his plan. But this case affords another illustration of the remark made the other day by the hon. Member for Shropshire as to persons overlooking Acts of Parliament. There is an Act of Parliament in existence which gives persons very large powers with regard to the reclamation of waste lands; and that Act is admitted by all to be a dead letter. I cannot help doubting the statements which are made as to the large and certain returns the Government might obtain by undertaking an extensive scheme for the reclamation of waste lands. I believe, if that impression was well founded, that capital would long since have found its way into this channel through the machinery of the Act to which I have just referred. If that Act is inoperative in consequence of some defect in its machinery, it is only necessary to bring the subject under the consideration of the Legislature, and any difficulty would, no doubt, be speedily removed. The Farmers' Estate Society Bill, which was under the consideration of this House last night, is sufficient to prove that there is no disinclination on the part of the Government or of the House to consider and sanction any measure which they may think likely to have a beneficial effect with regard to improvement of land in Ireland. It is the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant and of many Irish Gentlemen that that Bill is likely to lead to the employment of the

999
people upon the cultivation of the land. There are, therefore, two measures—one an Act of Parliament, and the other a Bill now before this House, and which I hope will receive the sanction of Parliament—which hold out the prospect of accomplishing the object at which the hon. Member for Stroud aims much more effectually, and in a much less objectionable manner, than could have been done under his Bill. I believe, with the hon. Member for Stroud, that many of the evils under which Ireland suffers arise from questions respecting land, and from the existing relations between landlord and tenant. But I also agree with the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne) and other hon. Gentlemen, in the opinion that many of those evils—and I think this is one of them—are to be met, not so much by legislation, as by the determination of the parties themselves, each in their respective stations, to consult their own interests by the conscientious and enlightened discharge of their duty; and I believe it is to such a discharge of their duty, by all persons acting upon the present law, that we must look for the social improvement of Ireland. With regard to the eviction of tenants, to which allusion has been made, I deplore most deeply the extent to which that system has been carried; though here again I must also say that I think the Legislature have gone as far as they can well go in providing a remedy for any harshness or cruelty which may be exercised in carrying into effect the powers which exist by law. What remedy the hon. Member for Stroud proposed to apply to this evil I certainly could not discover. He referred to a Landlord and Tenant Bill; but I do not think any Bill which did not go the full length of transferring property from landlord to tenant could entirely prevent the practices to which he has alluded. A Bill which will place great restriction on the powers possessed by landlords was, however, sent up from this to the other House of Parliament, and has been returned from the other House with Amendments, the most important of which have been disagreed to by this House. The hon. Gentleman has truly stated that there are many landlords in Ireland who do exercise their powers with great mildness and forbearance; but I think it is undoubtedly the duty of Parliament to place restrictions upon the undue and harsh exercise of those powers. The hon. Gentleman, however, has not made any proposition on this subject on which the sense of the House could
1000
be taken; but he has said that a good Landlord and Tenant Bill is the only measure that would supply a satisfactory remedy for these evictions. Now, I ask whether, carrying out the legitimate principle of compensation for improvements, the hon. Gentleman believes that, in the cases he has mentioned, any substantial improvements had been effected; or whether anything had been done by the tenants of those holdings for which it was likely they would have obtained compensation under any Bill that might be sanctioned by Parliament. I do not deny that there is a moral obligation on the landlord not to turn people out without cither shelter or food, to starve and die in ditches and under hedges. It is with a view of preventing such occurrences that we have framed the Bill to which I have before referred, which has received the sanction of this House; and I am not prepared to say that circumstances might not render it necessary to carry the principle still further. The hon. Gentleman, in alluding to the land of Ireland, has quoted the maxim that "land is life." I am ready to admit that, in one sense, land is life; but I am not prepared to admit the truth of the maxim to this extent, that the mere possession of land is life. To those employed in the cultivation of the land, receiving weekly wages, and therefore living from that land, the land is their life; but it is the bane of Ireland, that if a labourer gets possession of a quarter of an acre of land, he does not perform that labour by which the land becomes legitimately life; he plants his potatoes, he looks on in idleness till they are ripe, and if by a visitation of Providence the crop is destroyed, he is utterly destitute. I am not an advocate for throwing the small farms of Ireland into large ones; but the maintenance of the present division of land in Ireland is one of the most fruitful sources of evil, and it would be well if persons of capital would take larger farms in that country, and employ the poor at reasonable wages in cultivating the land. The labourers might have—as they have in some parts of England—their cottage gardens and allotments of land, on which potatoes and other vegetables might be grown; but the exclusive dependence upon the produce of small plots of ground has occasioned a great portion of that distress under which the people of Ireland have suffered. I think, therefore, that the sooner that system is brought to an end the better, and a system

