Commons Sitting of 9 March 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Queen's Prison.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Devonshire, against, and by Mr. Divett, from Exeter, in favour of, the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—From Lincoln, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir R. Peel, from Staffordshire, against the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill.—By Sir R. Peel, from Devonshire, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Mr. J. Greene, from Kilkenny, for Removal of Disabilities respecting the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Mr. Goulburn, from Cambridge, and by Mr. Law, from York, against, and by Mr. Benjamin Smith, from Dunfermline, in favour of, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Barkly, from Jamaica, to take into Consideration the State of the West India Colonies.—By Mr. Moffatt, from Dartmouth, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Moffatt, from Distillers of Scotland, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.—By Sir William Clay, from Middlesex, against Exemption of Small Tenements from Rating Bill.—By Mr. G. S. Duff, from Banffshire, for Revision of the Stamp Duties.—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from several Places, against Continuance of the Property Tax.—By Mr. Moffatt, from several Distillers, respecting the Bonding of British Spirits.—By Mr. Goulburn, from St. Vincent, in the West Indies, praying the House to take the Cotton Trade into Consideration.—From a number of Places, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.—From several Places, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Education.—By Mr. Bright, from Oxford, and by Mr. P. O'Connor, from Nottingham, for Repeal of the Game Laws.—By Mr. Bright, from Manchester, for Sanitary Regulations.—By Mr. Reynolds, against Deriving Revenue from Intoxicating Drinks,—By Mr. Osborne, from Brentford, for Retrenchment in the Naval and Military Expenditure.—By Sir T. Acland, from Devonshire, against Repeal of the Navigation
336
Laws.—By Mr. Goulburn, from Westham, for Alteration of the Law of Parochial Assessments.—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Chester, respecting Deductions from Half-pay Pensioners (Army).—By Mr. Bright, from Dover, for Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

CASE OF ANNETTE MEYERS.
LORD NUGENTunderstood some evenings since the right hon. Baronet stated that he had received a communication from the Chief Baron, before whom the unhappy woman (Annette Meyers) had been tried, accompanied with a recommendation to mercy on the part of the jury. Taking it for granted that the right hon. Baronet had of course forwarded that recommendation to the proper quarter, he now wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had received any further report from the Chief Baron, and whether the Government intended to recommend the prisoner to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Without meaning the noble Lord the slightest disrespect, I must say that it appears to me that I shall best discharge the duty—the very painful duty which in this case devolves upon me—by declining to answer his question.

ENGLISH ARTISANS IN FRANCE.
MR. A. STAFFORDasked the right hon. Baronet whether he had received any information respecting the expulsion of English artisans, tradespeople, and labourers in great numbers from France, and whether Government had taken, or purposed to take, any steps to forward those poor persons to their respective homes? To this question he would add another inquiry (which he made in compliance with a suggestion he had received from others, and in order to allay any possible feeling of excitement), namely, whether the Government had the least notion of retaliation?
SIR GEORGE GREYwould answer the last question first. He had no hesitation in stating that the Government did not entertain the slightest notion of retaliation. In answer to the original question of which notice had been given, he begged to state, that early last Sunday he received a letter from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, enclosing for his perusal a communication received by the noble Lord, from the British Consul at Havre, which conveyed the information that the French workmen in some of the factories at Rouen had de-

337
manded the immediate dismissal of the Englishmen and women employed in those factories. This demand (the letter stated) had been complied with, and the English people in the factories had been compelled to leave Rouen so precipitately, and embark with such haste in a steamboat, that they were obliged to come away without an opportunity of obtaining payment of the wages that was due for their work; and in many instances they left with a very inadequate supply of clothes, in fact with no clothing but that which they wore in the factory, which was only partial. The Consul being informed of their arrival at Havre, made it his business to inquire into their case, and found them in a very distressed and destitute condition; and, acting on the general authority given to British Consuls to provide for British subjects in distress—an authority which he might take that opportunity of observing had been considerably extended in the French ports with reference to existing circumstances in France—he made such provision as was in his power to ensure their present comfort, and their ultimate transmission to their native places. Some of them arrived at Portsmouth on Saturday night; others had requested to be allowed to remain in Havre for some time, in order that they might have an opportunity to recover their property and procure payment of the arrears of wages due to them. On obtaining information of these facts, he wrote to the Mayor of Portsmouth, directing him to make such provision for these poor people as might appear necessary. The Mayor, in reply, wrote a letter, dated the 6th of March, which he then held in his hand, and which conveyed the information that two vessels, containing ninety-seven persons, all flax-workers, had arrived at Portsmouth. The Mayor had taken an accurate account of the names of all the passengers, their places of abode, their original trades, and the descriptions of employment in which they were engaged in Rouen. They were all to have been shipped that evening, and to leave Portsmouth to-morrow, in order to be transmitted to their respective destinations. Many of them had come from Dundee and Glasgow; but the majority from Dublin and Belfast. It was further stated, that they had expressed themselves very thankful for the attention shown them. It was also mentioned that the Consul had addressed a letter to the Commissary of Rouen, calling his attention to the fact,
338
and requesting he would take measures to obtain redress for those people, and prevent a repetition of this occurrence; and Lord Normanby had also, on being informed of what had taken place, called on M. de Lamartine, and stated the facts to him; and he at once promised, in the name of the Government, that the most liberal compensation would be made for the manner in which they had been expelled, and that an authority should be sent to Rouen to prevent a repetition of similar scenes.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE QUARTERACRE CLAUSE.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Irish Poor Relief Extension Act, with a view to repeal the 10th Section, commonly called the Quarter-acre Clause. He asked for the attention of the House while he brought under its consideration the deeply injurious effects that had arisen to the population of Ireland from the clause which he sought to have repealed. He would remind them that there was no qualification in that clause; and if a poor man, having more than a quarter of an acre of land, was so unfortunate as to be in destitution, he was absolutely doomed by that clause to starvation. It might be urged that he could surrender his land; but in some cases it would be impossible for him to do so—for example, if he held under a joint tenancy, where there were joint partners, they were all responsible, and not one of the joint partners could surrender except the whole of them consented. So that, although one of them got into a state of destitution, he could not surrender to qualify himself for relief. It might also happen that a party was a tenant at will, and could not sell his occupancy. He had, therefore, no way of parting with it, and was really in a state of starvation, without having any means by which he could redeem or relieve himself. He proposed to repeal the 10th section of the Poor Relief Extension Act, and to give authority to boards of guardians to grant relief to all persons who are at the time in a state of destitution. It was intended that, where parties in possession of holdings required relief, such relief should be given by the board of guardians in the shape of a loan—that the deeds connected with their property should be lodged—and that the boards of guardians should, if necessary, have power to sell such property, or any other property possessed by the parties,