1001
substituted for it more analogous to that which exists in this country. I will not occupy the attention of the House further by entering into the general questions which have been discussed in the course of this debate. I beg to express, on the part of the Government, their earnest desire, both in their executive capacity and as Members of the Legislature, to carry out such measures as may be most conducive to the peace, the happiness, and the prosperity of Ireland; and I may observe that I should hail with much satisfaction the greater union of feeling on the part of Irish Members in furthering such measures, and in doing in their own country what I think they might do to great extent—applying a remedy to those social evils which there exist. One word with reference to the state of the potato crop. Although, no doubt, there is cause for alarm on this subject, I am happy to state that the latest accounts I have seen from Ireland are of a much more encouraging character than those which were received a few days ago. It is impossible to speak with confidence, after the experience of the last two years. I hope there will be no panic, nor any feeling of despair as to the crop, in consequence of what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen in this House; because, as I have said, the latest accounts I have received from the unions in Ireland are of a much more satisfactory character than those of the last few days. Even where the disease has been most extensive, some check has been opposed to it; and it is the opinion of many Gentlemen that there is reason for hope, if not for expectation, that the greater part of the present crop may be saved, and that we need not fear the horrors of famine in Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEobserved, that in the course of the debate many hon. Gentlemen had referred to measures which, in their opinion, would be advantageous to Ireland; but the question was whether, under existing circumstances, they should endeavour to force the Government to bring such measures forward. He conceived that, although many of those measures were undoubtedly of great importance, it would be impossible, if they were submitted to Parliament at this late period of the Session, to give them the full consideration which their importance demanded. But the Home Secretary had accused the Irish Members of want of unanimity: that was not a sufficient reason for not introducing a remedy for an evil. Was there unani-
1002
mity in Parliament upon the Jewish Disabilities Bill, or the Navigation Laws? Assenting, however, to the spirit of the Amendment, he (Colonel Dunne) could not consent to press upon the Government at this moment the consideration of all the Irish measures that had been suggested. But the poor-law certainly ought to have their attention without delay, with a view to make it just and efficient, especially as there were threatening symptoms of a potato failure. Were not Irish Members unanimous in desiring that this law should be reconsidered and modified? The evictions never occurred to such an extent before the poor-law; in several places it forced them upon landlords. With regard to the present excited state of the people, approaching, indeed, to rebellion, it had its origin in visionary schemes proposed to a distressed population. The persons who were leading them were utterly incapable and unfit for heading such a movement; but the Government had done wisely in arming themselves with the power of locking them up and preventing them from doing mischief to themselves and others.
MR. R. M. FOXread a letter which he had received that morning with regard to the condition of the county he represented (Longford), a letter written by a gentleman who was agent for property of great extent, a magistrate for three counties, and a practical agriculturist. The letter stated—
"Your fears about the potato failure are groundless; there is a partial blight, but nothing more. We are very quiet here; I do not think the people were ever less disposed to riot than at present."
The Home Secretary had challenged the Irish Members to propose some substantial remedial measure; he would suggest the employment of the people in improving the arterial drainage of the country; and he would state how the necessary funds might be procured from an Irish source. There were in Ireland quitrents and other rents of Crown lands amounting to upwards of 50,000 l. a year; the expense of collection and management was very great; but if the lands were sold, it was calculated that they would produce 1,250,000 l., and that sum could be lent at 5 per cent on the best landed security under the Drainage Acts, and would return a larger income than at present. He did not believe the Irish Church to be a grievance at all; he believed that the benefit the country derived from it was far greater than any injury attributed to it.

1003
That had been especially found during the late distress and famine; where the Protestant clergy resided upon their benefices very great advantage was conferred by their presence; they were charitable very often to the full extent their income would permit. They had also aided the practical agricultural instructors, and introduced them among the people. As to the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy by the State, if they themselves did not wish it, he should object to compelling them to take an annual stipend, as being for their benefit, when the real object was to take away their political influence over their flocks. He, however, should be glad to see the priests without political influence, provided it were restored to its proper depository; and if absentees would return and live in Ireland, they would find the priesthood not anxious to usurp their political influence. In conclusion, he begged leave, as a liberal representative of an Irish constituency, to deny that the Established Church in Ireland was the aggravated nuisance which it was by some represented to be.
MR. CLEMENTScondemned the course uniformly taken by the hon. Member for Stroud in dealing with Irish questions. That hon. Member could understand little of the state of Ireland if he imagined that the remarks in which he had that day indulged were not calculated to produce the greatest excitement in that unfortunate country. When Ireland was on the brink of an insurrection, was it to be endured that the hon. Member for Stroud should hold up the Irish landlords to the execration of the populace? No man in that House had done more mischief to Ireland than the hon. Member for Stroud. The hon. Member had done all in his power to set man against man in that unfortunate country. As regarded the question before the House, he deeply regretted that the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government was not calculated to allay the feelings of disappointment which prevailed in Ireland, on account of the non-adoption of any remedial measures with respect to that country. He had hoped that the noble Lord would have held out a far different prospect for next Session; and so strong was his feeling of disapprobation at the noble Lord's statement, that if a division had taken place last night, he would have voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale; on consideration, however, looking to the critical state of Ireland, and the necessity
1004
for supporting the Executive at the present moment, he had resolved not to take that course.
SIR D. NORREYSwas not surprised that the hon. Member for Stroud had quoted from the Felon paper, for he had made himself the lion's mouth for the reception of all kinds of slander and obloquy against the Irish landlords. A large portion of the evictions which took place in Ireland were attributable to the existing poor-law; and such scenes must continue until the area of taxation should be enlarged. For his part, he did not much approve of the vampire practice of disinterring speeches and feeding on them; but he must say that the noble Lord ought not to have forgotten the sentiments which he uttered as lately as 1844, in every one of which he concurred. The noble Lord spoke well; but what had he done? He was much disappointed with the speech of the noble Lord, and thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary held out more hope of a settlement of the Church question. Without some settlement of that question, no other measures would be of any effect. His hon. Friend the Member for Longford mistook what he (Sir D. Norreys) meant by such a settlement. He did not mean the taking away of the Protestant Church, but putting the Catholic Church on an equal footing with it. That was one of the great questions of Ireland, and another was the providing of employment for the people. The latter might be much relieved by legislation, and the removal of the restraints on the investment of capital in Ireland; and to attain that end he would recommend the noble Lord to give every facility for the free use of land, and the sale of the estates of absentees, which were now tied up by the trusts of family settlements. To carry out that object, the noble Lord might have a tribunal in Ireland, such as a commission, or in some other form, for the purpose of adjusting individual rights. Was the noble Lord aware, that in some districts of the country 41 per cent of the population were now receiving outdoor relief? The burden of the rates was also so unequally distributed between neighbouring unions as to constitute a very serious grievance. The same inequality prevailed between electoral divisions of the same union. He thought the abandonment of so many Ministerial measures, during the present Session, was to be attributed to the want of decision in the noble Lord the First