339
for repayment of such loan. It was also proposed that any relief declared by the Commissioners to be given as a loan should be recovered. Under those provisions he maintained that sufficient security would be afforded for the relief given. He wished, by those provisions, to assimilate the law, as far as possible, to the English poor-law; and that the property of persons getting relief should be responsible for that relief. He would conclude by making a most earnest appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider this proposition, and, if they did not accede to it, to agree at least to some modification of the clause.
MR. O'FLAHERTYseconded the Motion. He considered that the repeal of the clause was absolutely necessary, for the people were in such a wretched state, particularly in the western part of Ireland, that he did not think the clause could be sustained at present. He could say that many of their public institutions were turned into poor-houses, or rather he should call them pest houses; and with the permission of the House he would read a few extracts from a letter he had received in reference to the prison of Galway from the chaplain. He had on a former occasion called the attention of the House to the state of that prison; and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had made some observations indicating that he did not acquiesce in the statement which he had made. He (Mr. O'Flaherty) now begged to lay before the House the information he had since received. It appeared from the letter he had received that such sufferings as the wretched prisoners were subjected to, arising from indifferent prison accommodation, disease, and nakedness, had never been heard of in any country on the face of the globe. There were in custody on Saturday night 503 prisoners and 34 children, and the deaths for a week amounted, to 44. The hospital was crowded to excess—a woman and six children were to be seen lying in one bed—persons were lying on the flags waiting for others to die, that they might seize on the portions of the bed occupied by them—and at that moment there were one hundred in fever of the most malignant kind. He would place that letter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who, he hoped, would make use of it. He trusted the Government would recollect that forbearance could not go beyond certain bounds.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid:
340
Knowing, as I do, the humane motives which actuate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale in asking leave to bring in the Bill for the repeal of what is called in Ireland "the Quarter-acre Clause of the Irish Poor Relief Extension Act," I rise with considerable regret to oppose his Motion. But that regret is considerably diminished, if not indeed altogether done away with, when I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken, both as to the interpretation of the clause which he has brought under the notice of the House, and as to the effect which it has produced upon the country. My hon. Friend has chiefly directed attention to two most material points: first, the operation of the clause in preventing the poor from obtaining relief; and, secondly, the conduct of the landlords of Ireland in dealing with the peasantry under it. My hon. Friend says that it is impossible for a poor man, seeking relief under the provisions of the poor-law, to divest himself of the occupation of his land so as to qualify himself under the operation of this clause; and that when the poor man goes to the poorhouse to seek for relief, the landlord frequently comes and takes possession of his house from him in his absence. Now the poor-law has nothing to do with that state of things. If the poor man goes to the workhouse to seek relief, and that during his absence from his home his landlord comes and levels his house, I believe that he might have done just the same thing if the man had only gone to market or elsewhere. And now for the operation of the clause. Upon that subject I cannot do better than read two or three letters to the House, which will show the construction put upon the clause by the Commissioners, and the light in which they view its provisions; and they will show my hon. Friend how much he is mistaken in the view which he takes of it. Here is a letter which the Commissioners have written, as a sort of circular, whenever their opinion is required by the boards of guardians:—
"Poor Law Commission Office, Dublin,
February 7, 1848.
"Gentlemen—I am directed by the Commissioners for Administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, requesting the Commissioners' instructions as to your powers for affording relief to poor persons who have been in the possession of more than a quarter of an acre of land, with a house, and who have offered to resign possession of the land, but whose landlords refuse to receive possession of the land without a surrender of the house. In reply, I am