1005
Minister, and regretted that he should leave to others the development of his principles in practical measures.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEwould first allude to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, on which the hon. Member for Rochdale had dwelt. The hon. Member had quoted the proceedings of a meeting held in the north of Ireland, in which the Ministerial measure was described as a robbery and deprivation of property; but he thought, on further consideration, the hon. Member would sec that it did not deserve that description, or that it would deprive any portion of the population of their rights. He said, that you could not take a custom which had long existed in Ulster, and transfer it to any other part of Ireland without practically working the greatest injustice. He did not agree in the opinion that this measure lay at the root of the social relations between landlord and tenant, or that these were the principal cause of the dissatisfaction existing in Ireland. He thought the principal cause of this was less the relation between the landlord and tenant, than that between the tenant and labourer; the hardships to which the latter was exposed, formed one of the principal evils with which they had to deal. A letter, contained in the Appendix to the Report of 1845, strongly illustrated the evils of the prevailing system. On the estate therein alluded to, there were 1,064 tenants, holding farms averaging ten acres, with 886 cottier families, occupying 536 acres of land, for which they paid 2,185 l., one-fifth of the annual rent. In another case the rent exacted by the tenant of the cottier, was 5l. 4s. 5d. per acre. There were instances in which these poor creatures paid as much as 12 l. per acre to the tenant occupying under the landlord. This was the tenant-right; and he maintained that the great evil was in the miserable situation of the labouring population, and the relations subsisting between them and the farmers. He thought this one of the first subjects that ought to engage the attention of Parliament, with the view of finding a remedy for those monstrous evils. With regard to the poor-law, he did not think it perfection. There were many details, no doubt, which required alteration; but Parliament would be better able to decide after learning the opinion of those entrusted with the administration of the law. He hoped the Members from Ireland would hold to that poor-law as the foundation on which the future superstructure of Irish
1006
society must rest. The great fault with which their past legislation was chargeable, in his view, was the neglect of the poor. He admitted that the abandonment of so many Ministerial measures was a subject of regret; but under the pressure of famine, and more recently the prospect of an anticipated outbreak, Government had been reduced to take the course they had done. The Act for the repression of crime, passed in the early part of the Session, had been described as a total failure; the best answer to that might be found in the reports of outrages in Ireland. He found that in December, 1847, the outrages reported to the police in Dublin were 2,162; in June they were only 1,188. In opposition to the remark of the hon. Member for Cork, he would maintain that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had their fair share of official promotions; he might refer to such examples as those of Messrs. Redington, Monahan, and Baldwin. It was not a fair charge to bring against the Government of Ireland, then, to say that the Roman Catholics had been unfairly overlooked. Another question of great importance had been alluded to, that of the Irish Ecclesiastical Establishment. He agreed with all that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said as to the urgency of the subject, and the difficulties of undertaking it; and he would say, that when it was undertaken, the object should be, not to demolish, but to construct; not to irritate one class and favour another; but to put both on a footing of equality—that no heart-burnings or jealousies should be allowed to exist from the participation of one class in privileges denied to another. Whenever that measure was undertaken, it should be undertaken in a confiding spirit, without restrictions or bargainings; whatever was right should be done; and if Parliament determined to act in this spirit, they would do more to lay the foundation of peace, happiness, and tranquillity in Ireland than they could effect by any other measure which it was in the power of Government to propose. He could not avoid observing that he thought it a disgrace to the press of Ireland, and almost derogatory to the national character of his countrymen, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government of Ireland should be assailed in the way he had been. He had had the honour of serving under that noble Lord, and he could say that there never was an individual more devoted to the task he had undertaken, and more desirous of promot-

1007
ing the happiness and prosperity of Ireland. Every faculty of his heart was devoted to promoting the social happiness of that country; and it was disgraceful that under the viceroyalty of such a man—so liberal and so devoted—they should see Ireland torn by the designs of wicked men, and her exciteable population roused almost to the verge of madness. His hon. Friend might depend on it that he was not mistaken in the character of Lord Clarendon: those who had excited the population must be punished, and would be punished; nothing but what was just and humane would be done by Lord Clarendon. He should feel it his duty to give his vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale if pressed to a division; but he hoped that in the circumstances in which they were now placed, the hon. Gentleman would see fit to withdraw it.
MR. F. O'CONNORcould not better illustrate the position of the Irish landlords in relation to the Government than by relating an anecdote of a Catholic priest, who once on a time lived in the county Kildare, and was supposed to be endowed with supernatural powers. One day a deputation of his parishioners waited on him, to beg that he would exert his miraculous influence on the atmosphere. One of the parishioners implored of him to procure fine weather, another entreated for rain, a third supplicated for great heat, and a fourth importuned him for cold. "Go home, my good people," he said to them at last; "go home; and when you have agreed amongst yourselves what weather to ask for, I will give it to you; but it is impossible for me to give you all kinds of weather at once." Just similar was the position of the Irish landlords with respect to the Government. They all suggested different remedies, and sought from the Government different favours; but they entirely overlooked the fact, that the miseries of Ireland were in a great degree to be attributed to their own systematic non-performance of their duty. He was not, however, of those who thought that the landlords alone were open to censure. The middlemen were the curse of Ireland. The farmer oppressed the labourer oven more than the landlord oppressed the farmer. For one tyrant in broadcloth there could be found in Ireland twenty tyrants in frieze. Nevertheless, of all classes in Ireland, the landlord class was the most in fault; for if they performed their duty honestly by the tenant, the tenant would have no excuse,
1008
nor any precedent for maltreating those to whom he sublet. It had been placed on solemn record by the Devon Commission that the Irish were, of all the European populations, the worst clad, the worst fed, and the worst housed. That fact spoke trumpet-tongued against the Union. It was idle for the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown to fling back the reproach in the face of the Irish people by reminding them that they were quite as badly off before the Union; for, even though the fact were so, it should not be forgotten that the present was an age of progress all the world over, and that the country which, in such an age, merely stood still, was to be classed with those who retrograded. Government ought to compel the landlords to do their duty. He should vote in favour of the Motion.
MR. NEWDEGATEfelt himself called upon to make some reference to the manner in which various hon. Members had proposed to deal with the Church Establishment in Ireland. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne) had spoken of that Establishment as of a nuisance, and had declared his willingness to go to the hustings on the question of its abolition. He was one of that hon. Member's constituents, and he thought he might venture to predict that the hon. Member would find that a very troublesome question if he persevered in his intention. [Mr. OSBORNE: You did not vote for me.] He (Mr. Newdegate) never had hitherto opposed the return of the hon. Member. For one, he felt it to be his duty solemnly and emphatically to protest against the language which had been used with reference to the Irish Church by the Members of Her Majesty's Government in the course of that debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department was cautious and circumspect in his selection of language when speaking on this question; but nevertheless it was quite evident that what he meant and intended was to deal with the Irish Church. Such was the right hon. Baronet's expression. [Sir G. GREY concurred with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), in hoping that the day was not distant when it might be possible to propose some measure which would put an end to the evil of having the clergy of the great majority of the people depending for their maintenance on sources such as those to which the hon. Member for Middlesex referred.] Although the Members of Her Majesty's