341
directed to state that the mere refusal of a landlord to accept a surrender of land does not disqualify a person who has ceased to occupy a quarter of an acre of land from receiving relief. By the 10th Section of the Irish Poor-law Extension Act it is merely the occupation or non-occupation of a quarter of an acre of land which is made a criterion of destitution, provided that an applicant for relief may otherwise be deemed entitled to it. Hence the guardians, as far as that clause is concerned, are warranted in relieving anybody who is not in such occupation, and they are not bound to investigate title at all, or to ascertain whether the tenants' interest has been legally determined by surrender or otherwise.—I have, &c.
"H. HANLEY, Secretary.
"The Vice-Guardians of the Ballina Union, Ballina."
Now, I think that all the guardians have to do is to inquire whether the person seeking relief has divested himself of the possession of all land exceeding a quarter of an acre; and, if he has done so, the guardians have a right to relieve him without reference to the landlord, agent, or any other person whatsoever. But a still further extension has been given to this interpretation. In a letter which is likewise directed to the vice-guardians of the same Ballina union, they are told by the Commissioners—
"In every case that it should be fully and in-controvertibly proved that the applicant was still in possession before we deny him relief. On the other band, we consider a certificate from the agent or bailiff to the effect that the applicant had given up possession, should be deemed conclusive and construed in his favour, unless the relieving officers had good reason to believe to the contrary."
Now, these instructions are acted upon, and, therefore, the objections of my hon. Friend upon that point will fall to the ground. Then as to the coming of the landlord to the tenant's house, and leveling it when the poor man was gone to seek relief. I find an account in the Galway Mercury of the 29th of January of proceedings before the vice-guardians of the poor-law union, where it was mentioned that several houses of poor people had been levelled during their absence in search of relief; and a report had been made to the Commissioners, in which it was stated—
"There are but two witnesses as to the ejectments on Mr. St. George's property who could swear to the facts; the others stating that their houses had been thrown down when they were absent, and they could only speak as to their belief. It will appear from the evidence recorded that these forcible ejectments were illegal—that notices had not been served—that they were perpetrated under circumstances of great cruelty."
But it will be seen at once that such an
342
act was not the result of the operation of this clause. We know not whether those poor people held five, or ten, or twenty acres of land. In fact, the people are in such misery that holders of forty acres might be in utter distress; and perhaps in even greater poverty and wretchedness than the poor small occupants. I have known instances of persons who had formerly been in affluence—I knew one instance of a person who had formerly been possessed of property to the amount of 300 l. a year—being obliged to apply for relief under the poor-law. But these ejectments are illegal, and they are not attributable to the action either of the Poor Law Act or to that of the quarter-acre clause. My hon. Friend has alluded to a very distressing case of a poor person who was found devouring a raw sheep which was the property of a farmer who, although possessed of other property, was himself a recipient of relief. I believe my hon. Friend is mistaken in that story. I do not think it occurred as he has been informed. Something similar to it did occur in the month of November last, and the recipient of the relief then did receive the temporary relief under the inspection of Sir John Burgoyne. Having thus stated the reasons which induce me to oppose the Motion of my hon. Friend: considering, as I do, that under the operation of the clause a poor person having divested himself of the possession of land above a quarter of an acre is entitled to relief, and that the non-acceptance by the landlord of his surrender should not he pleaded in bar, and that if the landlord enters and levels the tenant's house he does not do it under the operation of the poor law: considering also that the operation of the Bill of my hon. Friend would give rise to the most enormous abuse, by occasioning the necessity for granting indiscriminate outdoor relief, and that the great masses of the country would be thereby reduced to the same state of pauperism which the poorer classes are now suffering under: considering that in such a condition of things you would have men, half paupers, half farmers, living half the year in the poorhouse, whilst their potatoes were growing, and then coming out when their potatoes were ripening: considering that such a state of things would be more demoralising to the country than the present; and considering that the Bill of my hon. Friend would unsettle the present state, and give rise to hopes that could not be gratified, making matters ten

343
times worse than they are at present—I think I shall best consult the interests of both rich and poor in Ireland by asking the House to refuse its assent to the introduction of the Bill of my hon. Friend.
MR. FAGAN,in considering the construction put upon the quarter-acre clause by Her Majesty's Government, and that which his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale put upon it, should say that his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Crawford) was borne out by the facts; and a large number of the people of Ireland agreed in opinion with him, and thought the quarter-acre clause the most pernicious and injudicious in the Bill. It should be remembered that for six weeks in every year a great portion of the people of Ireland were in a state of destitution; and it had been shown that 95,000 families, consisting of about 300,000 individuals, were existing upon holdings of less than a quarter of an acre. Why, if the provisions of the clause were fully carried out, all the workhouses of Ireland would not contain one half the number of the people so thrust upon them. They talked of the generality of outdoor relief in Ireland, but he contended that the ablebodied poor did not receive outdoor relief generally. There were many districts in his own locality, for instance, where no outdoor relief had been as yet admitted. He called upon the House to support the proposition of his hon. Friend.
MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, that he had originally opposed the quarter-acre clause on its introduction, because he thought it would have a most injurious tendency, and would be made a method of effecting clearances by the landlords on a most extensive scale. The facts which had since come to his knowledge regarding its operation had convinced him that his original supposition was correct, and that it had been made a method of effecting clearances on a very large scale. At the time of passing the amended Poor Law Act, the Government ought to have introduced a measure which would have provided employment for those ablebodied people in some way, and not have thrown them upon the poor-law unions. It was a criminal mode of relief to give relief to thousands and tens of thousands of able-bodied people without obtaining any return whatsoever from them. It was scarcely anything but a continuation of the soup-kitchen system of relief of the last year. That was not the principle of the poor-law of Elizabeth. He wanted to see the poor-
344
law system of England extended to Ireland. But in England the outdoor labour test was applied. That principle, which he believed to be wise, had been adopted in England—the principle of relieving the infirm poor by gratuitous relief, but of relieving the ablebodied by supplying them with work. But the principle adopted in Ireland caused a perfect waste of money. It might as well be thrown into the sea as expended under such a system. In a country where employment, or work of a reproductive character, might be found for the ablebodied poor more readily than in any country in the world—where they might be employed in the reclamation and cultivation of waste land, or in the repairing and making good those roads that had been destroyed by the unproductive public works of last year—there was no labour whatsoever directed. The propriety of employing the ablebodied poor had been urged on the Commissioners in Ireland, but it was denied by them. Every day the numbers of those ablebodied paupers became greater. And what would they be in the three months of summer? Last year there were about 740,000 receiving temporary relief during those summer months, and they would again be on the relief list. The law provided that they should not be allowed to starve. They should be supplied in some manner with food, and in the meantime a large portion of the country was going to ruin. The clearance system was now carried on in Ireland to an extent which showed how entirely the people were left at the mercy of the landlords. The farmer holding four or five acres of land was, after losing his potato crop, utterly unable to pay his rent. The landlord came down and seized on all the property he possessed; and what resource was left to such a man but to apply at the workhouse for relief? But yet the moment he entered the workhouse his former residence was demolished, and on again coming forth he found himself without any shelter or resource from permanent pauperism. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from Swineford, in the county of Mayo, confirming this view of the state of the poorer classes.] The landlords had thus an interest in the poverty of their tenants, as it enabled them to regain possession of their land; and this would account for the fact that they gave much less employment than the House might naturally expect at the present period. By refusing to employ the