1009
Government might choose to treat the Church of Ireland as the great grievance of Ireland, there were independent Irish Members in that House, even of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who regarded it in a totally different light. The hon. Member for Longford had acknowledged the utility of the Irish Church, and paid a just tribute of praise to the piety, learning, and acquirements of the Irish clergy, whose conduct during the severe trials to which they had been exposed, formed an example well worthy the imitation of some of those who were now foremost in denouncing the Church of Ireland, and her clergy, as a nuisance, The hon. Member for Youghal, who was, as every one knew, an ardent Roman Catholic, spoke in a similar strain, and declared that he did not believe that the Irish Church was regarded as a grievance even by the Catholics of Ireland. Let it go forth to the world that Irish Members had so spoken of it, and that when an English Member got up to defend the Church of Ireland from the attack of another English Member, that a certain party in the House endeavoured to put him down by the force of clamour. The Church was the keystone of that arch which united the two countries—remove it, and it were scarcely possible to conjecture the results: you would make repealers where you least look for such opinions. If that stone fall upon any Government it will crush them to powder. Why should any Member of that House, be he Minister or not, presume to speak of the Irish Church as the upas tree of the country? It was a blessing to Ireland; and it had the strongest claims on the reverential regard of the great majority of the English people; for it was part and parcel of the same Church of England—united with her, not only by the legislative Union, but by identity of doctrine and of faith. To the majority of the English people he was content to leave the issue.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I fear that the hon. Member has mistaken the Members of the Government, and me in particular, on a point on which it is very desirable that we should not be misunderstood. He says that the Members of the Government have represented the Irish Established Church as a grievance, and Went on to represent that we had even attacked the conduct of the clergy of that Church. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: No, I did not say so.] Well, I am happy to find that I
1010
misunderstood the hon. Member. With respect to the conduct of the clergy, I have only to offer unaffectedly the tribute of my admiration to their virtues and acquirements. Nor did I ever say that I looked upon the Established Church as a grievance. What I said was, that I thought the endowment of the clergy of the minority of the people, while there was no endowment for the clergy of the majority, was a great subject of complaint amongst the people of Ireland. To this sentiment I have repeatedly given utterance, and I adhere to it now as firmly as ever.
MR. REYNOLDSwished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for the county of Warwick had fallen. That Gentleman had talked of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. R. M. Fox) as though he were a Catholic Member, and quoted from him accordingly. It was right, however, that the hon. Member for Warwick should know that the hon. Member for Longford, so far from being an orthodox Catholic, was a highly orthodox Protestant. The hon. Member had referred to another Irish Member, who was not an Irishman at all—the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey.) It was true that that hon. and learned Gentleman was a Catholic, but he knew very little indeed about the feelings of Catholics in Ireland. He was a convert. He had very recently renounced what he now called the errors of the Established Church; but whether his conversion to the Church in which he (Mr. Reynolds) had the blessing of being horn, was or was not an acquisition to that Church, was a question which he would not undertake to decide. It had often been said that that House was ignorant of the real state of Ireland. He had always known it to be true; but he never could have supposed that it could be true in so wholesale a sense as that that House could for one moment seriously believe that the Irish people did not regard the Church Establishment as a grievance. If they were to believe the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, indeed, they would find it no difficult matter to suppose that the Irish regarded it as a national blessing. But he denied that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a faithful interpreter of the Irish people on the question. If the Irish people should ever bring themselves to regard the Church Establishment otherwise than as a grievance and an injustice, there would he but little chance of that prediction being realised which had been uttered some years ago

1011
by his immortal fellow-countryman, Tom Moore:—
"As long as Ireland shall pretend,
Like sugar-loaf turned upside down,
To stand upon the sharper end,
So long shall live great Rock's renown;
As long as Popish spade and scythe
Shall dig and cut the Sassenach's tithe,
And Popish purses pay the tolls
On heaven's road for Sassenach's souls;
As long as millions shall kneel down
To ask of thousands for their own,
While thousands proudly turn away
And to the millions answer, Nay;
So long the merry reign shall be
Of Captain Rock and his family."
He had no ill-will to his Protestant fellow-subjects—not the least; but what he complained of was, that he should he compelled by law to support, for their gratification, an Establishment from which he entirely dissented, and from which he received no benefit. Let them look at the vulgar arithmetic of the argument. The population of Ireland was in round numbers 8,500,000. Of these 7,000,000 were Catholics, 700,000 were in communion with the Church of England, 700,000 were Presbyterians, and 100,000 were Wesleyans, Quakers, and other Dissenters. The clergy of the 7,000,000, who were 4,000 in number, cost the State nothing, being supported by the voluntary contributions of their flocks. The Presbyterians, who in the days of their political purity indignantly rejected aid from the State, now received 36,000 l. a year in the shape of a Regium Donum; and the clergy of the 700,000 Episcopalians enjoyed a revenue of upwards of 700,000 l. a year, which was derived from a tax levied upon all classes of religionists. Yet the hon. Member opposite was so innocent, which was a soft word in Ireland for ignorant, as to believe that 7,000,000 of Catholics, 700,000 Presbyterians, and 100,000 Wesleyans and Quakers, did not think it a grievance to be compelled to pay for a clergy from whom they entirely dissented. There could be no doubt but that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne) contained many useful suggestions, which might be made the foundation for good legislation, and which he hoped would one day receive the serious consideration of the House. He hoped to see the day when many of those suggestions would be carried out; and, above all, he hoped to see the day when every man in the community would pay his own clergyman as he paid his own doctor. He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale,
1012
not because it would be productive of any practical good just at present, but because it would afford a guarantee to his fellow-countrymen that they should obtain relief, at all events, next Session. It was said that Ireland was on the verge of rebellion. He hoped not; but if it were so, those who had contributed to irritate public feeling in Ireland, were accountable.
MR. STAFFORDmust remark that, whatever charges he had heard made against the hon. Member for Dublin, certainly it was not the charge of giving a factious opposition to Her Majesty's Government; for his conduct since he came into that House had been marked by a most elaborate and studious desire to avoid any such charge. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin had stated, as he (Mr. Stafford) thought very fairly, that his wishes were not hostile to the Church of Ireland, but merely to the temporalities of that Church. But the distinction which the hon. Gentleman drew between the Church of Ireland and what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland called "the Ecclesiastical Establishment of Ireland," was, he (Mr. Stafford) presumed, of such a nature that they had little reason to thank him for saying he entertained no hostility towards it. He could assure the hon. Member that they who belonged to that Church and adhered to its ritual, and believed in its apostolical origin and immortal destiny, were not afraid to stand up in that House to declare that it was stronger than any combination of politicians arrayed against it. It would be found that already there had been two alienations of the property of the Church of Ireland. The first took place when, by the abandonment of the church cess, they fixed the charge for repairs of churches upon the Ecclesiastical Fund. They took that sum from the Church, and gave it to the landowners on whose estates it had been a charge. There was in the next place a commutation of tithes; and by the arrangement, they gave 75 per cent to the Church, but at the same time took 25 per cent and gave it to the landlords. And they had this year under discussion the question of ministers' money in Ireland, which was said to amount to about 11,000 l. or 15,000 l. a year, and he believed 5,000 l. of it was collected in the city which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds) represented—[Mr. REYNOLDS: 11,000 l.] 11,000 l. of which was collected in the city of Dublin. The hon. Gentleman who

1013
brought forward the question of ministers' money, having talked, of course, of liberty of conscience—the rights of toleration, and respect for the feelings of others—ended by proposing that this ministers' money should be defrayed out of the ecclesiastical property. If that proposition were acceded to, they would tranfer 15,000 l. a year to the owners of the property on which it was at present charged, and 11,000 l. of that would be transferred from the Protestant clergyman to the Roman Catholic—from the Ecclesiastical Establishment to the owners of property in Dublin. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the position of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland was this—they stood pledged by the reiterated declarations of their bishops, and of their advocates in that House, to the voluntary system; and the House had no reason to assume that those rev. gentlemen were insincere. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) who, was recognised in that House as the organ of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, when the question of religious endowment was raised, stood up in his place, and, with a consistency to be admired, declared again what he had previously affirmed, as to the advocacy of the voluntary principle by the Roman Catholic clergy, and stated that their opinions on the subject were still unchanged. It was true it had been said by some persons that the spirit of disaffection in Ireland would be quieted and removed if the Government paid the priests; but he asked them, independently of other considerations, whether the advocates of the priests could think so meanly of them? He might also add, with reference to this subject, that there were a great number of their fellow-subjects, not the least loyal, not the least peaceable and industrious, who held that on a question of this kind, to add a national endowment to that particular creed would be to commit a great national sin, and call down the judgment of Heaven. With regard to any interference with the Established Church, if he understood Irish Members rightly, they would not hail with any satisfaction the result of an agitation to knock off the expenditure in their country a sum of 700,000 l. a year; and instead of this grant coming from the Consolidated Fund, and being sent over every year from the Imperial Treasury to Ireland, the result of the agitation would be that 700,000 l. a year less would be spent in Ireland, the
1014
odious Church would be destroyed, and the country would be the poorer.
On the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question, the House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 24: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Hotham, Lord