345
poor tenants, they were obliged to seek workhouse relief, and the landlord was thus enabled to get their land into his own possession. The law as it at present stood, therefore, held out an encouragement to the landlords not to give employment. As an instance of the extent to which the clearance system was carried on at present, he might refer to the Kilrush union, in which no less than 6,000 notices of ejectment were served in the month of September last—a number equal to the whole population of the union holding less than twenty acres of land each. He thought it most unjust that the people should be expelled in this manner, without any means being held out by which they could obtain subsistence; and he should therefore feel it to be his duty to support the Motion of the hon. Member. He begged to add, that he proposed taking an early opportunity of again bringing forward a question which he had urged on the attention of the House on former occasions respecting the enormous extent of waste land in Ireland, and the facilities which it afforded for providing for those who were suffering under the pressure of famine.
MR. FEARGUS O'CONNORsaid, that if he had any doubt as to the policy of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, it had been removed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman set out by saying that his hon. Friend had misinterpreted the law; but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have recollected that the law had been framed for persons who were far more ignorant of its nature than his hon. Friend, namely, the landlords of Ireland generally. The invariable rule, however, was, that the landlords were to have the benefit of any misinterpretation of the law that might take place. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny that the landlords had taken advantage of that clause to level houses, and to exercise an illegal right; and yet he said that the working of the law would be perilled if the clause were struck out. Now, what could be a stronger proof of the incapacity of the Government than such an assertion; for the clause to which such vital importance was attached, was one not introduced originally into the Bill by the Government, but by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Gregory)? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have altogether forgotten the part of his hon. Friend's speech referring to tenants in
346
common. He was prepared to trace the whole of the anomaly with regard to these holdings to the Legislature. The 40 s. freeholders were introduced for political purposes; and, again, five or six tenants were admitted to hold in common under one lease and one stamp for the purpose of increasing the political power of the landlord. It was with the same object in view that they were now legislating also. But he would ask the House to look to the justice of this mode of proceeding. If a man were able to maintain his family without relief out of the poor-rates on a quarter of an acre of land, it followed that 1,000,000 of acres would support 4,000,000 of families, or 20,000,000 of persons, and therefore that the 15,000,000 of acres in Ireland ought to maintain a population of 300,000,000 of souls. If that were so, how did it happen that out of the present limited population of Ireland they saw thousands of victims dying every week of absolute famine? He could tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that there was nothing in history like the present condition of Ireland. If they read of 1,000,000 of people being slain in war, they would be driven almost to madness at such a sacrifice of human life; and yet they sat there discussing in calmness the policy of retaining that quarter-acre clause, by which equal destruction of human life was involved. He knew the feelings of the Irish people perhaps better than the right hon. Gentleman; and he could tell him, that if the House did not legislate more justly and more humanely for Ireland than they had hitherto done, there would shortly be an end to British dominion in Ireland. It was impossible that a just, a humane, and a sensible people could endure to be treated as the people of Ireland had been. They had heard much sympathy expressed for the poor English people who were sent over from France, and all that had been done in the way of providing them with food and clothing. But why, he asked, was there to be no sympathy whatever shown for the people of Ireland? He gave his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend, though there was a part of the Bill, referring to mortgages and title-deeds, of which he could not approve. That, however, had nothing to do with the main object to be effected—the repeal of the quarter-acre clause. The main portion of his hon. Friend's speech

347
had been wholly passed over by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly contradicted his hon. Friend, but he had not attempted to disprove his arguments. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that though he might prevail on the House to agree with him on this question, he could not prevent the Irish people from considering whether their interests were done justice to in that House or not.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, that in reply to what had been stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, with regard to tenants in common, he believed there was nothing in the law which prevented them from giving up their land as well as other persons. Whatever opinion might be entertained by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the justice of this clause, he believed there would be but one opinion in the House as to their having as yet but very imperfect information with regard to its operation. He thought that he might say of the Irish Members generally, that they were most anxious to see the new poor-law brought fully and fairly into operation. A Motion had been lately before the House with regard to a revision of the unions and electoral divisions; and on that subject he should say that he thought they had received a very unsatisfactory answer from the right hon. Baronet. He had been asked by many English Members why they were not satisfied with the answer which the right hon. Baronet had given them, seeing that an inquiry was to take place; but his reply was, that the Poor Law Commissioners had already too much to do, and that it was impossible for them to undertake such an inquiry as was necessary for a complete revision of the Irish unions. If the right hon. Baronet meant to have the inquiry conducted with a view to the reduction of the areas of the unions, he could have no hesitation in saying so; but the right hon. Baronet carefully guarded himself against making any statement of the kind, and even expressly stated, in answer to the deputation of Irish Members, that he would not preclude himself from increasing the area of some unions, should he think it necessary. He, for one, would much rather not see the Commission appointed at all, unless it were granted with a view to the reduction of the areas of the unions, and until the right hon. Gentleman declared that the time had arrived to have the question fully and fairly gone into. In order that English
348
Members might understand the real nature of this question, he would tell them that the unions in Ireland averaged three times the extent of the unions in this country. In Lincolnshire, where the complaints against the great extent of the unions were loudest, and where the unions were, he believed, larger than in any other part of England, the average area of the fourteen unions was 110,000; while in Ireland the average was 155,000 acres; and in Connaught, where the pauperism was greatest, the average area was 214,000. In Ulster, where the unions were the smallest in Ireland, the average area was 126,000 acres. In parts of the country where the most business was to be done, and where the distress was the greatest, the unions were largest, and the guardians—from the great distance which they had to travel in order to attend the workhouse—had less time to attend to business than in unions where less was to be done. For these reasons, he thought that, with the present size of the unions, it was impossible to carry out the poor-law in some of the western and southern unions, except by means of paid guardians; but at the same time he felt that they were in the habit of trusting too much in Ireland to the Government, and that a dependence on paid officers for carrying out the law would tend to aggravate this evil. Another point of great importance was, the state of the medical charities in Ireland. It was evident that the dispensaries, if supported out of the poor-rates, should be placed under the control of the poor-law guardians. Now, in England the area attached to each dispensary averaged 15,000 acres; but allowing 20,000 acres to each dispensary in Ireland, they should have 944 medical officers for the whole country. In addition to these they had 699 collectors of rates, and 816 relieving officers in 120 unions, so that each board of guardians would have an average of seventeen paid officers to transact business with every day that they met; and in some unions the number of paid officers would be twenty-four. As to the reduction of the size of the electoral divisions, he might say, that he, for one, was not in favour of a townland rating; but seeing that there were 66,700 townlands, and only 2,049 electoral divisions, in Ireland, he thought there were a good many points between both numbers at which an arrangement could be made. For his own part, he would prefer seeing things remain as they were, to the adoption

349
of a townland rating, as he thought that nothing could be more fatal and impolitic than such an arrangement would prove to be. Englishmen were seeking to put an end to the law of settlement, because it was productive of hardship by forcible removals, and of enormous litigation between parishes; but in Ireland vagrants and others were chargeable upon the union at large, therefore there could be no objection to a diminution in the size of the electoral divisions. The electoral divisions ought to include within them those who had a common interest, and who were the best known to each other, which was not the case under the present system. He denied that this was a landlord's question, and urged that it was only by a proper organisation in this respect that relief could be duly administered to those who really required it.
SIR G. GREYmust venture to express a hope that the ordinary rule of adhering to the question before the House might not be altogether lost sight of. If any Member happened to have entered the House after the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he could not possibly have imagined that he was speaking on a "Bill to Amend the Irish Poor Relief Extension Act, with a view to repeal the 10th Section, commonly called the Quarter-acre Clause." The fact was, the hon. Gentleman had given notice of a Motion which stood number four on the Paper; and, finding that the forms of the House would not allow him to bring it on, he was unwilling for hon. Members to lose the benefit of the speech he intended to make on that subject. But he must observe, that if this practice were adopted, it would prove most inconvenient, for it would absolutely prevent the House from proceeding with business; on this account the hon. Gentleman must excuse him if he did not enter upon the subjects he had discussed, seeing they would involve the House in a debate upon questions quite foreign to that submitted by the hon. Member for Rochdale. He would only say that the instructions to the commissioners to be employed in the revision of the boundaries of the electoral divisions were in preparation, and that he should be happy to communicate with the hon. Gentleman upon them, because he would then see more sanguine grounds for satisfaction than he seemed to possess at present. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, his right hon.
350
Friend (Sir W. Somerville) had rightly stated the grounds upon which the Government objected to it. The subject had been repeatedly discussed in the last Session, when it occupied much attention. The clause was not, he admitted, in the original Bill for amending the poor-law. It had been proposed by Mr. Gregory, then Member for Dublin. Very full discussion took place; the Committee of the House divided upon it, when only nine Gentlemen, including the tellers, of whom six were English and three Irish, were found to oppose the introduction of the clause into the Bill. The circumstances under which the clause was proposed were more fresh in the recollection of hon. Members than they were now; but he might remind them that, at that period, there was a great deal of pauperism and suffering in Ireland more than there was now, although at the present moment there was much suffering in that country. The allegation at that time was that the land was not cultivated, and that people were receiving relief who possessed ten, twenty, or thirty acres of land, which they refused to give up to others who would cultivate it, in order that the general productiveness of the soil might be increased. These persons, in fact, were living at the public expense, and at the same time preventing the soil of Ireland being made available for the maintenance of the population. It was the general impression, therefore, that some such restriction should be imposed as this clause provided, in order to prevent a great public evil and inconvenience which was then felt to exist to a great extent. There might have been individual cases of hardship from the operation of the clause. That was quite possible; but he felt that if the restriction were removed, a door would be opened to a repetition of the evils which were felt to exist last year. The cases of hardship, however, cited by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) had nothing whatever to do with the quarter-acre clause. The hon. Member said that parties applying for relief under the poor-law left their houses to go into the union workhouse, and upon their return they found them levelled. That might be so, but it had nothing to do with the question now under discussion. The quarter-acre clause did not compel the people to give up their houses; it only required them to give up the occupation of any land above the quantity stated in it. They were tenants at will, and no doubt in some

351
cases landlords had exercised their power of levelling the houses. These cases might or might not be a proper subject of inquiry, but they had certainly no relation to the question. Yet, as far as he understood it, the whole case of the hon. Member for Rochdale rested on this allegation. His right hon. Friend had shown that by the construction put upon the clause by the Poor Law Commissioners, if a landlord refused to accept a legal surrender of the land, as a bar to relief, when the party was willing bonâ fide to give up the occupation—in all such cases, the refusal to accept the surrender was not held to be a bar to relief. The guardians of unions, acting upon this construction, had given relief to parties who had given up their occupations under these circumstances; and the Government concurred in the views so taken. Hon. Gentlemen were in error when they stated that the Government relied exclusively upon the operation of the poor-law for the maintenance of the poor. It must not be forgotten that at this very time there was a very large charitable expenditure going on in connexion with the poor-law, and in aid of the rates, by which much suffering had been prevented, and many lives saved. From returns received it appeared that in January last about 94,000 or 95,000 or nearly 100,000 persons, including children, were found with daily rations through the instrumentality of the poor-law in connexion with the agency of the British Association. By another return it appeared that the aggregate number relieved in the unions where distress was greatest amounted to 150,000; and, in addition, there was an expenditure of 20,000 l. per month from the British Association. He would not advert to the means of relief by the land improvement loans. He only wished not to be supposed to acquiesce in the statement that the poor-law and the union rates were the only means for relieving destitution. He did not deny the fact of the gaol at Galway being inconveniently crowded, and, as far as health was concerned, crowded to an alarming degree; but he was reported to have said that application had been made to the Lord Lieutenant for temporary relief, and that it was refused on the ground of expense. What he stated was, that the gaol was inconveniently crowded, and that he was impressed with the conviction that the Lord Lieutenant was most anxious to provide such temporary accommodation as could be legally provided by
352
means of the hulks, in order to relieve the pressure upon the gaol. He repeated, he did not deny the fact of the gaol being inconveniently crowded; but he did deny any indifference on the part of the Lord Lieutenant to remedy the inconvenience, by providing all the temporary accommodation in his power.
COLONEL CONOLLYopposed the Motion, and said the landlords of Ireland had not profited by the quarter-acre clause. To say they had was a grossly unfounded aspersion upon them.
MR. E. B. ROCHEcontended, that there was an inconsistency in the grounds assigned by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, for their opposition to this Bill. One opposed it for the benefit of the paupers, the other for the benefit of the landlords. It was impossible to reconcile the two arguments. Never was a greater calumny uttered, than to charge the landlords of Ireland with being exterminators of the people. It was the British House of Commons and the British Government that were liable to this charge, as he would undertake to show. The potato crop having failed, the people had no other resource than the poor-law; but what did the House of Commons and the Government do? Why, they passed a law, prohibiting any relief being given until the people who required it gave up their land. They, therefore, were the real exterminators. The British House of Commons and the English Government were greater exterminators and greater criminals than the Irish landlords. It was very important there should be no disguise on this question, for we were in an age of social revolution. The right hon. Baronet said, only three Irish Members voted against the Gregory Clause. He should have voted against it himself, but he was called away to Ireland by the famine which prevailed there at that time, as were other Irish Members; and it was during their absence that the Government assented to the introduction of the clause, which was not in the original Bill. He repeated that we lived in an age of social revolutions, and that small as the question now appeared, and thin as the House then was, it would grow into a mighty question, demanding their most serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had called upon them to support this clause, because he said, if it were repealed, the poor man would sell his potato

353
one half-year, and would go into the workhouse during the other half-year. He denied that such would he the case—there was nothing of which the Irish poor had a greater abhorrence than the workhouse; and he knew that the majority of them would rather die by the ditch side than enter it. He did not wish to detract from the merits of the British Association; but, at any rate, he must say, that the Irish representatives were reminded often enough that they were beggars. After all, however, what was the most it did? It was a pittance doled out to a few, or perhaps a number of children, who were supported at school. No doubt it was good as far as it went. No doubt as coming from private individuals it was good, gracious, and charitable; but it was not a subject which a British Minister in a British Parliament should be continually holding up before their eyes; because it was a private charity, and it was not meeting an imperial misfortune from the imperial resources.
MR. AGLIONBYlooked upon the clause as one of the most monstrous that had ever been introduced into an Act of Parliament. If Ireland were not what Ireland was, such a clause never would have been introduced. It was a peremptory clause. Like Procrustes' bed, it could not be stretched. A man and his whole family might die in a ditch, and no power on earth could relax it at the moment. What were the terms of the clause?—

"And be it enacted. That from and after the first day of November next, after the passing of this Act, no person who shall be in the occupation of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of the first-recited Act, or of the Acts amending the same, or of this Act; and if any person so occupying more than the quarter of a statute acre shall apply for relief, or if any person on his behalf shall apply for relief, it shall not be lawful for any board of guardians to grant such relief within or out of the workhouse, unless such applicant for relief shall bring satisfactory proof that he has surrendered to his reputed immediate landlord, or his known agent, the actual possession, and whatsoever right or title he may have had to the occupation of all and any such land over and above the extent of one quarter of a statute acre, and the occupation thereof, which surrender the landlord shall be required to accept, provided it shall include the entire of the holding held by such applicant in one holding from the same landlord."
In many cases, he contended the poor tenant could not give up his land, where, for example, misfortune came upon him on a sudden, or where he held in common with others; and in such cases no relief
354
could be extended to the poor starving man. Upon the question of the poverty of those poor tenants holding small amounts of land, it might not be out of place to extract a paragraph from the report of the Committee upon Captain Wynne's letters. The Committee unanimously reported—
"We are convinced that much of the misunderstanding between the inspecting officers and the relief committees, and of the complaints on both sides, have arisen from the inspecting officers having adopted one rule and principle on which to judge of the destitution of applicants; the committees another. The former took, as a primâ facie test, the mere facts of occupation of land and possession of cattle, being rarely able to check this test by local inquiries; the latter treated those facts as no positive guides; they acted upon the representations of members of their body, or others acquainted with the applicants and their neighbourhood; also upon inquiries from the applicants themselves; in this, however, they were no doubt frequently misled by erroneous information. In like manner, the mere fact of having land and cattle frequently led to erroneous conclusions, the applicants so situated being often in as great destitution as those who had none; in many cases the land was for the time unavailable; its crop had failed, and no food was produced from it; the cattle also could afford little or no relief; they likewise had suffered from want of food, and were in too poor condition for sale, even had purchasers been found in possession of money wherewith to buy. In many instances the committees acted upon the reasoning, that to refuse employment on the works to persons being barely above destitution, must have produced irretrievable ruin, which temporary relief might perhaps avert."
He hoped, notwithstanding the large majority which had sanctioned the introduction of this quarter-acre clause into the Bill, that the House would not allow humanity to have fair play, and that it would give that protection to the poor and destitute of Ireland which they would be ashamed to refuse to the poor of this country.
MR. R. M. FOXthought that the hon. Member for Cockermouth had not paid much, or perhaps any, attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. From that speech he might have learnt that it was practicable for the holders of quarters of acres of land to give up their holdings; by giving up a small portion of their land they might entitle themselves to relief. He was as much opposed as any one could be to maladministration of the law; but without the clause now under consideration, he did not see how any board of guardians in Ireland could do their duty.
MR. REYNOLDSwould support the Motion, because he believed it was intended to apply a remedy to a most obnoxious

355
piece of legislation. In the present Motion, a question of great importance was involved: the question was this—Was pauperism to be increased or to he diminished? He thought that he had a particular right to speak to the present question, for his predecessor in the representation of the city of Dublin was thrown out in consequence of his support of that clause, and he himself had been returned partly on account of his opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman had placed the clause in the most favourable light—nevertheless the most he could say was, that the tenant possessed the power to divest himself of the disqualifying tenure of the land; but, surely, every one must see that if a poor man yielded to such a temptation, it being done to any great extent must be a fruitful source of increased pauperism. Thus it was said that a man holding ten acres of land might qualify himself for relief by surrendering 9¾ acres. If the law afforded him temporary relief they might get over temporary difficulties, but the clause, as it stood, did nothing of the sort. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had addressed himself very fairly to the subject, and deserved great credit for the view of it that he he presented to the House. The quarter of an acre clause appeared to have been prepared for the particular benefit of the landlords, and furnished them with a powerful weapon for dispossessing the poorer sort of tenantry.
MR. MONSELLconcurred in the statements made by the hon. Member for Rochdale in reference to the destitution and distress prevailing in Ireland, but could not agree with the hon. Gentleman in attributing those lamentable results to the clause in the Irish poor-law which had been referred to. He believed that the repeal of the clause would be beneficial to those jobbing landlords whose conduct had been animadverted upon, for they would endeavour to get their tenants and dependents on the poor-rate, for the purpose of getting their rent paid by such means. A greater premium could not be given to those gentlemen, whom he believed to be the greatest curse of Ireland, than by assenting to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale. It was complained that the poor-law in Ireland was insufficient to relieve the poor already thrown upon the funds, and yet it was now proposed to throw upon them an additional class of claimants. It could not be expected that the poor-law in Ireland would remove all
356
the distress which had been referred to; and there never was a greater mistake than the introduction of the poor-law by itself. It ought to have been accompanied by other measures, for the reclamation of waste lands, and for systematic colonisation. He conceived that the anticipations of the noble Lord, that the extension of the poor-law would have the effect of encouraging employment in Ireland, and developing the industry of that country, had entirely failed. With respect to the clause under discussion, it was the opinion of a learned gentleman in Ireland, whose authority was entitled to weight, that any person having more than a quarter of an acre of land, who offered to give it up, was entitled to relief. Therefore it could not be contended that any individuals so situated were deprived of the means of relief.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that that might be the opinion of a learned barrister, but it appeared to him that the clause was positive and decided, and that if a board of guardians were to grant relief to persons possessing more than a quarter of an acre, they would be liable to proceedings for a misdemeanor. The law was a sentence of death against these poor creatures, and this was done in a mean, cowardly, and dastardly manner. Why not consign them at once to destruction? Under this clause the guardians of the poor had not the power to grant even medical relief to a family struck with disease and destitution, if they were so situated as to come within the terms of that clause. In bringing this subject forward the hon. Member had done benefit to the poor, though he should hardly say that, for it was useless to discuss the grievances of the poor in that assembly. The House was composed of rich men and landed proprietors, and had not that sympathy for the poor which ought to be felt. Such apathy was fraught with danger. Gentlemen, who called themselves Conservatives, acted on that principle; but, at the bottom, it was a most destructive principle. According to all the accounts which they heard in that House, Irish gentlemen appeared to be very unhappy and very unfortunate; but he wished they would change places with the poor. Let them experience what was the actual condition of the poor, and then, he thought, they would adopt a different course in their legislation in that House. They would then be induced to sympathise with the poor, and take measures to promote

357
their welfare. But, at present, the case was different. Instead of applying remedies to the condition of the poor, pains and penalties were added to it. It was contended, that the Irish were an idle people. He believed that to he one of the foulest calumnies ever uttered. They found that, in London, Irishmen performed work which Englishmen could scarcely execute. But, in London, their food was different from that which they obtained in Ireland. They were not simply fed on potatoes in London, and they obtained wages in this metropolis which enabled them to perform their laborious work with alacrity and cheerfulness. The fact was, that the Irish labourers were starved in their own country, and the Irish gentry ought to endeavour to give them, by some means, profitable employment in Ireland. If the Irish gentry would not employ the people, the consequence would be that the people would take possession of the land. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but that would be done. It was inevitable. They surely did not expect the people to be eon-tent to lie down and perish. It was the duty of the population to resist ill-usage of which they were the victims; and he trusted that the House would pursue a different course of legislation from that hitherto adopted in respect to the sister country. He, for one, should not object to give to the Irish Gentlemen an opportunity of legislating for their own country. Only he should like to see them more united among themselves, more decided in their opinions, shifting less with the Government of the day, and not relying on the Whig or Tory factions, but on the good sense of the people. He did not believe that England or Ireland had much benefited under either of these parties, and he would take the rule out of the hands of the aristocracy. ["Oh, oh!"] They might express dissent, but it was his duty to his own feelings and to his constituents to make that statement. Had he witnessed in that assembly sympathy for the distressed people, and a desire to remove their evils, no such statement would have been heard from him. The hon. Member for Rochdale had not the good fortune to be a Duke, a Marquess, or a noble Lord, and consequently it was unavailing in him to bring forward any proposition for the benefit of his poor country. Had he been more highly connccted, there would have been greater favouritism manifested with respect to his opinions. But he was only a practical,
358
kind-hearted, and worthy man. Yet on that account it might have been supposed that his measures, being of a practical nature, would have received the sanction of that House. The hon. Gentleman had tried his hand at legislation; and, nevertheless, he (Mr. Wakley) was not aware that the hon. Gentleman could now put his finger on any one Act of Parliament, or any section of an Act, that he could call his own. What was the use of his hon. Friend fretting his hours away in that assembly? The Government had pretended to adopt his principles with respect to the landlord and tenant question; but they had adopted them in such a way, and created such a network of difficulty, that they could scarcely get out of it themselves. In November last, when a proposition was made for carrying a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he suggested that it was not just to pass it without adopting remedial measures. The House was told that those measures would be forthcoming; but where were they? They were still in process of preparation; and when they came forth, would they be of a radical nature, and strike at the root of the social evil in Ireland? He answered, no. Would they touch the Protestant Church in that country, which had been called by the Irish Roman Catholics, and used to be designated by the right hon. the Master of the Mint (Mr. Shell), the monster grievance of Ireland? He answered, no; and thus things would proceed, until at last misery and wretchedness, disease and death, would create such discontent in the minds of those who beheld them, and spread such indignation and resentment among millions, as would endanger even the existence of the Throne itself.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDasked the hon. Gentleman whether he supposed the evils of Ireland had originated since any one, now a Member of that House, had first had a seat in it? If he referred to Mr. Madden's History of Ireland, he might change the date from 1848 to 1648—nay, he might go further back—to the description of the state of Ireland in the time of Henry IL, and find the picture with respect to the evils of Ireland exactly to suit the present day. He must say, when he heard Gentlemen talking of their own humanity, that he was satisfied there was not a Member of that House who was not striving to do everything in his power to benefit the people of Ireland. He considered, then, that it was not fair

359
on the part of any hon. Gentleman to presume that all the humanity was on one side of the House, and all the cruelty on the other. Why, the poor-law was made by the Radicals. When a semi-Radical semi-Whig Government came into office, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp) introduced that law. Under the previously existing law there were persons in every parish who were hound to see that the poor were relieved; but the new Radical, political, economical law appointed persons who "may" afford relief. There was only a difference in the sign of a tense—a difference between the potential and the imperative mood; but that was a most important difference to the poor man. If the House assented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Rochdale, what limit would they impose as to the persons who were to be entitled to relief? Would they allow persons who possessed half an acre, or two, three, four, or five acres of land, to receive relief from the poor-rates? He knew that many hardships must occur under the administration of the poor-law. He might mention that a tenant of his own in this country, who formerly rented a farm of 500 acres, had had to apply for relief, but before he could obtain it, he was compelled to sell the whole of his stock, and to part with all his property, and he eventually died in a workhouse. He thought it was clear that some hon. Gentlemen were not very well informed as to the actual condition of Ireland. It was perfectly true that there were many persons who deserved the strong language which had been applied to the Irish landlords; but the word "landlord" had in Ireland two significations, and there were many landlords in that country who were no more deserving of being stigmatised as they had been than were the landlords of England and Scotland.
COLONEL DUNNEobserved, that it must be obvious to any one who had watched the administration of the poor-law in Ireland that numerous cases of individual hardship occurred; but, if the right to relief were to be extended to all classes, it was impossible that the country could support the burden.
MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELLsaid, the clause to which the attention of the House had been called was very unpopular in Ireland; but those who denounced that clause did not consider what would be the state of the country if relief were to be extended to all persons. He must say he
360
saw no reason to repent of the support he had given to the clause when it was introduced by Mr. Gregory, then Member for the city of Dublin. He might lose popularity in consequence of supporting this clause; but he thought there were times when men should discharge their duties conscientiously, even if they thereby incurred unpopularity. The cases of hardship to which reference had been made, had evidently resulted from a misapprehension of the law. A notion had existed that persons must divest themselves of all title to land before they could obtain relief; the meaning and intention of the law being that persons who applied for relief should not be in the occupation of land. He believed, however, that the discussion which had taken place would prevent any misapprehension on the subject in future. Several cases of cruelty had been mentioned which were said to have occurred in the west of Ireland. He could only say that those cases called for something more than inquiry on the part of the Government; and as the commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter had declared that the acts of the landlords had in certain cases been illegal, he conceived that the Government would neglect one of their highest duties if they did not take steps to punish the perpetrators of such illegal acts. It was the duty of the Government to punish the persons—whether bailiffs or landlords, peers or peasants—who had been guilty of agrarian outrages of a character far worse than those which had been committed in Tipperary or Roscommon, because they had been perpetrated by men who had not the same reason to be unobservant or reckless of the laws of the land. He trusted, then, that the Government would bring to punishment those who had brought the law into disrepute by illegal and grossly unjust conduct. His firm belief was, that if they were now to remove the limit imposed on the grant of relief to persons occupying land, instead of benefiting the country, they would inflict on it a great and irreparable injury. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) had expressed his wish to see the labouring population of Ireland employed upon reproductive works. In much that that hon. Gentleman had said, he (Mr. O'Connell) concurred; but he certainly considered that nothing was more likely to prevent the labouring population of Ireland from being employed upon reproductive works than the maintenance of a system which kept up a

361
class of persons who were neither labourers nor farmers; and he would be sorry to see superadded to that mixed character of one-third farmer and one-third labourer the additional character of one-third pauper. While he greatly respected the motives which had induced the hon. Member for Rochdale to bring this subject forward, he should feel it his duty to vote against the Motion.
MR. S. CRAWFORDreplied. It had been said that the harsh and unjust acts which had been referred to were not committed under the law. That might be the case; but they were committed under colour of the law, for the existing law aided the landlords in carrying out their illegal objects. The practical operation of the law was to compel the poor man, when he required relief, to give up his house as well as his land, because the landlord would not accept one without the other.
The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 114: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Rawdon, Col.

Blake, M. J.

Reynolds, J.

Devereux, J. T.

Roche, E. B.

Fagan, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Fox, W. J.

Scully, F.

Greene, J.

Somers, J. P.

Henry, A.

Sullivan, M.

Keating, R.

Talbot, J. H.

Meagher, T.

Wakley, T.

O'Brien, J.

TELLERS.

O'Connor, F.

Crawford, W. S.

Power, Dr.

O'Flaherty, A.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Coles, H. B.

Adair, R. A. S.

Compton, H. C.

Anstey, T. C.

Conolly, Col.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Courtenay, Lord

Armstrong, Sir A.

Deering, J.

Bagshaw, J.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Bellew, R. M.

Drummond, H.

Blackall, S. W.

Dunne, F. P.

Bourke, R. S.

Evans, W.

Bright, J.

Farrer, J.

Brockman, E. D.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Brotherton, J.

Forster, M.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Fortescue, C.

Buller, C.

Fox, R. M.

Bunbury, W. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Bunbury, E. H.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Busfeild, W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Gwyn, H.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Hall, Sir B.

Carter, J. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Childers, J. W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Clay, J.

Heald, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Clifford, H. M.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Henley, J. W.

362

Hildyard, R. C.

Seymer, H. K.

Hodges, T. L.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hood, Sir A.

Shirley, E. J.

Jones, Capt.

Slaney, R. A.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Kershaw, J.

Smith, J. B.

Kildare, Marq. of

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Stafford, A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Stanton, W. H.

Locke, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Lowther, bon. Col.

Tenison, E. K.

Macnamara, Major

Tennent, R. J.

Maitland, T.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Martin, C. W.

Thompson, Col.

Masterman, J.

Tollemache, J.

Matheson, Col.

Turner, E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Miles, P. W. S.

Verney, Sir H.

Monsell, W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Nugent, Sir P.

Walmsley, Sir J.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Walter, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ward, H. G.

Paget, Lord A.

Watkins, Col. L.

Paget, Lord G.

Wawn, J. T.

Parker, J.

Westhead, J. P.

Pilkington, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wyld, J.

Power, N.

Raphael, A.

TELLERS.

Rich, H.

Tufnell, H.

Salwey, Col.

Hill, Lord M.

Leave refused.
House adjourned at a quarter to Ten o'clock.