Anson, hon. Col.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Anson, Visct.

Howard, P. H.

Archdall, Capt.

Jervis, Sir J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Lemon, Sir. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Lennard, T. B.

Benbow, J.

Lewis, G. C.

Beresford, W.

Marshall, J. G.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Blackall, S. W.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Boldero, H. G.

Meux, Sir H.

Buck, L. W.

Milner, W. M. E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mitchell, T. A.

Buller, C.

Morpeth, Visct.

Cabbell, B. B.

Morrison, Sir W.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Morris, D.

Christy, S.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Craig, W. G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cubitt, W.

Parker, J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Price, Sir R.

Duncan, G.

Pugh, D.

Duncuft, J.

Ricardo, O.

Dundas, Adm.

Rich, H.

Dundas, Sir D.

Rutherfurd, A.

Dundas, G.

Sandars, J.

Dunne, F. P.

Seymer, H. K.

Ebrington, Visct.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, J. A.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Forster, M.

Stafford, A.

Forteseue, C.

Thornely, T.

Frcestun, Col.

Vane, Lord H.

Frewen, C. H.

Verner, Sir W.

Fuller, A. E.

Vesey, hon. T.

Goddard, A. L.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Gore, W. O.

Ward, H. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Watkins, Col.

Grace, O. D. J.

Wellesley Lord C.

Grenfell, C. W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Grogan, E.

Wilson, J.

Hastie, A.

Wilson, M.

Hawes, B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hay, Lord J.

Young, Sir J.

Hayter, W. G.

Heywood, J.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tufnell, H.

Hood, Sir A.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Alcock, T.

Henry, A.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Ker, R.

Blake, M. J.

Kershaw, J.

Browne, R. D.

Monsell, W.

Callaghan, D.

Moore, G. H.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Mowatt, F.

Fagan, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Grattan, H.

Reynolds, J.

Greene, J.

Sadlier, J.

1015

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, J.

Scully, F.

Tenison, E. K.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Col.

Crawford, S.

Thompson, G.

Osborne, B.

Main question put, that the Speaker leave the chair to go into Committee of Supply.
Debate adjourned.

POOR LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
On the Motion of MR. C. BULLER, the House went into Committee pro formâ on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that his object in moving that the Bill should go into Committee, was, to propose the omission of the clause which had been inserted declaratory of the right of Irish paupers to parochial relief in this country, after an industrial residence of five years. Since the insertion of the clause, he had ascertained that it was unnecessary. [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL should object to the clause being struck out.] He regretted exceedingly that it had ever been inserted. Its introduction into the Bill might tend to produce an impression that he had doubts as to the law as it at present stood, whereas, in truth, he did not entertain any; and, he believed, that legal opinions to the effect that you might deny relief to Irish paupers who had been resident in the same parish five years would be found to be exceedingly rare. He believed that all the advantages of the law were as much intended for the Irish poor as for the English poor.
Several hon. Members for Ireland having intimated their intention to oppose the omission of the clause,
The House resumed.
Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven.