Commons Sitting of 1 March 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Landlord and Tenant; Spirits (Ireland).
3° and passed;—Relief of Distress (Ireland); Vice-Guardians of Unions (Ireland); Overseers (Cities and Boroughs.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Horsman, from the Parish of Ardeley, Hertfordshire, for Inquiry respecting the Ardeley Tithes.—By Mr. Page Wood, from the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of St. Asaph, in favour of an Extension of the Church of England.—By Mr. George Thompson, from the Borough of the Tower Hamlets, against the Maintenance of the Church of England Clergy out of the Poor Rates.—From Members of Macclesfield, Chester, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the Church of England Clergy.-By Mr. Lockhart, from the Presbytery of Lanark, against any Endowment of the Roman Catholic Clergy.—By Mr. Labouchere, from Inhabitants of Taunton, for Reduction in the Public Expenditure.—By Mr. Horsman, from the Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, respecting the Taxation on Railways—By Mr. Ewart, from the Borough of New Woodstock, for a Reduction of the Duties on Tea, Sugar, and Coffee.—From several of the Electoral Divisions of the Cashel Union, for Inquiry respecting the Cashel Fever Hospital.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Mary Merrick and Richard Thorpe, lately employed in the Cork Lunatic Asylum, respecting their Claim to a Superannuation Allowance.—By Mr. Roche, from Inhabitants of the King's County, for an Alteration of the Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).—By Sir Alexander Hood, from the Board of Guardians of the Chard Union, for the Suppression of Mendicancy.—By Mr. Labouchere, from Master Mariners and Seamen of Whitehaven, and several other Ports, for an Alteration of the Merchant Seamen's Act.

PRISONERS IN IRELAND UNDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT.
MR. E. B. ROCHEbegged to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, upon a subject which he had brought under his notice upon a previous occasion. It related to six gentlemen who were in confinement in Ireland under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He had received a letter from one of those gentlemen, stating that four out of the number had had no hand in communicating with the newspapers; and had never in any way infringed upon the prison regulations, although they were now suffering for the faults of those who had pursued another line of conduct. He wish to hear from the Government whether they had been made aware that such was the state of the case?
SIR G. GREYreplied, that since a similar question had been put to him on a previous evening he had made inquiries, and ascertained the facts of the case. It appeared that those six prisoners had been originally confined on the felons' side of the gaol, but subsequently, as an indulgence, and without any order from the Lord Lieutenant—which, however, was not necessary—they were removed to the debtors' side; and the sheriff stated that, although no distinct pledge was given, a pledge was implied that they should not avail themselves of the facilities which prisoners in that part of the prison had to forward communications for publication to the newspapers. Communications from them, nevertheless, appeared in certain journals; and the matter having been brought to the notice of the superintendent of the gaol, an inquiry was instituted, the result of which was an order to the governor to send them back to the felons' side. Of the six prisoners, two, it was stated, refused absolutely to refrain from availing themselves of any facilities that offered to communicate with newspapers; but the order having been made for the removal of the whole, they were all accordingly removed. It was necessary to add, that the cells allotted to them were the best on that side of the prison, and in a part where the rules were not so strict as in some others; in proof of which, he might observe that he had received communications from two of the prisoners, in which they stated that they had read the discussions upon the subject of their imprisonment

11
which had taken place in the House of Commons.

BURDENS ON AGRICULTURE—MR. DISRAELI'S MOTION.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsuggested that it would be very desirable that the House should be put in possession of the terms of the Resolution of which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had given notice on this subject.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had already placed the Resolution he intended to move in the hands of the clerk at the table, and he apprehended it would be printed with the votes in the usual way.
MR. HUMEthought it important that the public should know what the exact terms of the Motion were, and, if there was no objection, he would propose that the clerk be directed to read the Resolution which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had placed in his hands.
The Clerk then read the Resolution as follows:—
"That the whole of the Local Taxation of the Country for national purposes falls mainly, if not exclusively, on real property, and bears with undue severity on the occupiers of land, in a manner injurious to the Agricultural Interests of the Country, and otherwise highly impolitic and unjust.
"That the hardship of this apportionment is greatly aggravated by the fact, that more than one-third of the whole Revenue derived from the Excise, is levied upon agricultural produce, ex-posed, by the recent changes in the Law, to direct competition with the untaxed produce of Foreign Countries; the home producer being thus subjected to a burthen of taxation which, by greatly enhancing the price, limits the demand for British produce; and to restrictions, which injuriously interfere with the conduct of his trade and industry.
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to take into its serious consideration such measures as may remove the grievances of which the owners and occupiers of real property thus justly complain, and which may establish a more equitable apportionment of the public burthens."

DIVISION OF POPULOUS PARISHES.
LORD ASHLEYrose to bring forward his Motion on this subject. As he understood that no opposition would be offered to his proposition by Government; and as the general wish of the House had lately been so strongly expressed in favour of conciseness, he would be as brief as possible in the remarks with which he would preface his proposal. And, first, he wished to state, without reserve, that the proposition which he had to make would neither directly nor indirectly involve any outlay of the public money. He was fully pre-
12
pared to state, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a very large body whose sentiments he spoke, that neither he nor they intended, although they reserved their abstract right to make such a claim—that neither he nor they intended to make any demand for public money until such time as the Church should have exhausted the whole of her revenues. Neither would the proposition which he had now to make involve, in any way, the slightest increase of the burdens of local taxation in the amount levied for the purpose of church rates. He wished it also to be understood that the Commission for which he would move, would be instructed to respect all the vested rights of existing incumbents; and to proceed with their arrangements so as that they should be brought into effect only as vacancies occurred. Now, he thought that no one could have looked at the present arrangements and distribution of the parishes of this country, without observing the total want of organisation which prevailed, and the impossibility of carrying into effect any one part or principle of the parochial system. Such a faulty distribution of labour and responsibility could not be found in any other public department. If business was found to increase in the courts of law and equity, they multiplied the number of courts and judges. With the extension of the military force, they increased the number of officers. But that obvious rule had not been observed as regarded the extension of the Church of this country. Vast multitudes had been added to the population of certain localities, and the machinery of the Church still remained as it was forty-five or fifty years ago. Now, it was with the view of improving the ecclesiastical organisation—of enabling the Church to carry out her parochial system, and thus to become in reality, what she was in profession, the Established Church of the country—that he now moved for the Commission alluded to in his notice. He would now proceed to call the attention of the House to facts, which would show how utterly impossible it was that the parochial system should be carried into effect under the present organisation. He held in his hand a statement of the circumstances of half-a-dozen English parishes, in order to show the House how impossible it was that such populous districts could be properly and usefully superintended by those to whom the charge of souls was at pro-sent committed within their limits. The

13
population of the parish of Marylebone was 138,000, that of Liverpool 223,000, that of Stockport 84,000, that of Sheffield 111,000, that of Bradford 200,000, that of Manchester 353,000, and that of St. Pancras 140,000. He could mention many other parishes, containing most enormous populations; but almost all those he had quoted were more populous than many English counties. In such a state of circumstances, how, he would ask, was it possible that the parochial system could be fairly carried out? He would adduce in detail one instance only, as an example of the evils arising from the present state of things; but he would first premise, that those evils of which he complained were twofold—that they related, first, to the parochial system itself, and, secondly, to the situation of the inferior clergy, who officiated in these vast districts. Now, what did the parochial system for its due development require? It required that the minister at the head of a parish should know his flock, and he known by them—that there should be a constant interchange of good offices between them—that he should be able to minister to them in all the rites of the Church—that he should be able to take cognisance and superintendence of their various social and moral wants; nay, more, that he should administer to their secular necessities. For in no instance was the parochial system so efficacious as in those cases in which the clergyman was able freely to communicate with and advise his parishioners, and help and console them in the hour of their necessity. But, as things stood, the minister, in many instances, was not known to one twentieth of those committed to his charge. The ministers of many large parishes were hardly ever recognised, except when they appeared in vestry or ascended the pulpit. In fact, under the present distribution, what was called the parochial system was altogether impossible. He would, as he had said, take one case to illustrate his position, and to show how impossible it was for even the most hardworking and zealous clergyman to deal with such a gigantic mass of population and such a host of obstructions as were involved by it. He held in his hand a statement of the condition of the parish of St. Pancras. The population of that parish exceeded 140,000—an amount exceeding that of many English counties. The population of Bedfordshire, for instance, was 109,000, that
14
of Herefordshire, 114,000, and that of Westmoreland, only 56,000. Now, according to the general calculations as to church accommodation, provision ought to be made for one-third of the inhabitants of a parish—a system which, if it were to be followed in the case of St. Pancras, would provide accommodation for about 47,000. As matters stood, however, in the fourteen churches or chapels which were situated in the parish, there was only accommodation for 17,000. He ought to tell the House that the statement which he was making as to St. Pancras, referred to its condition two or three years ago, previous to the introduction of certain reforms carried into effect by the present vicar. Dr. Dale, which reforms were effected by the operation of those principles which his proposition would go to make universal in their application. Now, as to the number of churches in the parish. The whole body of clergy actually performing parochial duty in St. Pancras amounted to sixteen; an arrangement which would nominally assign to each clergyman the care of 8,000 souls. But the distribution was very unequal, for it did so happen, that to twelve of these clergymen was assigned the charge of no less than 120,000 souls, giving 10,000 to each. Such was the state of matters when the Rev. Dr. Dale, a gentleman whose zealous and self-denying exertions it was impossible too highly to praise, entered upon his duties in St. Pancras. He at once determined to use all his efforts to subdivide this immense parish. He met with much opposition, but he succeeded so far as to found five new districts, but divided in such proportions that to one clergyman was assigned the cure of 8,000 souls; to another, that of 20,000; to another, that of 12,000; to another, that of 9,000; to another, that of 7,000; and still a vast proportion of the parish remained undivided and unassigned. But let the House look to another effect produced by this want of subdivision in large parishes—he alluded to the number of children who attended schools connected with the Church. In the parish of St. Pancras, that number was only 4,000, whereas it was clear that under proper organisation the number ought to be at least 14,000, making due allowance for the numbers educated by the Dissenters; while he knew, from his pessonal experience in the formation of what were called ragged schools in the parish, that there were from

15
15,000 to 20,000 children who were sent to no place of education whatever. Now, Dr. Dale, by subdividing the parish, had so far succeeded, that he had sot on foot additional school accommodation for upwards of six hundred children. He held, therefore, that in every respect the case of St. Pancras proved the necessity of subdivision, and that subdivision could take place universally only by the general application of those principles which he was now recommending to the House. He held in his hand a letter from Dr. Hughes, one of the incumbents of St. Pancras, who summed up his account of the evils produced by the present state of things, by stating that there was not, and could not be, anything like union between the clergyman and the people—that the great mass of the labouring population had altogether abandoned attendance on public worship—that the ordinances of the Church had, to a great extent, fallen into disuse—and that the consequence of this state of things was to deprive the clergy of all power of promoting the moral and religious improvement of the children. Another natural effect of this want of parish church accommodation was the number of proprietary chapels to which it gave rise. He was willing to give every credit to the clergymen who officiated in those chapels; but seven-tenths of them were attended only by persons in easy or affluent circumstances, leaving the great mass of the working population without any accommodation in addition to that derived from the parish churches. Besides, most of these chapels and places of worship were altogether dependent upon pew rents; and, such being the case, this happened, that there were not only no free sittings at all in connexion with them, but that there were no sittings let at rents sufficiently low to enable the great mass of the labouring population to profit by them. There was another evil attendant upon the present system of large parishes—one which was severely felt by the clergymen who presided over them. The position of the great vicars or rectors was equivocal and objectionable. They had, to a certain extent, the situation, and, in some respects, the power of bishops. Their position was that of holding, as it were, demibishoprics. They had great powers, but not full powers. In fact, their position was such, that both on their own accounts, and on that of the Church, it would be well if some change which would do away with present existing anomalies, and which would in-
16
troduce clergymen irresponsible and independent, except of course to their bishops, could be effected. There was still another grievance respecting the working of the present system, as regarded the clergy, which he had to notice. In the large parishes to which he alluded, the parochial duties were carried on by a rector or vicar aided by a numerous body of curates. Now this was not a desirable state of things. In the first place, the number of curates was seldom equal to the due performance of the task committed to them; and, in the next place, the position which they were enabled to hold in society was not adequate to their heavy responsibilities. Of course it was not only necessary, but highly desirable, that there should be in the Church a great number of curates gradually preparing themselves for the administration of higher offices in the ministry; but he thought that all who had looked to the present state of populous parishes, and who had duly considered the real efficacy and value of the parochial system, would be of opinion that when an individual held a permanent cure of souls, it was desirable that he should be free and independent—responsible, not to a vicar or rector, but only to the great functionary', the bishop of the diocese. The present system, however, pressed severely upon the inferior clergy of large parishes, who held a position of the most anomalous character. Indeed, were they to take ten such clergymen, they would find that the position of each would be in some respect different from that of the others. He had received a great many letters from incumbents in various districts upon this subject, and the general contents of these letters he would shortly state to the House. One rev. gentleman stated that, with the same duties and responsibilities as the vicar, he was compelled to receive and to account to him for all the fees paid by the parishioners. The amount in this instance was trifling, being only about 7l. per annum; but it was the principle which was complained of, a principle the enforcement of which marked the inferior position of the clergyman in question; and he need not remind the House that this feeling of inferiority not only produced a painful effect upon the mind of the clergyman himself, but was productive of unpleasant sensations in the minds of those who attended his ministrations. The clergy of Staffordshire, a body having the spiritual care of 200,000 souls, had presented a memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury upon the subject—a

17
memorial in which they represented that the division of great parochial districts into distinct parishes would not only strengthen the hands of the incumbents, but would promote the general welfare of the Church. Similar resolutions were come to by a body of the clergy of Yorkshire, having the care of 175,000 souls, and who had recently met at Accrington. One incumbent had stated to him in detail the evils which, in his own case, were the results of the want of a proper subdivision of parishes. This gentleman wrote that in his district, with a population of between 12,000 and 14,000, he was not allowed, without the vicar's permission, to celebrate a marriage, to baptize a child, or to church a woman. Surely this was a case for the application of the principle of subdivision. In many instances he found that the rule laid down was, that all registrations must be made at the mother church. This was an arrangement which not only gave a great deal of trouble to the parishioners, but which, when coupled with the rule of celebrating the rites of the Church only in the mother church, gave rise to a great facility for the celebration of clandestine marriages. It was thus that in the metropolis and populous districts clandestine marriages were generally effected. He would only refer to a very few of the other statements made by incumbents by whom he had been favoured with letters on this subject. One gentleman wrote, that the effects of non-subdivision were in many instances to enforce payment of double rates. Another stated that he was allowed to perform no rite of the Church, save that of celebrating divine service. Another stated that he was obliged to remit to the mother church the sacramental money received in his district, for the benefit of the poor resident in another portion of the parish. Now he thought it was clear, if a clergyman were not allowed to perform any of the offices of the Church, that he did not hold that position in the eyes of his congregation and of the world which was his due. Now, the remedy which he proposed for this state of things was the appointment of a Commission, which should consider the best mode of subdividing all the very large and populous parishes. He was convinced that if such a subdivision could be effected, it would not only remove a great portion of the evils which were universally complained of, but would be of incalculable benefit to vast masses of the population. He would be allowed to prove what he advanced by
18
reference to the case of a great parish which had been subdivided some time ago with the most marked benefit to a portion of the population, which up to the time when the change took place had been amongst the most neglected and necessitous of the inhabitants of this vast metropolis. In the year 1844 the great parish of Bethnal-green was subdivided, not so effectually as he could wish, but into districts, each containing from 8,000 to 10,000 souls. The benefits derived from subdivision had hitherto been very great. The parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, had recently been assigned to the Reverend Joseph Browne, and, contrasting the state of that parish before subdivision, and after, the House would find the following results;—In 1844, before the subdivision, there was school room for only 120 children. In 1849 there were national, Sunday, infant, and ragged schools, affording education to 1,100 scholars. In 1844 there were fourteen communicants in that parish; in 1849, 160. In 1844, forty persons attended the parish church; in 1849, the church was found to be full at night, and exceedingly well attended in the morning. Between 1844 and 1849, 1,003 persons of all ages, from infancy to the age of 75, were baptised, showing how greatly the ordinance of baptism had been neglected in this district. But this neglect was quite in keeping with what had occurred in other districts. He remembered being struck with a statement made by Mr. Horner, in one of his factory reports, upon the condition of Ashton-under-Lyne, to the effect that upon the arrival of an active curate at that place, he baptised 800 persons in the course of three weeks; every one of whom had walked to the church for that purpose. Since the subdivision in Bethnal-green, there had been established loan funds, soup kitchens (self-supporting, and accessible at a reasonable price), and reading-rooms for the working people. His own experience of these reading-rooms, of which he had been instrumental in founding some himself, satisfied him that they were to a great extent effectual in drawing into them large numbers of the working population who would otherwise resort to the gin-shop. Those reading-rooms had certainly been successful in Bethnal-green. He would next take the parish of Upper Chelsea, which had recently been subdivided by the rector, the Reverend Mr. Burgess. In 1836, 15,000 souls were under the charge of the clergyman. There was one church,

19
one clergyman, and his curate. The result of subdivision had been, that in 1849 there were erected two additional churches, which were always filled, without subtracting from the congregation of the mother church. The number of scholars had increased from the former period to the extent of 600, the district visitors amounted to more than thirty-six, no diminution had taken place in the rector's receipts, and a multiplication of associations for religious and charitable purposes was the result. Now, that was the case with respect to two parishes which had been subdivided. But that subdivision had not yet been carried out as far as was practicable. The excellent rector of Upper Chelsea confessed that he was renewing his efforts at a further subdivision, from which he anticipated additional improvement in the social and moral condition of the parishioners. He would now refer to a parish on the old foundation, one which had from the earliest times down to the present kept within reasonable limits, and came within the limits which he proposed. He should like the House to see how the parochial system had acted in that parish. To come to the parish of St. Dunstan in the East, the first parish you entered after passing Temple-bar. That parish contained 3,400 inhabitants, and was not without its share of a poor population. In Fleet-street, it was true, there was a large number of respectable tradesmen, but that street contained a number of courts and alleys filled by exceedingly poor people. The whole of that parish was contained within a quarter of a mile diameter; and the consequence was that nearly the whole of the inhabitants knew each other. Now, what was the provision made for the poor in the parish? They had a boys' and girls' school for 250 children, an industrial school, and an infant school for eighty children. Every human being being known to the clergyman and his curate, it was impossible that any of those frightful cases of destitution should occur which abounded in such overgrown parishes as Shoredich, Marylebone, White-chapel, and St. Pancras. He firmly believed that a better distribution of the parochial system, by bringing the poor under the superintendence and care of the clergyman, would prevent those cases of destitution and starvation which we now had to deplore—destitution which amounted to starvation, and disease which amounted to pestilence, and would prevent that which was now a scandal and a horror to every
20
reflecting mind, and a reproach to this Christian country. He believed that this subdivision of parishes would go very far in solving that problem which had so much engaged public attention—what was to be done with our pauper population? It was his firm opinion, that if the parochial system were carried out in all our great towns, according to the model laid down, the mendicant and vagrant classes in this country would become almost extinct. Before passing to another point of his proposition, he must beg to acknowledge the benefits which had been derived from the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which was one of the best, and at the same time one of the boldest, ever introduced into Parliament in the interests of the poor. With respect to the functions of the Commission which he now moved for, he should wish that Commission to be instructed to respect all vested rights—to respect all existing incumbents, and that the proposed subdivisions should be carried out in parts, and in succession. He should wish the Commission to be instructed to make a due apportionment of rich and poor of the various charities and charitable institutions, to apportion old and new churches and chapelries into distinct and independent parishes for all parochial purposes, and to make the ministers of all these distinct benefices as distinct as any one rector or vicar of the realm. Now he could not conceive what objection could be urged to the Motion he was about to make. He had said that he was not about to ask for a grant of public money; on the contrary, he should repudiate such an attempt. He might be asked, whence he expected funds for the endowment of these benefices? He did not contemplate reducing all benefices to one dead level; to the larger rectorial churches, for instance, might be assigned a larger population and a larger income. He answered, that some funds would accrue after the proposed subdivision, and that the division of the larger livings would yield some funds for the endowment of the smaller benefices. The funds to which he most looked would be these; In the first instance, he believed that in some cases the existing revenues would be subdivided. He looked for some results from the Commission which had recently been appointed to inquire into the management of Church lands, and he anticipated from the labours of that Commission a large sum of money, which could be devoted to the purpose of

21
endowing these district benefices. But he also looked for assistance from the growing munificence and liberality of the members of the Church of England in this country, which had never yet been fully tested. He knew the difficulties which beset the path of those who sought to raise funds for these purposes. He knew that when 1,000,000 l. was asked for, there was difficulty in obtaining 20,000 l.; but these efforts had failed from the want of system. If the demands made were specific—if the object for which the funds were required was set forth—ho believed that persons would give largely. He had seen an instance of this a few days ago. An incumbent of a district church had written to him to say that he had made an application to his parishioners for a sum of money to put his tottering church in repair. The answer he had received from one and all was, "Make us a distinct proposition, and we will give you as much money as you want, but until you do so we will give you nothing at all." As another proof that we had not yet sufficiently tested the munificence of the Chuch of England, he would quote the case of Bethnal-green, in which district, upon Mr. William Cotton, the Bank Director, coming forward with a specific plan, a sufficient sum of money had been collected to endow ten additional churches. Again, at this moment there was a strong desire to increase the ministration of the Church of England, as was exemplified by the large number of churches which were constantly springing up. As a proof of what individual exertion might effect, he would remind the House that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in one of his last charges to his clergy, had stated that during his connexion with the diocese of Chester, he had consecrated more churches in his diocese than had been consecrated throughout England since the commencement of the century. This he (Lord Ashley) thought was a sufficient proof that we had not yet sufficiently tested the munificence of the Church of England; and he felt quite sure that when a specific plan should be brought forward, sanctioned by the report of a Commission such as he now proposed, no difficulty would be found in raising the necessary funds. He knew that some gentlemen ran away with a notion that inconceivable sums were necessary for effecting these purposes. One gentleman in a pamphlet which had been recently issued, had gone the length of asking for 5,000 churches and 5,000 clergymen. Now, he
22
wanted no such thing; if they had 5,000 clergymen they would not know what to do with them. The Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, in a letter which he bad addressed to Viscount Melbourne some three or four years ago, had asked for 2,000 churches and eight millions of money. But the public naturally considered such a scheme as too gigantic to be grappled with, and it fell to the ground. It was not to such a scheme as that, that the sanction of the House was now asked. The whole number of parishes in this country whose inhabitants exceeded 4,000 amounted to 279; and parties who had experience on this subject, and had had opportunities of deeply condering it, were of opinion that the addition of 500 clergymen, in excess of the present staff, would be quite equal to meet the exigencies of the case. Now, the incomes of 500 clergymen at, say 300 l., would amount to 150,000 l. a year, which he did not think was a large sum to ask from the great, the opulent, the pious, the patriotic members of the Church of England. The only way of effecting the proposed subdivision, unless the Commission should recommend some general plan, such as he had suggested, would be by separate and local acts. That course would be both costly and troublesome. It would be necessary, then, as in the case of the General Inclosure and Tithe Act, to have some general subdivision Act, which should define the powers of subdivision. He could not understand on what ground opposition would be offered to his proposal. All that was aked was to have an opportunity for the Church of England developing those enormous resources at her command. Whichever way we turned we found the Church assailed by those who differed from her—charged with professing to be the poor man's church, when she was in fact no such thing, and when, on the contrary, she was leaving whole parishes teeming with human beings without a single clergyman. Such were the charges made against the Church; such were the charges they desired to meet, by showing that the Church was both able and willing to execute the high functions which rightly belonged to her. If, after the Church of England should have had this opportunity—if, after giving to her these powers of developing all her resources, and calling forth her energies, and of acting upon the principles she professed—if after that she should be found wanting, and the effort should be unsuccessful, then it would be

23
time to say, "Cut her down, why cumbereth she the ground?" But in common justice to the Church, he must ask of the House this—that before they proceeded to condemn the Church for what she had not done, they would remember that she was now seeking for a power and opportunity of proving what she was both willing and able to do. His firm and conscientious belief, however, was this; that if you would untie her hands, and thus enable her to expand them—if you would give her the power of showing what she was, and all that she desired to be—if you would do this, he felt assured, that she would fully, adequately, conscientiously, and most beneficially, discharge the high and solemn duties for which, under God's blessing, she had been originally founded by the piety and love of our forefathers. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Address of which he had given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the practicability and mode of subdividing, into distinct and independent parishes, for all ecclesiastical purposes, all the densely-peopled parishes in England and Wales, in such manner that the population of each, except in particular cases at the discretion of the Commissioners, shall not exceed four thousand souls."
MR. PAGE WOODseconded the Motion; and after a pause, during which no hon. Member seemed disposed to address the House,
LORD J. RUSSELLrose and said; Sir, I waited a few moments before addressing the House, thinking that some hon. Gentleman might have objected to the Motion of the noble Lord. For my own part, I can only say that I have listened with the deepest interest to the speech which he has just delivered. No one, I think, can deny that the object he has in view is one of the greatest importance, or that the subdivision of parishes, and the placing of numbers of persons under a sufficient number of clergymen, leads to the most beneficial results, as affecting the religious, moral, and civil interests of the community. With respect to the mode by which this object is to be effected, the noble Lord said at the commencement of his speech that it is not his intention to ask for the application of any public funds for this purpose. My own opinion is, that it would not be advisable to ask for such an application of the public funds. But I believe, with the noble Lord, that there will be
24
found means within the Church, which, if not sufficient completely to effect his object, will go a considerable way towards its accomplishment. I believe, in the first place, that there will be found considerable means yet to be derived from church property; and I also believe that the Commission which I lately advised the Crown to appoint will be able to point out how those means may be beneficially employed. For my own part, I regret that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when they had at their disposal the means derived from the suppression of pluralities and sinecures in the Church, did not devote larger sums for the subdivision of the larger parishes in the metropolis, and populous parishes and districts in the country. But this defect of the Commission was, I admit, to a great extent remedied by the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet lately at the head of the Administration. That Bill, I admit, has produced the most beneficial result, and is likely, to a great extent, to effect the object the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) has in view. It should not be forgotten, either, in considering this question, that the efforts made by particular bishops in the Church, and others, for the purpose of collecting funds to be applied to the remedy of the wants of their own dioceses, have been attended with very gratifying results. I may more particularly refer to the efforts made by the Bishop of London in collecting sums for the endowment and building of a largo number of churches in the metropolis—efforts which have been successful in raising a considerable sum of money—as much I believe, as 300,000 l.—and showing with what readiness members of the Church of England will contribute for such purposes. It should also be remembered that the bounty of private individuals—men, for instance, like the late Mr. George Byng and others—has endowed and built churches, and thereby supplied the wants of the parishes with which they were connected. Such being the case, I am disposed to think that my noble Friend does not take too sanguine a view, when he says that if a mode be pointed out by which parishes may be subdivided, funds to a great extent will be supplied. I do not feel sure that the subdivision can be carried out to the extent anticipated by my noble Friend. That, however, is a matter for inquiry; and if the Commission found that they could not carry out the proposal to the fullest extent, they would nevertheless achieve a great benefit if they pointed out to what

25
extent the principle could be carried out. I do not know what objection can be offered to the appointment of this Commission, and am therefore not disposed to trespass longer on the attention of the House. But I think that every member of the Church of England, and the community at large, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, will feel deeply indebted to my noble Friend for this, as for the many other efforts he has made to promote the moral and religious well-being of the people.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if this Motion had not taken him by surprise, he should have been prepared to show, by facts, that many of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley's) statements were incorrect. The subject was one of vast importance, he admitted; but he thought that if the country was in the destitute condition described by the noble Lord opposite, and admitted by the First Minister of the Crown, it should have been the duty of Her Majesty's Government themselves to have taken up the subject. But he altogether denied the premises of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley). He denied that churches and churchmen would remove the difficulties with which we were surrounded. It was not additional churches, but improved morality in the Church, that was required. Temporal, not spiritual, destitution it was which was felt. Church extension had not improved the condition of Bethnal-green. The noble Lord, he thought, had begun in error. He understood him to suggest a distribution of the church rates of a parish, in such a way that each clergyman of a district chapel should have a proportion of the income of the parish. The noble Lord did not call this asking for public money! What were church rates but public money? He (Mr. Hume) objected to the principle of this application. Not a word had escaped the lips of the noble Lord to let the House suppose that there was a Dissenter in the country. One would almost think that the noble Lord was speaking in the days of the Nonconformity Act. Was the noble Lord ignorant of the fact that the greater portion of the population of the populous parishes he had described were Dissenters? If he was, Gentlemen sitting near him (Mr. Hume) could impart to him the information. Why should they not purge the Church of its corruptions, instead of seeking to build more churches, and pay more clergymen? The noble Lord and his supporters, no doubt, considered
26
themselves the best friends of the Church; but he (Mr. Hume) regarded them as its worst enemies, for they had oppposed his Motion, introduced a few years ago, to abolish pluralism and sinecurism in the Church, and which Motion was only supported by forty-three Members of that House. What claim had they, then, to be regarded as the friends of the Church, when they supported such abominations and corruptions that were sapping its foundations, and preying upon its vitality? Was it not an abomination for one man to have three or four parishes nominally to attend to, when it was only possible that he could do duty in one of them? If they wanted a Commission, let its primary duties be to look after such an iniquitous state of things as this. This Motion of the noble Lord's seemed to be put forward as a sort of foil to his hon. Friend's (Mr. Cobden's) Motion for financial reform the other night; for the noble Lord wished to persuade the people that if they had only more clergymen and more churches, their social and physical condition would be greatly improved. This was a mere attempt to mislead the people—an endeavour, by putting forward a chimera, to take off their attention from the only effectual mode of lessoning the destitution and distress of the country—namely, the removal of the burden of unequal taxation. It was a very dangerous and improper thing to hold out to the people that they might expect relief from clergymen and churches, instead of looking to more rational and practical measures of legislation. The Government, too, by giving its consent to this Motion, was lending itself to the spread of the delusion; but it had better turn its attention to the more useful business of reform and retrenchment. According to the wording of the noble Lord's Motion, one would think there were no such people as Dissenters in the country. He had talked of the ragged schools, and other charities promoted by the church-going population; but he had entirely omitted any notice of the great efforts and ministrations of the Dissenting bodies in diffusing education and religion among the people. They had done more, in fact, to promote education in this country than all the churches and clergymen put together; and when the Lancasterian schools were first set on foot, the clergy of the Establishment, indeed, opposed these useful institutions on the ground that it was dangerous to educate the poor. The noble

27
Lord seemed to him to have done the next thing to offering an insult to the Dissenting community by his Motion. He said he proposed to meddle with only 279 parishes; but he (Mr. Hume) would deny that the large and populous parishes, such as Manchester, and other manufacturing districts, were suffering greater destitution, moral or physical, than the small parishes to which the noble Lord had alluded; and, therefore, the noble Lord's argument fell to the ground. He (Mr. Hume) would move an Amendment to introduce into the Motion, after the words, "in such manner that the population," the words, "belonging to the Church of England."
MR. HEALDsaid, that, although he was not a member of the Church of England, he wished to offer his entire concurrence in the objects of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath. He believed that not only the members of the Church of England, but also the great body of Nonconformists, were under great obligations to the noble Lord for having brought forward that Motion. He entertained a deep conviction that of all the measures called for by the circumstances of the time, and the state of the nation, measures for rendering more efficient the Established Church, and multiplying the religious agencies of the country, were those which, by the blessing of God, were most likely to place our institutions on a permanent basis. And when he remembered how the Church of England was constituted, and in what peculiar relations she stood to the interests of religion in this land, he thought it was the duty of the Legislature to place her in a position which would enable her to apply her resources to the utmost possible extent towards carrying out the great objects for which she had been called into existence. What did the noble Lord ask them to do by his Motion? As he (Mr. Heald) understood that Motion, its object was neither more nor less than to enable the Church of England to remove those restraints which fettered her action, and prevented her from doing that which Nonconformists were at liberty to do. The object of it was, to enable her to extend her agency, and to add to the means of religious instruction. He held that the Church of England had a right to enjoy that advantage; and he, as a Nonconformist, was as ready to concede it to her as he claimed it for himself. It appeared to him that that Motion suggested a more fitting means of meeting the exi-
28
gencies of the country, than that proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He could not help thinking that one of the faults of the present day was a habit of appointing commissioners to inquire, when the real want of the country was a prompt and suitable action on the knowledge which we already possessed. He believed the country was much indebted to the noble Lord for having brought forward a specific plan, such as was required by the wants of the people—wants which neither the Church of England nor the Nonconforming bodies had ever yet adequately met. He was connected with one of those parishes to which the noble Lord had alluded, and he was well acquainted with the state of the manufacturing districts in Lancashire and Yorkshire; and from his experience he should say, that if there were any fault in the plan of the noble Lord, it was to be found in the proposal that these large parishes should be subdivided into districts containing only 4,000 souls. He did not attribute to the noble Lord any intention of casting disrespect on the Dissenting portion of the community. He believed, from his knowledge of the conduct of the noble Lord during the last twenty years, and of the benevolent interest he had taken in the condition of all portions of Her Majesty's subjects, that that would be too unworthy a feeling for him to entertain. But he certainly felt that the subdivision of these larger districts into parishes containing only 4,000 souls, might engender very considerable collision and strife among various sections of the Nonconformist body and the Church of England; and there was nothing he should more deprecate than such a result. It must be remembered, that where there is the greatest disparity betwixt the existing church accommodation and the population, that there the Nonconformists have largely occupied the soil, and planted it over with chapels and schools, and other institutions of a religious, benevolent, and literary description. So extensively have their efforts been put forth, that in many districts you will find two or three chapels for one church, and Sunday schools have been erected, and are carried on, far exceeding in number and magnitude what are to be found in other portions of Her Majesty's dominions. In the borough of Stockport, which he had the honour to represent, there were, he believed, about 12,000 children attending Sunday schools, out of a population of 60,000 souls. He had further to observe, that nearly 10,000 of those

29
12,000 children were taught from contributions principally subscribed by the Nonconformist body. He believed that no borough in the kingdom possessed such an extensive system of Sunday-school teaching as Stockport. In the year 1842, when the operatives employed in factories left off work—at the harvest time—when a single spark in any field would have produced a universal conflagration—not one breach of the peace had been traced to any individual connected with those Sunday schools, He was glad to find that the noble Lord had not determined on limiting his proposal to parishes with 4,000 souls, but that he would be ready to extend that number. He would venture to say that in some districts the number should be extended even beyond 6,000 souls, and that in such as he had more particularly described, a number extending to 8,000 and 10,000 souls would form an area sufficiently limited to prevent collision of interests and action, and yet afford to the Church a manageable sphere for the due development of her powerful resources. His earnest desire was, that the mode of carrying out the noble Lord's Motion might be as unobjectionable as was the object of it; and that with increased efficiency upon the part of the Church of England, and freedom of action preserved to the Nonconforming bodies of the country, he might still enjoy, as he now had the happiness of doing, the confidence and friendship of a large circle of the members of the former; and that they, the Nonconformists of the land, might peaceably improve their respective spheres of duty, without the revival of any of those elements of discord and animosity, which all men must earnestly desire to be for ever allayed.
MR. BRIGHTwould forgive the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heald) what he stated in the beginning of his speech, on account of the facts he brought forward at the end it. The noble Lord the Member for Bath protested it was not his intention to ask for a vote of money; but they had had protestations of the same kind before, which ended differently. If the noble Lord's Commission were appointed, they would probably make out a most grievous statement of spiritual destitution in several parts of the country, leaving out all consideration of the Dissenters, as Commissions of this kind were wont to do; and then might not the noble Lord come to that House and ask for a vote of money to carry out his plan? Now, he
30
(Mr. Bright) did not rise to object to much of that plan. If he were a member of the Church of England—and he was thankful that he was not—if all the nation were churchmen, and it was part of the duty of that House to find religious instruction for the people, he should at least applaud the principle of the noble Lord's plan, although he might quarrel with some of his details. He lived in a parish of the character described by the noble Lord as fit for the application of his plan. It was a parish of 80,000 inhabitants, including ten miles square of country, and the vicar of which was not unknown to fame, one of those semi-bishops alluded to by the noble Lord, and he appointed to eight or ten churches in his district. He (Mr. Bright) had heard it made matter of complaint by churchmen that as there never had been there an evangelical vicar, there never had been an evangelical clergyman. With regard to the double rates, it had been constantly complained that persons were obliged to pay to mother church, living at one end of the parish, and probably never having travelled to the other. If Parliament took upon itself to look after these funds, he should not deny their right to make changes from time to time. The time was not come yet, though it was fast hastening on, when the principles he held on this subject would receive a more favourable hearing in that House, and be carried out in the administration of the affairs of the country. The noble Lord was in error in supposing that either in the north of England or in that metropolis, clergymen could have that precise position he hoped for. Looking at the education of clergymen, their habits, tendencies and sympathies, and seeing how upon all great public questions they differed from the great mass of those with whom the noble Lord wished them to be brought into contact he thought there never could be that sympathy, as there was not now, which the noble Lord desired between the people and the clergy. The noble Lord said the labouring people of St. Pancras did not go to church. He believed the same might be said of large populations all over the country. When they did go, they went to chapels more than to churches. The time was not long gone by when Members of Parliament could not see any great evil in the fact of the people not going to church. The questions of religion and morality had received more attention within a recent period, and it was not to be expected that the labouring

31
classes, by any division of parishes or parochial arrangement, could at once be induced to feel that interest in these questions which more enlightened persons did. The noble Lord remarked that persons not going to the parish church, sometimes objected to the fees for baptism, &c. He hoped the noble Lord would bear that objection in mind, on the subject of the church rates, and let it stand as a justification for the Dissenter's refusal to pay those rates. The Dissenter paid once for his own church, and he did not like to pay his money elsewhere. He had been investigating the number of clergymen compared with the population, and he found that it was amply sufficient for all the purposes of supervision, preaching, and ministering, in every way a clergyman was competent to do, as the following table would show;—

ENGLAND AND WALES.

Total benefices

10,533

Curates

5,230

15,763

Add dignitaries, heads of colleges, &c.

1,047

16,810

Benefices and curates

15,763

Deduct having no duties, or pluralists

3,087

Total working clergy

12,676

Benefices and curates

15,763

Population

18,000,000

Or 1 clergyman to every 1,142 of population.

Total population of England and Wales

18,000,000

Deduct 3,000,000 who attend free or dissenting churches, and who represent 4,500,000 population

4,500,000

13,500,000

Now, of that 13,500,000 who nominally belonged to the Church, a considerable number did not belong to it, and would not thank the noble Lord for including them within its pale. But, admitting them to be Churchmen, then the supply of 15,763 clergymen amounted to I for every 856 of Church population. He would now give them a few facts about the Dissenters, of whom the noble Lord had said nothing. The free churches in England and Wales amount to—congregationalists, 1,840; baptists, 1,741; various methodists, 4,239; presbyterians, (&c, 130; total, 7,950 congregations having no connexion with the Church of England. Now, let them look to the distribution of the clergy power of the Establishment;—
32

Population.

Ministers.

Huntingdon

53,192

97

or 1 in

548

Suffolk

296,317

501

or 1 in

591

Lincoln

317,000

607

or 1 in

522

Norfolk

390,000

699 or

or 1 in

558

Total

1,056,509

1,904

or 1 in

554

Lancaster

1,336,854

292

or 1 in

4,578

York

1,371,359

760

or 1 in

1,804

London & Middlesex

1,358,300

246

or 1 in

5,521

Dioceses.

Population.

Benefices.

M.

Pop.

6,148,662

2,644

1 to

6,718

19 dioceses

5,753,559

6,718

1 to

2,644

Population.

Ministers.

London & Middlesex, Lancaster and York

4,066,513

1,298

Huntingdon, Norfolk, and Suffolk

739,563

1,297

Of the 12,923 working clergy, 6,681 bad parishes with populations below 300 each, and 6,242 had parishes averaging less than 2,300 each. He should like to ask the noble Lord why he did not turn his attention to these facts, and to the vast mass of abuses which he was leaving untouched, instead of applying himself to the small mass of abuses which he (Mr. Bright) admitted ought also to be touched, but in a different direction. Why did not the noble Lord turn his attention to that state of things which expended one-half of the clergy power on one-eighth of the population, leaving the remaining seven-eighths of the population with the provision of only one-half of the clergy power. The noble Lord said, he could get the money by voluntary contribution. He could get all the money required for the Church of England in the same way if he asked for it. But as that was not done, would it not be better for the noble Lord to consolidate some of the parishes, and remove as vacancies and death would permit, when there was a small population. He would now draw attention to the increase which had taken place in sittings in places of worship since 1800, in the following places, drawing a comparison between chapels and churches. Ashton, Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, the population of which was 1,224,708.

Churches.

Sittings.

Churches, before 1800

83

93,918

Parliamentary grants, since 1800

25

34,985

Voluntary contribution, do

92

92,345

200

221,248

33

Churches.

Sittings.

Chapels, before 1800

96

59,445

Chapels, since 1800

472

243,339

568

302,784

Of chapels—Majority by voluntary contributions

368

81,536

He would now take the cotton and woollen districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, showing an excess of chapels, schools, and scholars of Dissenters:—

Ch.

Sittings.

Sunday Schools.

Teachers.

Scholars.

Establishment

367

357,984

379

12,968

116,429

Dissenters

661

359,313

707

31,737

158,601

Excess of Dissenters

294

1,329

328

18,769

42,172

Population of do

1801.

1841.

Increase.

Per Ct.

Lancashire

493,834

1,224,708

730,874

148

Yorkshire

414,000

844,563

430,563

104

And, instead of the destitution increasing with the population, it had actually decreased in proportion; for while the population had increased 148 per cent in Lancashire since 1801, and the population of the woollen districts of York-shire 104 per cent there had been an increase in that time in the accommodation in places of worship of more than 240 per cent. These facts did not show that the Motion ought not to be carried; but they showed that it was a mistake to suppose that that extraordinary destitution existed which some persons imagined, when they heard of nothing but the efforts of the Church. It was true that church people were much fettered in their operations with regard to the ministering of their clergymen, the building and endowing of churches, and a variety of other matters, which they were becoming very uncomfortable under, and very much dissatisfied with. But if it were asked how they were to extend the usefulness of the Church upon the principles of churchmen, he would say they were not justified in maintaining 500 clergymen in Suffolk, 699 in Norfolk, and 607 in Lincoln, where so many churches could not be wanted. Suppose it was stated to the House that there were 500 custom-house officers at Harwich—and only 50 at Liverpool, would it not be proposed to cut down the 500 to 10, and raise the 50 to 500? The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had said on a preceding night that the Church funds were State funds. [Mr. GLADSTONE expressed his dissent.] He
34
had so understood him. At all events, if 150,000 l. a year were distributed among 27 bishops, and another 150,000L to the deans and chapters, who made a very gentlemanly living, though he never could tell what they did for their money—it would certainly be a judicious thing to apply a portion of this money to the purposes which the Motion of the noble Lord contemplated. From his (Mr. Bright's) knowledge of a cathedral city with which he was once connected, though there were excellent men belonging to the cathedral there, yet he believed the sum of money distributed amongst them was very greatly in excess of any services they could render to the country in their situation. But there was a difficulty with which they were hardly able at present to cope. Of the livings of which he had spoken, 5,096 were in the gift of private individuals, and were, therefore, involved in some degree in the question of private property. It was a great misfortune that this system should have been allowed to grow up it was a very difficult thing to cope with; but he believed the time was coining when it would have to be met and looked at in a very different light to that in which it had been heretofore regarded, and when Parliament would find some way of getting out of the difficulty. He would give the noble Lord one word of advice, lest he should be too sanguine. He believed that no effort of that or the other House could draw back the main portion of the population of England to subjection, either religious or political, to any priesthood which could be established by the Legislature, or paid from any public fund. That time was altogether gone by; and it would be well that the attention of Parliament should be turned rather to the question how to get out of the enormous and complicated difficulty of a State Establishment which had under its administration an annual income of four or five millions, and, probably, if well applied, a principal sum of not less than 150 millions sterling. A church so formed and so organised must disappoint the expectations of all its conscientious adherents—and be at the same time a subject of political contention in almost every part of the country. He had no hostility to the Church as a religious body; he never would say a syllable against any one of its members because he was not a member, or interfere with any of its dogmas or principles; and he only ventured to speak on it because it was a great public question—political in

35
that House, he believed, much more than religious. As representing a constituency, and being connected with a district, where Nonconformity prevailed ranch more than Church-of-Englandism, he had thought he might be pemitted to state what the Nonconformists were doing, and to show that the present organisation of the Church, and its connexion with the State, was a state of things which could not long be endured, and which did not fulfil the requirements which churchmen, such as the noble Lord, expected at its hands.
MR. PAGE WOODshould endeavour, as far as possible, to apply himself to the question before the House, without being seduced into a discussion on the subject of church rates, or the other matters that had been introduced. He considered that some of the observations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House were most pertinent, and tended to support the views which were put forward by the noble Lord who opened the debate. He (Mr. Bright) said he thought it was a grievance that an incumbent should, from the circumstances in which he was placed, be in the position of "a little bishop;" and the same opinion was expressed by the noble Lord in opening the discussion. It was a grievance to have a large body of people in a populous town under the control of one clergyman, thus pacing that clergyman somewhat in the position of a bishop, without, however, having episcopal authority. It was a very natural consequence to arise, that one clergyman being placed at the head of a large town containing 70,000 or 80,000 inhabitants, if he were an honest and zealous man, he would endeavour to diffuse the peculiar views he might happen to entertain on any point of church doctrine. But he did not think it was advisable that those particular views of any individual should spread throughout one town. He thought it was a great deal better that there should be an opportunity for the development of those various opinions, which would exist so long as men were men, on subjects on which they had one common interest. It was better, therefore, to have several parishes in which those persons might locate themselves who preferred the ministration of one clergyman in comparison with another, rather than have one clergyman endeavouring to force upon a whole population doctrines in which they could not be expected to be unanimous—driving them, in a spirit of
36
contradiction, to the erection of proprietary chapels. It was not correct to say that the noble Lord and those who supported him were actuated by a spirit of opposition to the Dissenting community. He supported the noble Lord because he felt that there existed in the country vast spiritual destitution, and that persons were to befound having no religious opinion whatever, having no faith in God, or no conviction regarding the Saviour. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he begged to call attention to the fallacies of his arguments. One of the fallacies arose from his mode of taking an average; and another resulted from his considering that the ministration of the clergy was to be defined by numbers also, not by space only; whereas, with only 170 persons in a parish, the clergyman might have seven or eight miles to travel. It was also a fallacy to suppose that, in saying they should divide the population into such numbers that they should not exceed 4,000 to each clergyman, it was proposed that 4,000 was the exact number to be placed under his care. It would be better if they were not to have such a largo number. He would prefer, if it were feasible, that they should only have 2,000; but he doubted, under existing circumstances, whether that would be practicable. On considering the question of averages, they would look to the historical view of the subject, and it would be found that every old town in England was largely provided with churches; for instance in the city of London there were 108 parishes, in the city of Norwich 27, and in Ipswich II. Even there, however, the principle of average failed; for, in erecting that number of churches, consideration was not had for the extension of the towns, and in the course of time the outlying parishes, which were formerly fields, became densely populated. It would be found also, that some of the large populous towns in Lancashire had been formerly villages, for since the beginning of the last century the population of Lancashire had increased tenfold, and they were now endeavouring to remedy the grievance that arose from that state of circumstances, and to bring matters back to that state of things that was thought to be proper when the churches were founded. The hon. Gentleman had taken the average numbers of the population and the clergy—[Mr. BRIGHT: I said there were more than 6,000 parishes with a popula-

37
tion under 300—not on an average.] The first statement of the hon. Gentleman was that there were so many thousand clergy in England, and that on an average he gave about 1,200 persons to each clergyman. He (Mr. Wood) had also gone into a calculation on the subject, but it was not precisely the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. He had made it somewhat about 1,500 to each clergyman; but how did the case stand? It was said they had this enormous population in Lancashire, and a large number of clergy in Suffolk, and elsewhere. Now he knew a case in Suffolk, where there were two parish churches to be served, and there was no house in either of the parishes. The two parishes were consolidated under one clergyman, who had 50 l. for each parish, the great tithes having been taken by the great monasteries, and absorbed in the universal robbery by the nobles in the time of Henry VIII. He had to walk between nine and ten miles, though he had, it was true, only about 300 people to look after; but the 300 people could not walk into Lancashire to hear a clergyman there; they must be attended to on the spot. Therefore it was not only the extent of numbers, but of space, that should be taken into consideration in dealing with this question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had said, that he did not see what great good was likely to result from this object being carried out. He did not, he said, see what advantage had arisen to Bethnal-green from the erection of ten churches; that destitution was as great there as before; but surely the hon. Gentleman did not think that the placing of ten churches in a district two or three years since was sufficient to supply food to all the population; and he would remark that the word "destitution" was, he thought, a little misunderstood; the destitution referred to by the noble Lord was spiritual, and not bodily destitution. It must be admitted, that Bethnal-green had been in a miserable state, and that great efforts had been made for its improvement by Mr. Cotton, with the assistance of the Bishop of London. He (Mr. Wood) would now, however, call their attention to a place somewhat nearer home. He referred to the case of the two parishes in which they were then sitting. When he came to reside in those two parishes, about twenty-two years ago, there were two parish churches and four clergymen. There was, besides, one chapel, where there was merely service performed,
38
but no other ministration, at the Broadway. At that time what was the state of things with regard to education? In St. John's parish there were thirty-seven children in the school connected with the church. But a process similar to that proposed by the noble Lord had been for some time going on in those parishes. The first happy change took place when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appropriated two of the stalls of Westminster Abbey for the assistance of spiritual destitution in those parishes; and it was provided that, after paying the rectors of St. John's and St. Margaret's, provision was to be made for curates, who were to have districts assigned to them. Those two stalls were worth 2,400 l. a year, and their appropriation to these purposes had been productive of the most marvellous results. They, first of all, began by converting the old Broadway chapel, a dilapidated brick building, into a handsome church, and formed it into a district. Another church had been erected, and the district of St. Mary's formed; and the church was now in actual use. Besides that, there was a temporary church, to be replaced by a permanent one, erected by contribution, through the exertions of the curate, in Palmer's Village. Through the munificence of a lady (Miss Burdett Coutts) "whose praise was in all the churches," another church had also been erected, and she was about to endow that church, as well as a parsonage house and school. Through the munificence of another individual, a prebendary of Westminster, another church was to be erected near Vauxhall Bridge Road, on ground given by Mr. Cubitt. Two others were also to be erected in St. Peter's-street and Knightsbridge by subscription. Such were the effects of the stimulus that had been given by the appropriation of the two stalls in Westminster. Instead of two churches and one chapel, with four clergymen, they had now nine additional clergymen, making in all thirteen; and they had six additional churches in those parishes, and instead of thirty-seven children in the school of St. John's parish, they had now 2,000 children. There were 60,000 inhabitants in St. John's and St. Margaret's; and, according to the plan of the noble Lord, there would be fifteen clergymen for the 60,000 persons. There were at present thirteen or fourteen, so they were within one of the proposed number; still, what was the fact? They found, from statistical

39
inquiries now being made, that out of the 60,000 there were about 34,000 who attended no place of worship whatever. It also appeared, that between 9,000 and 10,000 children, between the ages of six and twelve, were at no school whatever. That showed what was still required to get their system into a perfectly working state. The noble Lord had said, that, as yet, they had not tried all the resources of the Church of England. He (Mr. Wood) believed that such was the fact, and therefore he would support the Motion. He thought that vast results would be produced when they had the assistance of active and energetic clergymen in bringing subjects forward before those who should support the views of the Church. It was a fault of a large portion of the laity of the Church that they did not come forward to support it, the reason being, however, that the matter had not been sufficiently brought under their attention. He had shown much that had been done in those parishes; but besides that there was a fund raised there called the Spiritual Destitution Fund. It was raised by one of the prebendaries of the church of Westminster making it his duty to go round to every individual he thought able to contribute, and laying his case before them. So that, with assistance from some other quarters, a sum of 20,000 l was raised, out of which salaries were given to certain curates, and schools were supported. All this had been done because additional clergy were given to the district; and when the noble Lord said that for such purposes as he had pointed out it would not be difficult to raise 150,000 l., he perfectly agreed with him. When the state of education in the manufacturing-districts was found to be in a deplorable state, the Church in one year raised 150,000 l.; and he would not admit that the Dissenters were a bit more forward than the Church in supporting education. He had one other instance to state in support of his views, and it was to be found in a manufacturing district. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Heald) had spoken of the vast efforts of the Dissenters in those districts, and they seemed unquestionably to be very great; but there was another manufacturing town to which he (Mr. Wood) would refer. In the town of Leeds an instance was given of what could be done, and also of what was required to be done on this occasion. As the noble Lord had stated, the churches were estab-
40
lished in Bethnal-green in 1843; and the vicar of Leeds (Dr. Hook), seeing the advantage of it, brought a measure before Parliament to deprive himself of one-half his income, to give it to the different district churches, one of the conditions being that the floors of the churches in those districts should be free to the poor. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had said that the Church could never have the affections of the large body of the people. [Mr. BRIGHT: I said as an establishment.] He did not admit that; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had applied his observation to the great body of the clergy, and had said they could not retain the affections of the great body of the people. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman in not calling the clergy "the Church." He believed that none of the clergy wished to be so called; and it must be owing to his hon. Friend's ignorance of the internal arrangements of the Church that he spoke of again bringing the laity into subjection to the clergy. He did not believe there were twenty clergymen in the kingdom who wished to bring the people into subjection to them. But the vicar of Leeds possessed the affections of the people. [Mr. F. O'CONNOR: Hear!] The hon. Member for Nottingham who cheered that statement, no doubt recollected that a large meeting of Chartists separated with three cheers for the vicar. That compliment, however, was solely gained by the efforts he had made for the spiritual welfare of the people. He (Mr. Wood) would further impress upon the House the extreme importance of having a general measure on this subject. In the case to which he had referred. Dr. Hook brought forward the Bill on his own responsibility, and though it was not opposed, it had to undergo an investigation by the Church Commissioners, and considerable expense was incurred. The result, therefore, of bringing in a Bill to deprive himself of one-half his income was this—through the liberality of the House of Lords they remitted one-half the fees—he did not know whether that House followed the example—through the liberality of the counsel for the Commissioners and the counsel who prepared the Bill, they declined to take any fees, and yet, after all that. Dr. Hook incurred an expense of 1,400 l, having to pay 700 l. to his town agents, and 700 l. to his country agents. There should be a division of those enormously populous pa-

41
rishes; and he (Mr. Wood) had shown that in the cases to which he had referred, such subdivision had proved to be most beneficial. It was essential and necessary to carry that into effect, in consequence of the enormous expense of individuals attempting it, and it would also tend to develop the resources of the Church. He might mention, that the rev. gentleman to whom he had referred, (Dr. Hook) had, during the ten years he was rector, levied 100,000 l. for church purposes by voluntary contributions—that was, 10,000 l. a year. The noble Lord had understated his case when he said he asked for no public money—his measure would save much public money; it would save expenditure on prosecutions, in gaols, and in transportation. He was not one who looked altogether without pain and alarm at the fact that there were growing up large masses of the community throughout the kingdom who had not the slightest notion of religious obligation; and he thought that if that state of things went on to a much greater extent, the House would soon have much more serious things to discuss than the question of reduction of expenses, however important that might be. Without wishing at all to arrogate for this country a larger amount of wisdom or sacredness than other countries, still he believed that it was the feeling of almost every hon. Member of that House, that if, owing to the blessings of Providence, this country had escaped many of those evils which had desolated others, those blessings had been showered upon it in consequence of the efforts, poor and miserable as they might have been, which had been made towards the diffusion of religious knowledge among its inhabitants.
MR. HORSMANtendered his best thanks to his noble Friend (Lord Ashley) for the service he had rendered on this as well as on other occasions to the Church; and he thought his noble Friend had reason to be grateful at the result of the debate. The hon. Member for Montrose himself sympathised with the object of his noble Friend, and merely sought to amend his Motion. The hon. Member for Manchester also concluded by suggesting, as an improvement, that small parishes should be united as well as large ones divided; but neither the one nor the other directly opposed the proposition of his noble Friend. The ancient parochial constitution of the kingdom was, that any parish should be of such dimensions that it could be adminis-
42
tered by the strength of one man—that no part of it should be so remote as that it should not be accessible to the instruction of its spiritual guide. That principle was lost sight of, and the Church was injured in consequence. It was the endeavour of his noble Friend to bring them back to that principle. In his character as a churchman, a Christian, and a legislator, he desired to give that principle as much extension as possible. It was said that no allusion had been made by his noble Friend to the dissenters. He did not see that any allusion to the dissenters was much to be expected in a matter that solely affected the Church. There was nothing either in the tone or object of his noble Friend's speech which could be considered as of an aggressive character as regarded the dissenters. It was aggressive in one way; that was to say, it attacked ignorance, infidelity, sin, and crime. He was sure that his noble Friend was not actuated by any feeling of hostility against the dissenters. There was enough to do both for themselves and dissenters. There were many men who were not churchmen, and yet were not dissenters, and there were many who were not dissenters and yet were not churchmen. Here was a large field where all might meet, not for the purpose of sectarian hostility, but for the higher purpose of Christian rivalry. The hon. Member for Montrose said there were faults in the Church. There were: he was not disposed to palliate these faults; but it was a pleasure to him, when, having stated what he considered he ought to state in that respect, he could state what he thought to be the advantages of the Church. He thought that in times past the Church had been a great blessing; and he trusted that in time to come, notwithstanding the predictions of his hon. Friend, it would be a still greater blessing. It was to that end that his noble Friend's efforts were directed, and to promote it he (Mr. Horsman) would give every aid. He looked on the measure of his noble Friend as the accompaniment of those which he had himself proposed, and without which, indeed, they would lose most of their value. He was grateful that his noble Friend had taken the subject up, because his ability and his influence would probably carry it to that successful result which it would not have in less experienced bands. He trusted that in appointing this commission it would be composed of gentlemen who would give their time to the labours of it, so that the

43
inquiry would not be postponed or the report retarded.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the speech which he had just heard of the hon. Member for the city of Oxford, had entirely relieved him from the necessity of replying to the hon. Members for Montrose and Manchester. There were some slight errors in the calculation of the hon. Member for Manchester; he did not know that they were very material; he had stated, for instance, that there were several clergymen holding two livings, and he had strangely enough omitted those persons on that account from his calculation of the average, and that might perhaps account for the discrepancy between his numbers and those of the hon. Member for Oxford. The hon. Member for Manchester had also spoken in terms of disparagement of chapters and cathedrals; and the hon. Member for Montrose had proposed to add to the Motion a suggestion to the Commissioners to inquire into the evils and abuses which existed in the Church, such as plurality and non-residence. By law those things were already dealt with; but he did not deny that it would be expedient to carry out the restrictions with respect to plurality and non-residence still further. In voting against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, he hoped that he should not be understood in any way as ranging himself with those who defended plurality; and he hoped to see the time when those things would be unknown entirely in the country, and the establishments again made applicable to the uses for which they were intended, strengthening the parochial system of the country. He knew that many gentlemen connected with chapters were desirous that the law should be altered and their fetters struck off, so as to enable them to perform the duties for which the chapters were originally formed. He hoped, before the end of the Session, to be able to submit to the House some observations upon the subject of those establishments. He thought that the thanks of every churchman and every man of every religious denomination in this country was due to the noble Lord for his efforts to combat the irreligion and infidelity of the country. It was to be hoped that the Commissioners, in endeavouring to obtain statistical accounts of the various districts, would take advantage of the information to be obtained from the archdeacons and other officers connected with these establishments. They would then be enabled to collect a valuable
44
fund of useful information upon which to found their reports. The hon. Member for Montrose had said in reference to the parish of St. Pancras, that there were a large number of Dissenters there. He (Mr. Herbert) would be most happy if the numbers were larger than they were; they would not then, perhaps, hear such lamentable accounts of the spiritual destitution of the people. They had lately heard of the case of some boys who had expressed their astonishment at the things which were taught them—not dogmas of theology or catechisms, but it was said that their exclamation was, "We have never heard of such a strange thing as the doctrine of the immortality of the soul." It was a lamentable thing, that in a Christian country there should be persons living who were ignorant whether the soul woul exist in a future state or not, who were ignorant of the doctrine of the redemption, and knew not that there was any salvation for them. He trusted that the hon. Member for Montrose would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Motion of the noble Lord to pass as originally proposed.
MR. HUMBsaid, that there appeared to exist a great misunderstanding with respect to the course which he had taken. He did not object to the present inquiry; on the contrary, he wished it to be carried further; he would not be supposed to limit it to the proposed inquiry, lest it might be supposed that he thought further inquiry unnecessary. With respect to what he had said on the subject of destitution, he certainly understood the noble Lord to refer, in addition to the spiritual destitution of the people, to their physical destitution, and to state that the suffering and starvation of the people would be put a stop to by the adoption of his suggestions. [Lord ASHLEY: No, no!] The first Amendment which he should propose would be to the effect that the inquiry should not extend to the whole population, but to the population only which attended the Church.
MR. BRIGHTwished to know whether the noble Lord would have any objection to the Amendment, if those portions of it were struck out which did not refer to the union of small parishes?
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. Members opposite were running away with the idea that he was hostile to the Motion; he merely wished to extend its sphere of usefulness.
MR. GOULBURNhoped the House would be cautious before it admitted the

45
Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. The tone of his speech showed that he was not very friendly to the Motion. There were two modes by which the Motion might be defeated—one was by positive argument, in which the hon. Gentleman must see that he had no chance of success at present—the other was the imposing upon the Committee duties which it was not likely to fulfil satisfactorily, and by involving it in a mass of investigation and inquiry, which it would be unable to wade through, and prevent its coming to any satisfactory conclusion. Now one main object they had in view was to obtain the most speedy information on the subject. He trusted, therefore, the House would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, as it involved legal questions, and questions of patronage and property, which it would be extremely difficult to deal with. Under these circumstances he thought his noble Friend would best consult the interests of the Church, and promote the objects he had in view, by declining to accede to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He would take that opportunity of saying, that it was gratifying to him to find that a noble Lord, whom on public and private grounds he highly respected, should have stood forward as the promoter of an object which he believed would be, if carried into effect, attended with the most beneficial results, not merely to the Church, but to the country at large.
Amendment proposed, after the word "population," to insert the words "belonging to the Church of England;"—Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
MR. HUMEwould now propose to insert the words "and of uniting parishes where practicable and advantageous."
LORD ASHLEYsaid, he concurred in the object of the hon. Member for Montrose, because he believed it might be desirable in some instances, particularly in London, to unite parishes. But as he believed it would have the effect of impeding the inquiry of the Commissioners, he hoped he would not press his Amendment, although any proposition of that sort, if made independently, he would support.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he would object to the proposition of his noble Friend, if he was willing to add the words proposed. He thought it better not to add those words, which would give rise to difficulties connected with questions of property. The object might be desirable in itself, but it
46
ought not to be a matter of inquiry by this Commission.
MR. BROTHERTONhoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.
SIR E. BUXTONconsidered that such an inquiry as the hon. Member for Montrose suggested, would be highly desirable at a proper time, and it did appear hard to refuse those powers which might be necessary for rendering the Church more useful than it was at present; but he yet felt unwilling to assent to anything that would seem to interfere with the Motion of the noble Lord. Each proposition might be good in itself, but one of them should not be allowed to interfere with the other.
LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said, he had been grievously misunderstood in his former statement. He had been charged with not making mention of the efforts of the Dissenters. In bringing forward a question of this kind, which was purely one relating to the Church and its free action, he did not think it necessary specifically to refer to what had been done by the Dissenters. Had he been asking for a grant of public money, or making a general statement respecting the spiritual destitution of the country at large, it would be his duty to set before the House all that had been done, and all that was doing, by the great body of Nonconformists. The hon. Member for Montrose had been unjust to him in saying that he coupled ragged schools with the Church exclusively. He did no such thing; and it would be most unjust if he were not to say, on behalf of those who were interested in ragged schools, that they were deeply indebted to the Dissenting body, with many of whom he acted on terms of the most perfect accordance. He must also allude to what fell from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Heald), because he should be sorry that any impression should exist on his mind, that he (Lord Ashley) did not estimate to the full the great efforts of the body to which the hon. Member belonged. There was no one connected with the manufacturing districts, and particularly with the West Riding of Yorkshire, who must not see that as patriots and as Christians, they were most deeply and inexpressibly indebted to the pious efforts of the Wesleyan body, were it not for whose exertions he felt bound to say whole districts would be worse than if in a state of heathenism. He hoped he had now done justice to the efforts of the Dissenters. He did not say, as was attributed to him by the hon. Member for

47
Montrose, that the providing for spiritual destitution, would do away with physical destitution. What he said was, that if parishes were to contain only 4,000 individuals, the physical destitution of the poor must he necessarily better known to the clergyman and the district visitors, and that the very fact of this knowledge would contribute much to the alleviation of that distress. At present distress prevailed most in those districts which were least known. The hon. Member for Manchester must also consider that the population might be comparatively small, and the parish very large in extent. The parish of Aberystwith, for instance, was eighteen miles long. He could name a parish of 300 inhabitants, the clergyman of which told him that it was with the utmost difficulty, although he worked every day for nine hours, he could see each of his parishioners once a fortnight. In many other parishes he heard clergymen say it took a whole day to visit a single family. Suppose he had to go twelve miles distant, he would have to travel twenty-four miles, which would consume the best part of a summer's day, and a whole winter's day. The noble Lord concluded by thanking the House for the indulgence which had been always extended to him when addressing it.
MR. W. BROWNsaid, that as the feeling of the House was evidently against the Amendment, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) would not press it; although, as it was he who suggested the words, he should vote for it if his hon. Friend insisted on a division.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would press the Motion for a division.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "and of uniting parishes, where practicable and advantageous:"—Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 111: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Blewitt, R. J.

Pilkington, J.

Brown, W.

Smith, J. B.

Cobden, R.

Thompson, Col.

Crawford, W. S.

Thornely, T.

Ellis, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Harris, R.

Wyld, J.

Henry, A.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

Mowatt, F.

HUME J.

O'Connor, F.

Bright, J.

48

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Jones, Capt.

Adderley, C. B.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Armstrong, R. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Baines, M. T.

Langston, J. H.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Lennard, T. B.

Baring, hon. F.

Lewis, G. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Lewisham, Visct.

Bernard, Visct.

Lopes, Sir R.

Blackall, S. W.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Bowles, Adm.

Macnamara, Maj.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Brotherton, J.

Maitland, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Busfeild, W.

Masterman, J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Mitchell, T. A.

Carter, J. B.

Monsell, W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Moore, G. H.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Mullings, J. R.

Cobbold, J. C.

Napier, J.

Craig, W. G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Currie, H.

Newport, Visct.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Nugent, Lord

Dundas, Sir D

O'Brien, Sir L.

Dunne, F. P.

Pakington, Sir J.

East, Sir J. B.

Parker, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pusey, P.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Romilly, Sir J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Fortescue, C.

Sandars, G.

Fox, R. M.

Sandars, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Scholefield, W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Sheridan, R. B.

Gore, W. R. O.

Slaney, R. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Smyth, Sir H.

Granby, Marq. of

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W

Grenfell, C. P.

Spooner, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stanton, W. H.

Haggitt, F. R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, J.

Hay, Lord J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Heald, J.

Townley, R. G.

Herbert, H. A.

Tufnell, H

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Turner, G. J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Verney, Sir H

Hildyard, R. C.

Walpole, S. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Welsh, Sir J. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Westhead, J. P.

Hood, Sir A.

Wodehouse, E.

Hope, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hope, A.

TELLERS.

Horsman, E.

Ashley, Lord

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wood, W. P.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that as the Motion which he had to make related to the report of the Committee appointed by that House to consider the subject of Irish poor-laws, and as that Motion had been carried by a large majority, he need then only ask the House to go into Committee, and when the House was in Committee he would state what he had to propose.

49
Order for Committee thereupon read:—Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "it is unconstitutional and unjust to impose on Ireland separate national taxation for the wants of particular localities, so long as the public general revenue of Ireland is paid into an Imperial Treasury, and placed at the disposal of an Imperial Legislature for the general purposes of the united kingdom," instead thereof.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDsaid, that to the Motion before the House, he (Mr. S. Crawford) had to move the Amendment which had just been read from the chair. He objected to any separate system of national taxation for Ireland under the present constitution of the empire. The Act of Union was framed on the principle of combined responsibility. The Union itself was forced on Ireland; but England, having taken Irish poverty into partnership, could not now repudiate the results of that connexion. He would not then enter into the question whether the repeal of the Union would be advantageous to Ireland or not; but if the Union was to be maintained, the principle of united responsibility must be its basis. When a smaller country was united to a larger one, whose inhabitants were the most numerous and influential of the two, there was no security for its interests but that of united responsibility. On this ground, he maintained that it was unconstitutional to create a separate system of national taxation for Ireland. It was unjust, also, to the industrious portions of the Irish community that they should be taxed in order to protect the landed proprietors of the west of Ireland against the results of their own misconduct. The rate in aid was proposed chiefly for the purpose of protecting the estates of those proprietors by fixing a maximum rate, and levying the difference on the industrial means of the people of Ulster and Leinster. The land ought to be brought to market and made responsible to the fullest extent, before any other means were taken to compel the industrious part of the community to pay for the misconduct of other portions. From the time of the Union the finances of Ireland had been in the hands of England, and her extravagant management had raised the debt of Ireland from 28,000,000 l in 1801, to 130,000,000 l. in 1847. The
50
principal plea urged in favour of imposing this tax was, that Ireland had been guilty of great defalcations with regard to her debt. Whatever might have been done in that respect, England herself was responsible for it. At the time of the Union the contribution of Ireland towards the English debt was fixed at the proportion of two to fifteen. It had been acknowledged subsequently that that amount was excessive. The Finance Committee of 1815 said that experience proved that Ireland had laboured under too great a burden. He maintained that Ireland was not justly chargeable with any portion of the debt which had not been incurred before the time of the Union; but he would not stand out on that point. If any hon. Member would propose a Select Committee to ascertain what proportion of charges could be fairly apportioned to Ireland, he would assent to such a mode of settling the question. Another plea for establishing a separate system of national taxation was, that Ireland was not subject to the same taxation as England. Why was she not so? England had had the power of taxation in her own hands, and having abstained from taxing Ireland equally only on the ground of her incapacity to bear equal taxation, that formed no ground for now imposing a separate system of national taxation. For his own part, he was perfectly willing that Ireland should pay the income tax, or any amount of taxation which would be just and fair. On that point he was very anxious not to be misunderstood; he did not demand anything from England except on the ground that Ireland was prepared to pay her fair proportion of the taxes of the united kingdom. He had voted for the extension of the income tax to Ireland, and he should be ready to vote again for the imposition of any tax on that country with which it was fairly chargeable. He did not wish to see his countrymen coming before the British Parliament as beggars; he would rather see them approach the Legislature as independent men, willing to pay their fair proportion of taxation into the Imperial Treasury, but, at the same time, determined to maintain their rights. It was said that England kept her own poor, and Ireland should do the same. He was quite willing that Ireland should maintain her own poor in the same way that England did; but this country had never acted on that principle of making the whole nation responsible for the local wants of particular districts. He did not deny that

51
advances of public money might be necessary at the present time to save the Irish people from starvation; but he maintained that all advances should be made out of the Imperial Treasury—that Ireland should be charged with her fair proportion of the debt—and that not one farthing should be applied without previously making the lands of the distressed districts responsible for the repayment. He was opposed to grants, as injurious to the real interests of the Irish people. The attempt to feed a pauper population was an impracticable one. What the people wanted was, not only food but clothes. Any relief which could be afforded would, therefore, be only temporary; and if the system were persevered in, nearly the whole community would become dependent on it. Now, the Government intended to propose a sixpenny rate. What would such a rate do towards relieving Irish pauperism? If Ireland consented to the imposition of a sixpenny rate, the extent of the demand would be incalculable; the demand of sixpence after sixpence would go on without any limit. He called upon English Members to do as they would be done by, and not to tax the industry of the northern and middle districts of Ireland on account of the extravagance and mismanagement of the western parts. It was most cruel and unjust to call upon the industrious population of Ulster to submit to a tax to which there would be no end. The House should recollect that the great hold of England upon Ireland was maintained through the feelings of the inhabitants of those districts. Ulster had always stood firmly by the British connexion; and he appealed to the House not to weaken the ties by which she had been bound to this country.
MR. E. B. ROCHErose to say that he did not understand the object of the Motion of his hon. Friend. Every one admitted that something must be done for the relief of the distress of the people in 20 unions. His hon. Friend, as he under-stood him, proposed, in fact, an income tax, as he had supported on former occasions an income tax for Ireland. Now he (Mr. Roche) wanted to know what the Government had to propose. If the proposition of the Government was better than an income tax, he would support it; if worse, then he would vote against it. He wanted to have this subject discussed, where it best could be discussed, in Committee. He did not wish to clog himself with an
52
abstract resolution in the first instance,; and then go into the discussion of a practical proposition. Now, he preferred the practical proposition to an abstract resolution; and then he must say the mode of reasoning employed by his hon. Friend did not make him regard his abstract resolution with overmuch favour. His hon. Friend had appealed to the House not to tax Ulster for the benefit of Connaught. Why, he (Mr. Roche) must, on the contrary, say, that there was something like a retributive justice in the rate in aid being required in Ulster; for he said to the Gentlemen opposite, to those who now possessed landed estates in the north of Ireland, that when their ancestors came and planted themselves in the north of Ireland, they exterminated the Catholic population, or they gave them this alternative, "You shall go to hell or to Connaught?" The Catholic population took the latter alternative, and they went to Connaught—they increased there in hundreds, he might say in millions, as his hon. Friend near him had suggested; and now the descendants of the men who had estates in the north were called upon to support the descendants of those who had been driven into Connaught. If, then, the rate in aid were to be opposed, he hoped that better and sounder reasons would be given for the opposition than those offered by his hon. Friend. He hoped, too, that those who opposed the proposition of the Government would be able to show that there was a better means of supporting the poverty of Ireland. He hoped, too, that they would all be prepared to decide upon some practical measures, and have something better before them than an abstract resolution.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHappealed to the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw his Amendment, and permit the House to go into Committee. Agreeing, as he did, very much with his hon. Friend, yet he thought that they ought to have an opportunity of hearing what the Government had to say in favour of this most extraordinary measure.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwas very anxious to oblige his noble Friend; but upon this occasion he could not consistently do so.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYwished to state the grounds on which he felt it his duty to give his vote against the Amendment. He should feel obliged to vote against the Amendment, because he thought that it was most objectionable to propose an abstract principle of this kind

53
before they went into Committee on the resolutions of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. At the same time he should also oppose the resolutions of the noble Lord, as he thought they embodied an unfair and partial measure.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should at present feel satisfied with protesting against the measure in the terms of the resolution of the hon. Member for Rochdale. He thought that it was only fair that the whole empire should be taxed to meet an emergency like the present. If any great misfortune or calamity should unfortunately occur in Lancashire or any other spot, he thought that any charge which might be necessary to meet it, should be borne by the whole empire.
SIR J. B. WALSHbelieved, that a general understanding prevailed between many hon. Gentlemen, that before Mr. Speaker left the chair there should be a discussion on the general principle of the measure of the noble Lord. Many hon. Members who could not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale were anxious to record their opinions on this subject. For his own part, he did not wish to speak on the question which the hon. Member had submitted to the House; but before Mr. Speaker left the chair, he should enter upon the consideration of the contemplated plan.
MR. REYNOLDSimplored the hon. Member not to divide on that occasion. He thought it was only fair that Mr. Speaker should be allowed to leave the chair, so that they might all know what were the intentions of the Government.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 15: Majority 124.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Buck, L. W.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bunbury, E. H.

Anson, hon. Col.

Busfeild, W.

Armstrong, R. B.

Carew, W. H. P.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Chaplin, W. J.

Christy, S.

Baines, M. T.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Cobbold, J. C.

Bass, M. T.

Cocks, T. S.

Bellew, R. M.

Coles, H. B.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Cowan, C.

Bernal, R.

Craig, W. G.

Bernard, Visct.

Cubitt, W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Currie, H.

Broadley, H.

Davies, D. A. S.

Brotherton, J.

Disraeli, B.

Brown, W.

Dodd, G.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

54

Duncan, G.

Nugent, Lord

Dundas, Sir D.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Dundas, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

East, Sir J. B.

O'Connor, F.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ord, W.

Ellis, J.

Paget, Lord C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pakington, Sir J.

Fordyce, A. D.

Parker, J.

Forster, M.

Perfect, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Pilkington, J.

Gordon, Adm.

Plowden, W. H.

Grace, O. D. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Prime, R.

Granby, Marq. of

Raphael, A.

Greene, T.

Reynolds, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Halford, Sir H.

Ricardo, O.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Romilly, Sir J.

Hawes, B.

Rufford, F.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Salwey, Col.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sandars, G.

Heyworth, L.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hildyard, R. C.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodges, T. L.

Slaney, R. A.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hood, Sir A.

Smyth, Sir H.

Howard, Lord E.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W

Jackson, W.

Spooner, R.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Stanton, W. H.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Stuart, J.

Kershaw, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Langston, J. H.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Thompson, Col.

Lennard, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Lewis, G. C.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Townley, R. G.

Locke, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Lopes, Sir R.

Wall, C. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Mahon, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Maitland, T.

Wilson, J.

Manners, Lord G.

Wilson, M.

Matheson, A.

Wodehouse, E.

Matheson, Col.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wrightson, W. B.

Moore, G. H.

Wyvill, M.

Morris, D.

Mulgrave, Earl of

TELLERS.

Mullings, J. R.

Tufnell, H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, C. M.

O'Connell, J.

Baring, hon. F.

O'Flaherty, A.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Osborne, R.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Scully, F.

Fox, R. M.

Tenison, E. K.

Hayes, Sir E.

Tennent, R. J.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Macnamara, Maj.

Crawford, W. S.

Meagher, T.

Dunne, Col.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
SIR JOHN WALSHthen proceeded, pursuant to notice, to move a negative on the question that Mr. Speaker do leave

55
the chair. He congratulated the House upon the great celerity which they had imparted this Session to their proceedings, and which appeared to extend to their Committees. The promptitude with which the Committee had come to a decision on a matter of such importance was utterly without precedent. He had heard of a late gallant and chivalrous Irish nobleman, whose advice to his sons was—"Fight first, hoys; and explain afterwards." The Committee appeared to have adopted a similar policy. They resolved first, and they inquired afterwards. So rapid was the progress of legislation now-a-days, that a Minister of State was sometimes startled at the marvellous celerity of his own movements, and found it impossible to pause for a moment in order to offer one word of explanation, or to make one word of inquiry. So it appeared to be in the present case. How did the present resolution come before them, and what was the exact value that ought to attach to it? The course that had been pursued with reference to it was most unconstitutional. It was quite an unprecedented proceeding, and one which did not at all accord with the doctrine of a Minister's proper and wholesome responsibility; that a Minister, feeling that he had not at his own command adequate sources of information, should appoint a Committee for the avowed purpose of obtaining the required information, and should then come down to that Committee with a resolution cut and dry, and having submitted it to the Members, and obtained their sanction to it, without producing one word of evidence in its justification, should then bring it before the House of Commons, and solicit the House to record their approval of it, fortifying his case by representing that it faithfully reflected the opinions of the Committee from which it emanated. Such a proceeding was alike contrary to the spirit of the constitution and the practice of Parliament. The resolution was at best nothing more than the record of the private opinion of six-and-twenty Members, whom the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in the exercise of that power which belonged to every Minister having a majority in that House, had chosen—for it would be offensive to say packed into a Committee. He challenged the noble Lord to show him a precedent for any such course as had been adopted in the present case. It would be disorderly and inconsistent with the usages of Parliament that
56
he should refer more particularly to anything that had passed in the Committee; but he was at liberty to indulge in conjecture. The resolution which advocated the imposition of a rate in aid to the amount of 6d. in the pound might be a mere mutilated and fractional portion of a scheme hereafter to be developed, but of which at present they knew nothing. It might be that they were neither considering the whole plan of the Minister, nor the whole report of the Committee, but some fragmentary particle of a scheme, of which nobody knew anything, and for which nobody was responsible. In fact, they were totally in the dark, and knew not what they were about. Why was it that some report from the Committee did not accompany the resolution? Was the decision unanimous? Did the whole twenty-six Members concur in it? Of that they had no positive information whatever, but they were left to infer that there might have been, and probably was, very great difference of opinion in the Committee. Perhaps the resolution had come down to them not as the unanimous opinion of the little knot of Gentlemen upstairs, but simply as the balance of their opinion. Perhaps it came to them with no graver authority than this, that after casting up the debit and credit accounts, it was found that there was a small balance in favour of it. He never had known an instance where a resolution came down from a Committee in a shape less calculated to inspire a conviction of its importance, or in a shape less calculated to insure for it a favourable reception. The first thing to be looked at was the inadequacy of a rate of 6d. in the pound to effect the object it was designed to accomplish. The whole property valued to the poor-rate in Ireland was about 13,330,000 l. The sum to be realised from a 6d. rate, would not, if every union in the kingdom were solvent, exceed 325,000 l.; but they must deduct the 6d. on the twenty-one unions now in a state of insolvency, and whose rating amounted to 1,323,000 l.; they must also deduct the ten or eleven unions which were stated to be on the brink of bankruptcy, and could not be supposed able to meet a new tax; they must also make a large allowance for insolvent electoral divisions, and individual estates; and, with all these deductions, they would be fortunate if they realised 200,000 l. It had been computed that the 50,000 l. that was granted a few nights since would not last for much more than a

57
fortnight; and if that calculation were correct, it would be no difficult matter to estimate in how very brief a period the sum now proposed to be raised would be consumed. They were about to introduce a system which was essentially vicious, and which would destroy that principle of local responsibility which was one of the primary elements of the poor-law system, in order to raise a sum of money so insignificant, that it could not be expected to do more than to carry them over a few months. The measure, moreover, tended to increase and widen the circle of destitution which it professed to relieve. This proposition for a rate in aid was liable to the same objection as that which attached to the grant of 50,000 l—namely, that it would tend to discourage industry. How would the unions heretofore solvent be able to endure this additional burden? A rate of 6d. might seem a very small matter, but when imposed in addition to the other heavy exactions which the solvent unions had been called upon to endure during the last twelve months, it would be sufficient to turn the scale, and to reduce those unions to the same state of bankruptcy as that in which the twenty-one insolvent unions were hopelessly engulphed. It would not tend to stimulate improvement, or to revive the paralysed industry of the country—it would be ruinous to that respectable class of occupying tenants who, having managed to stem the torrent heretofore, as well as they might, were now wavering as to whether they would adhere to their native country, or proceed to some other sphere where there was a better chance of their obtaining protection for their property and their toil. Ulster and Leinster had with difficulty managed in these trying times to keep their own heads above water; but they nevertheless would not object to make this effort on behalf of Connaught and Munster, if it could be demonstrated to them that any permanent or substantial advantage to those provinces would be the result. But it would be idle to expect any such effect, and it would be more likely to press upon the already wavering the necessity of flight to America. So long as the poor-law was left in its present state, any money lavished by way of relief was thrown away. It would merely feed the disease, without mitigating the sufferings of the patient. The vote of 10,000,000 l. last year had had precisely that effect; and so would the grant of 50,000 l. and this 200,000 l. It was re-
58
ported that a noble Marquess in another place, who was not distinguished for always interpreting with critical accuracy the opinions of his Colleagues, had at all events stated his own with preciseness, when he declared that the rate in aid was intended as a mere temporary expedient, which it would be impossible to make permanent. He gave the noble Marquess the fullest credit for sincerity; but he begged leave to say he differed from him most emphatically. If imposed at all, it would be a permanent charge. He was satisfied that if the House should now sanction a sixpenny rate, the Session would not terminate without a proposition being made to augment it to a shilling. It was not true, as had been objected against him, that he attributed to the poor-law evils which were the unavoidable results of the loss of the potato crop. There could be no doubt that that was a dreadful affliction, and that much of the distress and destitution prevailing in the south and west of Ireland was to be attributed to it; but it was not because of the failure of the potato crop that whole tracts of country lay desolate, that industry was paralysed, and that the farmer was reluctant to plant oats, or barley, or wheat. All that was the consequence of the poor-rates, and of that dreadful pressure of taxation which exhausted the country and ruined its energies, laying the country waste as with the blast of the simoom. The consequence of this was, that the entire employment in these districts would necessarily be suspended. No man would venture to work himself, or to employ labour—no man would dare to put his hand in his pocket and withdraw his capital, because he knew he had no security for the fruits of his industry. Would it be possible to succeed amid a state of things where all the rights of property were abrogated and destroyed? He did mean to say that this system would only lead to a transference of property from one hand to another. It was a revolutionary proceeding to take a man's estate from him and give it to another man; but this system would not only take the estate, but it would destroy the very existence and principle of property in those districts. He really thought that the hon. Member for Stroud had not adopted a very illogical conclusion when he proposed to employ all the destitute people of those unions at the expense of the Government. It was a necessary step in these proceedings to do something of the kind. It led to an attempt to

59
realise the wild theories of Proudhon, and Louis Blanc. If they destroyed the rights of property, the next step in this insane course must be the attempt to cultivate the land on the part of the Government—the impracticability of which needed no proof. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud appeared disposed to echo a cry which bad gone forth from the public prints, and had done infinite harm, to the effect, that the entire body of landed proprietors were answerable for all the distresses of Ireland. This clamour was, he thought, most unfounded and unreasonable. The hon. Member for Stroud was always saying, "The Irish proprietors don't do their duty, and all the calamities of the country are owing to their neglect. They are so obstinate and perverse that they will not employ the people." The hon. Gentleman appeared to think the Irish proprietors were seized with a dogged determination to destroy their property—a kind of suicidal resolve not to invest capital for their own benefit. It was constantly said that they looked up their capital, and refused to employ the people. These statements were reiterated over and over again in a kind of cuckoo note, that went from mouth to mouth; but it was to him astonishing that persons could not see the plain fact, that proprietors of land in no country, and under no circumstances, could possibly be the principal employers of labour in a district. It was always the occupier who was the employer of labour, and not the landlord. Whenever the landlord employed labour, it was in the capacity of a farmer; but to suppose that landlords could employ all the labour in the district, was to exhibit complete ignorance of the proper relations of the landlord and the occupier of the soil. There was no more worthy successor of Coke of Norfolk or of Lord Spencer than the brother of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—the Duke of Bedford; but if the noble Lord inquired of the Duke of Bedford what would be the result of his endeavouring to become the chief employer of labour on his estates, he would tell him that, indeed, in his model farm at Woburn, he employed a certain amount of labour, and probably with little pecuniary profit; but that if he were to extend that system, and endeavour to become an employer of labour on a great scale throughout his estates, that, large as those estates were, he would be bankrupt in six months. It was a complete fallacy to say that this policy would
60
have the effect of making Ireland support its own poor; for the greater the number of paupers made by this law, the greater would be the number of paupers to be supported. He was sure the hon. Gentleman could not deny that, in proportion to the destitution, misery, and pauperism produced by this law in the south of Ireland, would be the proportion of paupers likely to come over to this country for relief. Whilst he entertained those opinions with respect to the operation of this law, he was bound not to conceal the hopes he entertained, that if different measures were adopted, the results might be of a very opposite character. It might, perhaps, be the safer course for an individual Member to content himself with criticising, and refrain from offering suggestions; but taking, as he did, a deep interest in the condition of Ireland, and believing, as he did, how very serious, though not desperate, her present position was, he could not concea from the House his hope that a sounder line of policy might yet regenerate that country, restore prosperity, and animate the springs of industry. The Government appeared disposed to think they could remove the destitution that existed by this paltry, small, partial, and inadequate expenditure. It was said it was necessary to give those doles in order to prevent the people from dying of starvation; but would it effect that object? Were there no other causes by which life was lost? Were there not disease and fever produced by want? Did they not know there were numbers whose lives could not be preserved by the means which were about to be adopted, and who were hourly prematurely swept away? It was not by these wretched doles of three farthings a day that they could prevent all this misery, and rescue life from the dangers of this state of destitution. They must revive prosperity in that country, and stimulate a better state of things. The first way to promote these desirable ends would be to restore the active use and rights of property, to give security to the possessors of property, and to do so by limiting the action of the poor-law in certain districts. If they did not do this, they would do nothing. In order to do so they must reduce the area of taxation, which would give at once employment, because it would give security for reaping the fruits of that employment. This was the first necessary step to be taken; and the next powerful subsidiary mode of relieving a great amount of wretchedness would be

61
to encourage emigration in those districts burdened with a superabundant population. If these means were adopted, and if the Government would really consider the practical evils with which they had to contend, and devise some general and comprehensive policy, he was convinced many Irish Members would consent to some system of local taxation to facilitate the transition. If Her Majesty's Ministers would come forward with a full and comprehensive plan, such as he had shadowed forth, he was sure that a majority of the Irish Members would not be indisposed to give such a plan their most serious and favourable consideration. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Gentlemen thought he did not intend to divide, they were very much mistaken, for he was resolved to give them an opportunity of recording their votes on the principle involved in this question. Before he concluded, he wished it to be understood that, in dividing the House, he adopted that course because he considered it was the most desirable mode of objecting to the principle of this particular rate, which he considered to be in principle the most objectionable and ineffectual. He wished to take the sense of the House upon the question of the principle of this particular rate—not upon the principle of a rate in aid, or upon the question of national taxation for local purposes—but upon the single question that this rate as it stood—without any accompanying plan—was incomplete, insufficient, and thoroughly ineffective in principle.
MR. NAPIERrose and said, he did expect, upon this important occasion—when a question so vital to the interests of Ireland was discussed—a question so vital to the interests of the empire at large—that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would have stood forward and stated to the House the grounds upon which they asked them to go into Committee to impose a rate in aid upon Ireland; a proceeding which would tend, in a great degree, to alienate the affections of the people of Ireland. Her Majesty's Government had considered the state of Ireland for years, and they had repeatedly given the country to understand that a large and comprehensive policy was in course of preparation. Was this the comprehensive policy—were these the statesmanlike measures they were led to hope for? And had it now come to pass, at this stage of the proceedings, that they called upon the House to confirm the
62
honest, just, and upright principle, that, for the poverty of Connaught, an auxiliary fund was to be raised from the other provinces to make up the deficiency in these insolvent unions? And did they call upon the British Parliament to tax the industry, the honesty, and the virtue of localities which had no more to do with Connaught—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—he repeated, had no more to do with Connaught than had any of the counties which were represented by the hon. Members around him? He reiterated emphatically, that no British Gentleman, uninfluenced by party feelings, could ever, upon calm reflection, assent to such a proposition. He had never come before the House as a mendicant for Ireland, for the part of the country with which he was connected had never asked for aid. He admitted that certain portions of Ireland asked for assistance, and had received from the generosity of England aid worthy of a great nation. That he had never denied; but he felt, with regard to this particular question, that it was premature to ask the House to come to a conclusion as to the expediency of authorising the raising of an auxiliary fund, before it was demonstrated how far such a proceeding would tend to remedy the evils for the relief of which the money was to be applied. Let the Government show what modifications they were prepared to make in the poor-law. This was not a question on which they should come unprepared. He never wished to impose an undue task on a Government; but it could not be denied that they had had ample time for the consideration of this question, and that they had had full opportunity to mature the measures which they might deem judicious. As, however, her Majesty's Government had not adopted that course, the House was bound to believe that they had no modification of the poor-law to submit—no alteration connected with its administration—and, in fact, nothing to propose to the Legislature in conjunction with which the House had to vote the required rate in aid. Mark the peculiar injustice of that rate. If Her Majesty's Government had imposed a tax on mortgagees, or upon annuitants, or upon incomes, their policy would have been at least intelligible; but they selected the land of Ireland, that peculiar description of property which had suffered from various causes and combinations of causes more than any other. He did not wish to go into an analysis of those causes, but he

63
had a right to say, that with respect to the north of Ireland, now proposed to be taxed, it had not contributed to the poverty of Connaught. The people of that part of Ireland rightly thought there were causes for those evils. They thought that the policy of that House—he did not speak of the policy of any particular Government—but that the policy of successive Governments for many years—had not been such as to remedy the social evils of Ireland. They compared the condition of Ulster and Connaught, and they looked to ascertain the cause of the great discrepancy. They were naturally led to inquire why Ulster had required no assistance, and they asked how it was that by her industry she contrived to maintain her position, even in the worst seasons? Then, should not a wise Minister have endeavoured, by fair agency and by proper influences, rather to have elevated Connaught to the level of Ulster, than by this paltry and unjust measure to have dragged down Ulster to the level of Connaught? The policy about to be pursued towards Ireland reminded him of a remark made by a distinguished relative of his. Sir C. Napier, who, speaking of Mehemet Ali, described him as incapable of any great work for the regeneration of his people. He did not leave them the means of subsistence; for in dealing with the cases of A and B, two districts that were subject to the same rent, if by any misfortunes—short crops, or any other calamity—the rent of B could not be paid, then the Pacha imposed a rate on A, which reduced it too to destitution—and this had the effect of ruining them both. He could not help thinking that there was a most remarkable similarity between the cases. He could not help feeling very strongly for the position in which the people of Ulster were placed. He did not like to indulge in any irritating topics, for the present circumstances of Ireland ought to be calmly and dispassionately considered. The House had as much interest in the prosperity of Ireland as he had; and if there was one person in that House who, more than another, desired the prosperity and welfare of England, it was himself. If they would refer to the reports of the northern unions, they would find that even there, in the union of Lurgan for instance, the pressure of the poor-law was most severely felt by the farmers. In that union they were driven to very great privation and distress to raise the amount of poor-rates. Yet, while the no-
64
ble Lord allowed a man having a personal income to escape, he imposed the burdens on this class of men. But the noble Lord could not trifle with the people of England in that respect. They' told him—"You are demoralising the people by the aid you contribute—you are doing no good—you are throwing this money away—you are only stereotyping the poverty of Ireland." The noble Lord's plan had nothing statesmanlike in it. There was nothing like justice in it; nor did it shadow forth anything like a definite line of policy with regard to the poor-law—a law which affected the whole social condition of Ireland, its present state and future prospects. No man would deny that the poor-law had had the effect of producing a state of demoralisation in Ireland wholly unparalleled in the previous history of that country. No man would deny that those consequences had been predicted some years ago by persons connected with Ireland. The poor-law was, however, forced on the people of Ireland, notwithstanding those predictions. A large portion of the people who were then unemployed were by the poor-law thrown as a burden on the industrious; and when the famine struck the land and took away the food of the people, the whole country was reduced to a condition of which English Members could have no conception. But to what causes were to be attributed the evils that now existed in Ireland? They were to be attributed, first of all, to years of long neglect and previous misgovernment—to the want of means of employment of the people; and, he admitted, to a breach of duty on the part of some persons in that country; but then there was one class of men in Ireland who were willing to perform their duties, and for that class they should manifest a generous consideration. They should not mix up the innocent and guilty together. It was upon that class the fate of Ireland depended; they were struggling in various districts to sustain the country, and they deserved the consideration and assistance of Parliament; they deserved to be encouraged in the performance of their duties, and fenced round by wise measures. But instead of that, the Government wanted to tie the good and the undeserving together, and drag them both down to the common level of degradation and destitution. That was not governing Ireland, but trifling with the interests of the people. It was insulting and degrading his country for the head of the Government to make a propo-

65
sition like the present, and not explain the grounds of that proposition. Why ask the people of Ulster to hear the burden connected with the poverty of other districts, especially as the Government were not in a position to show how that poverty was to be relieved? How were the insolvent districts to be made able to support themselves? Was it by keeping up an array of beggars fed out of the industry of Ulster? An accurate countryman of his (Mr. Napier's) said the measures of England with respect to Ireland were of two classes—one had the effect of producing an uneducated and unemployed population, and the other made indolence fatten on industry. The House were asked to begin with a 6d. rate. He thought it would be better, if they were about to confiscate property, to show more of the boldness of the burglar than the meanness of the pickpocket. Why not come forward at once with some statesmanlike view respecting the poor-law? Why not propose some modifications that would adapt it to the present condition of Ireland, and correct its maladministration? If the noble Lord had done anything of that sort, then there would be some reason in his saying—
"The present is a great emergency, and it is necessary to have some assistance to keep the people of Ireland from starving; but, considering the condition of England, the pressure on the agricultural districts, and our own financial embarrassments, we are not in a position to ask England to bear the burden."
But, without bringing forward any great remedial measure, it was most unreasonable to tax the landed property of Ireland; and if there was any one property more than another that ought to be excluded from such an impost, it was that very property which had been selected to be victimised by this tax. He contended that the proposed rate in aid would alienate the affections of the people of Ireland from this country. They would not contentedly suffer themselves to be weighed down by such a pressure. They could not discover any principle of justice upon which that burden was to be imposed. He would again ask what that principle was, and why the Government were ashamed to put it forward? Did they ask the House to vote for the proposition, without informing them of the grounds or reasons on which it was brought forward? The people upon whom that burden was to be placed, thought it an unfair imposition. They were people who never shirked any fair liability; but they
66
could not see what connexion they had with Connaught, more than with Yorkshire or any county in England. Was the tenant-farmer in Ulster, who occasionally wrought at the loom to support his family, to contribute to the relief of the poverty of those in Connaught? Was he to bear the penalty of the absence of those moral influences that spring from true religion? Was he to be answerable for the lawlessness of the people of Connaught; or the disrespect for, or maladministration of, the laws, in that part of the country? There should be some principle of justice to support the Government proposition; but there was evidently none. The tendency of the Ulster people was ever towards this country; they were always the stern friends of British connexion—they were always anxious for a closer union with England, and ready to stand by it as their common country—and they were undeserving of such injustice. In the absence of any reason to sustain the Government proposition, he should oppose that proposition to the utmost of his power, be the consequences what they might.
SIR G. GREY: Sir, the two hon. Gentlemen who have opposed the Motion that you, Sir, should now leave the chair, appear to me to have adopted a most extraordinary course. About two hours ago, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman Crawford) moved a resolution as an Amendment to the Motion of my noble Friend the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Castlereagh) and other Irish Members appeared to be sensible of its inconvenience, and upon rational grounds they deprecated any consumption of the time of the House in discussing an abstract proposition; they even grudged the time that would be occupied in dividing the House, because they were anxious that my noble Friend should avail himself of the only opportunity which the forms of the House allowed to him, to move the resolutions of which he had given notice—which resolutions, be it observed, cannot be moved until Mr. Speaker has left the chair—and of stating the motives and the grounds upon which they are framed. No sooner, however, was my noble Friend prepared to state those motives and grounds, than up gets the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire, and for the first ten minutes of his speech he dilated upon the contrast between the despatch of business in the present Session, and the despatch of business in the last Session—showing, I

67
am bound to say, a decided preference for that system of repeated adjournments which then prevailed, over the system of comparatively short speeches which has prevailed in this Session. The hon. Baronet said he thought it necessary not to mention any facts; and accordingly he drew largely upon his imagination for the purpose of occupying the time of the House for fifty long minutes, and in order to prevent my noble Friend from making his proposition, or stating the grounds of it. Then came the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, whom I excuse because I really believe he was not aware of what he was doing; and, in indignant language, he reproached ray noble Friend for making a proposition which he has not made, and which he knew my noble Friend could not make until after Mr. Speaker had left the chair. He said my noble Friend asked the House to agree to a rate in aid on Ulster, without stating any reasons for it; but the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was prepared to consent to any rational proposal for levying the money all over Ireland. He, ought then to have known it was only in it Committee, and not before, that it would be competent for him to show his sincerity by moving an Amendment upon the proposition that a rate should be so levied. I rose, however, merely to deprecate the continuance of this preliminary discussion, which can only have the effect that the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire stated be preferred—namely, of protracting our debates, of preventing the despatch of business, and of stopping my noble Friend from laying before the House his proposition on the part of the Government, without, let me observe, the power of substituting any other proposition on the part of the hon. Baronet, or of the Government, and at a time when there is an immediate and urgent necessity for making provision for the prevention of starvation among the distressed inhabitants of the western unions.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there seems to be some misconception on the part of the right hon. Baronet, as to the manner in which the business of the House should be conducted on this occasion. Certainly there was a resolution on the Paper, moved by the hon. Member for Rochdale, against which I and many other Gentlemen on this side of the House thought it our duty to vote. I will recall it to the recollection of the House. It
68
invited us to declare "that it is unconstitutional and unjust to impose on Ireland separate national taxation for the wants of particular localities, so long as the public general revenue of Ireland is paid into an imperial treasury, and placed at the disposal of an Imperial Legislature for the general purposes of the united kingdom." Now, Sir, I, for one, could not assent to this proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale. If the financial system of the two countries had been identical—if there were a fiscal, as there is a political, union between the two countries, I, for one, should have voted in the same lobby as the hon. Member for Rochdale; but, remembering that the systems of taxation in England and Ireland are different—remembering that Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland are not liable to the window tax, to the other assessed taxes, and to the property tax, I thought that the proposition which the hon. Gentleman called upon us to affirm was one that we could not support—that we could not affirm—that it was unconstitutional and unjust to impose on Ireland separate national taxation from the taxation which is imposed in England; and here, perhaps, I may venture to observe, that I can scarcely approve of those tactics which are sometimes adopted by the Members for Ireland in this House on fiscal subjects, always insisting that there shall be a difference between the two countries; while on political subjects they are always ready to affirm that the two countries are identical. But the other proposition before us was a proposition of the Government that we should go into Committee—in fact, to sanction the scheme of the Government. Well, Sir, I was equally opposed to the proposition of the Government, as I was opposed to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale; and is it not evident, in consequence of the new regulations for the despatch of public business, that after the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale was disposed of, it was totally impossible to oppose the scheme of the Government, except by moving a direct negative to your leaving the chair. The right hon. Gentleman, in a tone of great indignation, says, is it not known to all of you—to every Member of this House—that you are opposing the only means by which the Minister can explain the policy which he is about to recommend to your notice? I do not agree with the right hon. Gentle-man. The noble Lord at the head of the Government might have risen immediately

69
the question was moved, and might have detailed the reasons which induced him to propose to the House to adopt this resolution. It would not have been an unusual course; it would have been a usual course; it would have been a respectful course. His right hon. Colleague (Mr. Labouchere) last year entered into a preliminary exposition of the policy of the Government on the subject of the navigation laws, and the necessity was not so strong as the present; because, in that case, the right hon. Gentleman had not placed his resolution on the table of the House. We were not in possession of the policy of the Government, and it was out of our power to enter into a preliminary discussion; but the Government having in the present instance placed their policy on the table of the House, nothing could be more legitimate than for the noble Lord himself to have risen, and entered into a general detail of the reasons which induced him to adopt that policy; and, as he refused to take that step, nothing could be more legitimate than for the hon. Member for Radnorshire to adopt the course which he has properly taken. Sir, I should say, that, under any circumstances, that ought to have been the course of the noble Lord. But are there not peculiar circumstances in the present case, which tend to excite the suspicions of hon. Gentlemen, to stimulate criticism, and to prompt the earliest, and every lawful opportunity to canvass the policy of the Government? Have we evidence before us that their policy is one so mature, so well digested, founded on such ample information, and supported by previous investigation, so that we are to be in a haste and hurry to carry it into a legislative form? I say, the circumstances under which this resolution has been placed on the table of the House, are very remarkable? In another place these resolutions have also appeared; and at the request and intimation of the leading Minister of the Crown in that place, they have proceeded to establish a Committee to receive evidence in support of these resolutions. What is the use, then, of being in such a hurry to send up our sanction of these resolutions, when in another place there will be abundant opportunities for examining whether there are sufficient reasons to adopt them? I take it for granted that in that place they will pursue their affairs in a business-like manner, satisfactory to the country. I take it for granted that there, at least, before they adopt a resolution like
70
this, they will be sure there is a good foundation for the step which they recommend to the adoption of the House; that they will, at least, form some estimate of the funds that may accrue from this proposition; that they will at least have some idea of the manner in which those funds are to be expended; that they will take care that before they come forward to propose a rate in aid in the north of Ireland, there is a sound, substantial, and comprehensive valuation upon which to levy it. These all are circumstances and considerations that no doubt will accrue to those who, in another place, are considering this question; and, depend upon it, if they enter into this investigation, it will be some time before they arrive at a conclusion; and therefore there is no reason why the House of Commons should be in such a state of precipitation to pass a resolution so unprecedented in its character, and which, in its effects, may be so enormous. I, for one, must take this opportunity of protesting against the conclusion that, because I am opposed to this proposition of the Government with respect to the rate in aid, I am opposed to a satisfactory system which may offer auxiliary assistance to Ireland. I say again, as I said at first, that it was the duty of the Government, with respect to the Irish poor-law, to have met Parliament with a comprehensive measure. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in order to support the vote of 50,000 l., that twelve months ago, if there had not been aid to the district, so destructive a scene of a starvation and misery would have accrued that the imagination could scarcely conceive it. That was twelve months ago; and I want to know, if the present policy is pursued, what will be their condition twelve months hence? Then I say that the Government ought to have come forward with a measure which would have settled the question of the area of taxation, of the arrears of rates, and of the lands lying waste; that if they had come forward with a business-like and well-digested measure on these subjects, then they would have found no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of all parties in this House to measures of a temporary character; and mainly for this reason, because, under such circumstances, propositions of pecuniary aid might have been of a temporary character; but under the circumstances under which they are now brought forward, I want to know who can maintain they are of a temporary character, when no human

71
being can foresee that the circumstances to which they are applied can ever change? These are my views generally on the question. I think this a proper opportunity for a full and ample discussion of it. I have risen myself unexpectedly, after the appeal to the House of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State. I protest against the spirit of that appeal. I say that if you yield to such an appeal, especially with the regulations we have lately introduced, as to the conduct of the business in this House, you may stifle public discussion; and when a Government, on an important subject—I will not say have trilled with the House, but rather have trifled with their own reputations, so much as the present have in the policy which they recommend to Ireland—when, not for forty-eight consecutive hours you can be sure of the policy they will come here to recommend, I cannot recommend my hon. Friend not to divide the House, but rather I will express my hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides will take this opportunity of expressing their opinions on this important subject.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I own, Sir, I regret that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down should think a case of this kind, affecting the existence of a great portion of the people, is a matter of party warfare. The hon. Gentleman must know full well that when a general rate is to be proposed, the manner and time of proposing it is in the Committee of the whole House: that the forms and regulations of this House do not allow any proposition to be proposed in the House; that if I now were to propose the resolution which I have put on the notice paper, I should be immediately stopped by Mr. Speaker, and told that it was incompetent for me to propose it; and then he (Mr. Disraeli) must know, as I could not propose it in the House, it was but natural that I should wish to accompany the proposition with the reasons which I thought necessary. Had I been unable to do so, it was competent for the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, or any other hon. Gentleman, to have shown that the principle was vicious, or that the measure would produce such mischief that the House ought not to adopt it. That would have been a fair course to take with respect to the proposition; but the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire interposes in this stage to say that he will not go into Committee, and he does it on the ground
72
that that delay is required, that long deliberation is necessary. He talks of our trifling with our reputations; I must say that he is trifling with the welfare of the community, and also with the existence of many of our fellow-subjects in Ireland. Sir, what do the papers in the House tell you with regard to some few of these unions? With regard to Scariff, that the most rigid scrutiny into circumstances, if necessary, was made, and not an applicant was relieved whose claim was not irresistible—who was not really destitute—whilst the workhouse test was applied to check imposition; that the want was such, that the people were mere skeletons of men. In another union, Swineford, it was said that the union was distressed in the extreme; that the small landlords were becoming exhausted, and applying in England and Scotland, and elsewhere, for work, and leaving their wives and children to starvation; that fever was prevalent, and the destitution of the people was utterly indescribable. It is in such circumstances as these that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire calls for delay—that he calls upon us to go minutely into every question connected with the administration of the poor-law in Ireland—and to investigate every nicety of area and of valuation before we apply a temporary remedy to a temporary but most appalling distress. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin chooses to say that I have brought forward this resolution as a single measure, unaccompanied by any general proposition for the amendment of the poor-law. But the hon. and learned Member must know full well that in the Irish Poor Law Committee I stated several propositions which I thought it would be the duty of Government to submit to Parliament; and if I were permitted to go into Committee, I should be prepared generally to state the nature of those propositions. Therefore I think it was not very candid in the hon. and learned Member, after having himself heard some of them discussed in Committee, to come down to the House and say that this was the single proposition of the Government. But, Sir, the hon. and learned Member goes on to say—and this is a tone which I hear has been taken by persons of weight and authority—that unless we lay before the House, and settle, in conjunction with Parliament, a plan with regard to the area of taxation, it will be impossible to agree to any rate in aid. Now, what we have done is this: we have

73
appointed a Commission, consisting of persons highly competent to the task; but, although they have given many months to the labour, they have not as yet got beyond a proposition for several additional unions and electoral divisions for those unions. They propose a scheme for diminishing the area of taxation, so that persons liable to the tax may be able to reach and communicate with each other in the working of the union, but they have not thought proper to say that every small property shall form a separate area of taxation. If it be meant, then, that unless we agree that every small property shall form an area of taxation, these Gentlemen will not consider the proposition of a rate in aid, I must say that it is not at all likely we shall be able to submit that proposition. I have a letter in my pocket from a gentleman who was some time since employed by the Poor Law Commission, but who is not at present so employed—one in whose ability and experience we have great confidence, and that gentleman says—
"While it is desirable to diminish the area of taxation, yet, if every property were made a separate area, you would see evictions greatly increased, and that no distress which has yet been witnessed in Ireland would be equal to the misery that must ensue if that plan of area were adopted."
[Mr. OSBORNE: Is that letter from Mr. Senior?] No, it is not from Mr. Senior. The hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire has signified, although not very clearly, the plan that he would propose, and coupled with it another proposal for emigration. I do not think it proper to adopt the proposal of the hon. Baronet. I think that if you were to make your whole plan consistent with his two propositions, reducing the area to the property of each Individual landlord, so that he would have it in his power, by driving away every small tenant to clear himself from obligation to pay rates, while at the same time you adopted a largo scheme of emigration, you would, in the first instance, create great misery in Ireland, and, secondly, you would be the means of driving thousands of the unfortunate people to a distant shore without any provision being made for their reception or subsistence. Therefore being ready as I should be to propose the resolution in Committee, and to explain the general alterations I contemplate in the poor-law, I must add that they would not agree with the plan of the hon. Baronet, which, in my opinion, would have only the effect
74
of greatly increasing the amount of misery at present unhappily prevailing in Ireland. MR. H. A. HERBERT complained that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should have accused the hon. Gentleman who preceded him of party motives. He (Mr. Herbert) had himself been returned for the county he represented without a contest; he came into Parliament determined not to act for party objects, but to support the Government as much as he could; but he had come to the conclusion that the existence of property in Ireland, the existence of the class to which he belonged, was incompatible with the existence of Her Majesty's Ministers. He had as often as any Member on the other side of the House, given an honest and independent vote to them; had they shown any disposition to do justice to Ireland—he used the expression advisedly, and not in its vulgar sense—he believed he might have ranked as one of their supporters, excepting that he was determined never to ask from them any patronage or favour. The noble Lord thought it odd that Members from Ireland should complain of the present area; but let him look to the opinions that had been expressed by the boards of guardians throughout the country. That of the Listowel union, in the county he had the honour to represent, had declared that if the evil effects of the poor-law were not averted or mitigated speedily, they considered the general ruin of landed proprietors an inevitable consequence. He would take the liberty of reading to the House the memorial to which he referred, addressed to the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland:—
"Showeth—That after several years' experience of the working of The Act for the Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland,' and recently that of 'The Relief Extension Act,' this board feel that they are now in a position to form a sound judgment of the working of both laws. That we are fully impressed with the paramount importance and necessity for co-operation of all classes, from the highest to the lowest, to avert the imminent danger which we consider pending over all, which, if not averted or mitigated speedily, we consider the ruin of property, and, as consequent, all dependent thereon for support, inevitable. That we consider employment on an extended scale the one sure, only, and effectual source of relief under the existing state of things in this union, to effect which we consider it alike the duty of all classes to seek to accomplish by every means within their reach, and that it becomes a matter of the first importance to consider how so desirable an object is most likely to be effected. That we consider the first step necessary to be taken, without which all attempts to amend the existing state of things must prove a failure, is the reduction of the pre-

75
sent cumbrous areas of taxation, which this board considers to be the chief cause which has led to the disastrous condition in which this union is at present sunk, and which must ore long, if persevered in, lead to the destruction of all property. That the commissioners have the power, which we earnestly call upon them to exercise, under the 18th Sec. of 1 and 2 Vict., cap. 56, to mitigate largely, although not altogether to remove without further Parliamentary enactment, the serious difficulties under which this union is now labouring, by decreasing the present extent of the electoral divisions for the purposes of the poor-law."
The average area and value of Irish electoral divisions, as compared with English parishes, would be illustrated by the following statement;—Average value of electoral divisions, in Listowel, 4,645 l, average size 9,964 acres; Killarney 7,152 l., 20,807 acres; Tralce, 8,514 l., 25,595 acres. In the counties of Berks, Bucks, Dorset, Oxford, Gloucester, and Wilts, the average area was 2,049 acres; the value 3,538. The Poor Law Commissioners might allege that they had not sufficient machinery, but if they had not it was their duty to apply to Parliament for additional force. Now, when property was passing away from the landlords of Ireland, the noble Lord told them that he had appointed a Commission. But what had that Commission done? They had gone to the north of Ireland, and after a most elaborate report, they told the House that nothing was required to be done; there was no improvement wanted there. No, for they examined the place from which no complaints were made, whilst there had been constant complaints from the south about those areas of taxation. Why had they not gone to the south? He asked the House of Commons, in fairness, in justice, to say why, if Ireland was to have the English poor-law, was she not to have also the English areas of taxation? He hoped there was justice enough in the House to save the Irish nation from what he should call a most unendurable tyranny on the part of the Government. They had heard a good deal from other quarters about the dictatorship of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but they suffered under a much worse dictatorship from the triumvirate which had trifled with both the lives and properties of the people of Ireland. The noble Lord should not make such use of the appeal ad misericordiam. He had no right to call upon the House to commit such robbery, upon the plea of the excessive poverty of certain portions of the country. He (Mr. Herbert) had never been an opponent of the poor-law,
76
but he had endeavoured to induce the Poor Law Commissioners to make certain improvements in the mode of working the law, which they could do if they chose under the Act. He had only now to say, if something more were not done than thus to try merely to prop up a vicious system, he, for his own part, would return to the task imposed upon him by the noble Lord, for he would not shrink from it; but it would be with the calmness of despair, not with the energy of hope. Instead of a sound measure to relieve the pauperism of the country, the Government, by their legislation, were about to render the performance of the duties of property intolerable and utterly impossible.
SIR H. W. BARRONentirely agreed with the sentiments of the hon. Member who had just sat down. They were in a similar situation in his neighbourhood, and had complained time after time relative to the areas of taxation. If the House imposed additional taxation upon the poor in his locality, who were already borne down by taxation, by low prices, the failure of crops, and the want of trade, they would only be adding to the deep distress which already existed. If they attempted to remedy the distress of Ireland by the imposition of additional taxation upon her people, so far from attempting to employ his poorer neighbours as he had hitherto done at a great expense, he would discharge every man at present in his employment; and he knew several gentlemen who would follow his example. He knew gentlemen who had already given notice to the Board of Works, from which they had been about to borrow money to improve their estates, that, in consequence of this additional taxation, they would not spend a shilling for that purpose; and he believed, before ten days elapsed, the House would hear of many such cases. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that if they narrowed the areas of taxation, they would give rise to an extensive eviction of the people. Now, the remedy for that was tangible and practicable, as be had proposed in the Poor Law Bill of 1847, namely, to make such persons who came on the poor-rates within three years from their evictions, chargeable on the property from which they were evicted. He objected to this rate, not because, as had been said, it made Ulster chargeable for Connaught, but because it made Munster chargeable for Connaught—because it made Leinster chargeable for Connaught

77
—because it made one county chargeable for another. He wanted to know why Waterford should be chargeable for Mayo, any more than Middlesex should be chargeable for Mayo? He objected altogether to the principle of a rate in aid; and it was useless to tell the House or the country that it was only to be 6d. in the pound. That was the small end of the wedge, and if it were once got in, the rate would be doubled, trebled, quadrupled—not yearly, but every three or four months. It was a delusion to say that it would be only 6d. in the pound. Again, they were told it was only to be for two years. That was another point on which the Ministers were deluding the country, or were themselves deluded. In Waterford, Kilkenny, and other parts of the south of Ireland, nineteen out of twenty of those parties who were rated under 12 l. had great difficulties in paying their rates. Hundreds of them had not paid, while others had pledged or sold their furniture and clothes to do so. Of the class above them, who were rated from 12 l. to 25 l., a large number had had to sell their last four-footed animal to pay the rates, and a great portion had not paid one-half of them. They and the farmers who were rated above 30 l. were selling off their stock and going to America, leaving their farms in the hands of some of their families, in order to force from the landlords money for their possession. He called upon the noble Lord to have the poor-rate collectors examined before the Committee, to see whether he had given the House an exaggerated picture of the state of things existing in the south of Ireland. The result of the passing of this Bill would be, that before twelve months had passed, there would be an addition to the twenty-one bankrupt unions already existing, of twenty or thirty more, and the name of the British Government and the British Legislature would be hated by the Irish people. He would call the attention of the House to the difference existing between the poor-law in England and in Ireland. In England there were 66,000,000 l. of rateable property, and only 1,100,000 paupers; but, in Ireland, there were 2,500,000 paupers, and only 13,000,000 l of rateable property. Thus they had one pauper for every 5l. and a fraction of rateable property in Ireland, while they had 60 l. allocated for the support of each pauper in England; and the result was, that they were obliged to look out for other than landed property to support the peo-
78
ple. What was an excellent law in England was bad in Ireland; and feeling that this rate in aid would be most disastrous to that country, he must oppose it.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH, being connected with the north of Ireland, which was most materially affected by the proposed law, wished to express his opinion upon it before a decision was come to. He regretted the tone the debate had taken—because by some arrangement or misarrangement of which he was not cognisant, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had been prevented making his statement, which caused great embarrassment to Members who, like himself, wished to oppose the Bill. In the first place, he altogether objected to the formation of the Committee, which consisted of nine English Members, five from Leinster, five from Munster, five from Connaught, and one—but how he got there it was hard to say—from Scotland. Only two Members from Ulster were nominated. The Committee was arranged so as to give a majority to the views of the Government; and he did not think the noble Lord would gain much by a borrowed light from such a Committee. The decision of that Committee would never give the noble Lord a locus standi in that House, or the confidence of the country. Indeed, from what had crept out in evidence before the Committee within these few hours, he felt sure that this rate in aid would never be carried into effect. The noble Lord had brought forward a measure which militated against the principles upon which the union of the two countries took place. It was the intention of those who advocated the Union, that the three countries should support each other, in weal or in woe, by national, not individual, resources. He would read to the House an extract of a letter written to Lord Longueville by the late Marquess of Londonderry, which clearly showed what were the intentions of those who devised the union between the two countries. The letter was dated Phœnix Park, 1798;—
"I would desire very much to have a conversation with your Lordship upon the means of strengthening by legislative union the connexion between the two countries; a union which would pledge the whole force of the empire to the security of every part, and which would make that support which we now receive as an act of favour an act of justice as well as duty on the part of Government."
These were the intentions of the promoters of the union between the two countries.

79
It might be true, that the people of Eng-Lind complained of the assistance they were so frequently called upon to give in relieving the distress of Ireland. They had a right to feel, and they did feel, that their industry, labour, and exertions, had been unduly taxed for the support of Ireland. If this complaint was true—and he did not deny its validity—there was no other course open but to endeavour to assimilate the taxation of the two countries. He was not prepared, nor was it incumbent upon him, nor the Irish Members, to point out a substitute. It was the business of the Government to bring forward their measures; and for the House to pass judgment upon them. The people of Ireland were willing to submit to taxation for imperial purposes; but they, in return, desired to be included in imperial responsibility. The Government had not considered what would be the cost of the collection of this rate. Its collection would be a matter of difficulty, even in the quietest part of Ireland. But should times come round again like those which they had witnessed last year, they would not be able to leave the country wholly unprovided with military or police, as they had done, leaving the maintenance of the peace solely to the loyalty of the country. The people would become alienated in their affections, jealous, and suspicious. The inhabitants of Ulster were brave, and loyal, and true, and staunch adherents of British connexion; but if this measure was passed, he would not give one month's purchase for their tranquillity. They would not burst out into an outbreak, but they would resist the levying of the rate by every possible constitutional means in their power. He would conclude in the words of Mr. Martin, who had written a pamphlet upon the poor-law, and which was much more eloquent than any language of his own;—
"Let it not be supposed that the great body of the gentry of this country are desirous to absolve themselves of the sacred claims of providing for the maintenance of the poor. Those poor and mean calumnies, that we wish to starve the people, should only be treated with contempt. We value too highly the character of Britons to forget the duties which are imposed upon us."
MR. PRYSE PRYSErose to complain that although England, Ireland, and Scotland were represented in the proposed Committee, Wales was excluded.
MR. J. O'CONNELLcomplained that the present debate could have no practical result, and human life might be wasting
80
away while they were talking. If hon. Members opposite, who thought they could legislate so much more for the advantage of Ireland, felt confidence in their strength, lot them turn out the Ministry, and take their places; but, if not, he implored them in the name of common sense at least to allow the noble Lord at the head of the Government to state what his plan was, and they would then have a right to reproach the Ministry if, by delay, they showed they were not in earnest.
MR. CLEMENTSwould have thought, though of course his experience was of no long date, that they had a right to expect a statement from the noble Lord before going into Committee, in accordance with former precedents. He might instance the case of the navigation lows, when the right hon. President of the Board of Trade made his statement before they went into Committee.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not see the use of any statement from the noble Lord, as they had the proposition already before them, and knew what it was. He thought it must be evident that the Committee had been coerced into the proposition which they had submitted to the House, and he thought they could discuss it just as well as if the noble Lord had made a speech of an hour. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, at least, they could resist it. With regard to other taxes, he was not prepared to say that Ireland would agree to their imposition. If a special case was made out for the exemption of Ireland last year, when the income tax was proposed, there was the same special case this year.
MR. KERcould assure the noble Lord at the head of the Ministry that in the part of Ireland with which he was connected, so strong was the feeling against the present proposition, that several gentlemen in the commission of the peace were determined to give up their commissions if it were carried.
MR. GROGANquite approved of the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walsh). He did not think that the people of Ireland could place any confidence in any resolution that the Government would come to with regard to the poor-laws. The hon. Gentleman referred to the proceedings that had taken place in the Committees and complained that they had been under the control of the Government. Suppose the sixpenny rate in aid were levied and spent; what did the Government mean to do in the event of more being required? He

81
thought they ought to be prepared with some proposition to meet that state of things. He entirely agreed in the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and hoped he would press it to a division.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he would not unnecessarily waste the time of the House, as his hon. Colleague had already spoken; but as he had paid the Committee of which he (Mr. Reynolds) had the honour to be a Member, a compliment, he trusted he should not be censured if he stood up to make him some return. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, it appeared that he represented the province of Ulster, if not in a Parliamentary sense, at least sympathetically. It would appear from him that if a sixpenny rate was imposed, it would shake the loyalty of these parties to the foundation. The noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) echoed that sentiment; and the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Ker) had threatened them with a wholesale resignation of the commission of the peace, and if that were so, it might be said that their loyalty was only sixpenny loyalty. From his earliest boyhood he had been told that the province of Ulster was an extremely religious province; and they had heard the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin this night say, that the prosperity of that province was the result of their superior religious education. He (Mr. Reynolds) had also been taught to believe that Ulster was still more remarkable for its loyalty. The Minister of the Crown now, in order to save 1,500,000 of the starving poor of Ireland, having proposed that a sixpenny rate in aid should be levied, the representatives of this very religious and loyal portion of the country threaten the Government with all kinds of misfortunes, if they persevere in their proposition. It appeared, then, that the loyalty of the people of Ulster was, after all, conditional loyalty. It was £s. d. loyalty. It was a sixpenny loyalty. He protested, in the name of his constituents, against such a doctrine. He had the honour to represent a community, the united value of whose property was close upon 1,000,000 l., nearly 1–13th of the entire rateable property of Ireland. If they assessed this rate in aid, they would be putting upon them an additional tax exceeding 20,000 l per annum. The highest rate upon any one rating there did not exceed 3s. in the pound; and out of 16 electoral divisions of which the city of Dublin was composed, 10
82
of them were only assessed at 6d. in the pound, 2 of them at 3d., 1 of them at 10 d., and 1 at 5½d. in the pound; so that it was not likely they ever reach the maximum proposed, so as to entitle them to a portion of this rate in aid. He was no advocate for this rate in aid, but he voted for it in Committee, and he would vote for it here upon a certain understanding. He said, that the rate in aid ought not to be inflicted if it could be avoided. He, however, believed it could not be avoided. He was told by the Gentlemen occupying the Treasury benches that they would not be permitted to draw any longer upon the Consolidated Fund for the relief of Irish distress. He had been told by all parties in that House that the votes for Irish distress had reached their limit. He was further told that there were. 21 unions of Ireland in a state of hopeless bankruptcy, and that in these unions there were several hundred thousand persons utterly destitute. He was also informed that the late vote for 50,000 l. had been granted solely upon the understanding that they would not repeat the demand. Under those circumstances, he would support the present proposition; and he would ask the opponents of it whether they were prepared to incur the responsibility of allowing the people of Ireland to die of starvation in the midst of plenty, when he might say food was at a drug price? He also supported the proposition because he was ashamed at his country being perpetually taunted at being a mendicant at the door of this House. He was tired of these charges being brought against them. He believed that Ireland was fully capable of supporting her own pauperism, if she was fairly treated. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had stated that the two countries were politically united, but they were not fiscally united. He (Mr. Reynolds) thought that they were united in both senses. He recollected, that whenever the Irish representatives asked for a restoration to the country of her right to domestic legislation, they were told that Ireland was an integral part of the British empire, and that she consequently ought to be treated as Yorkshire, and to be called West Britain, as Scotland was called North Britain. But the moment they asked for money, then they were told that they were politically united, but fiscally separated; and he would advise the hon. Gentleman not to repeat such an assertion, for by doing so he might teach a lesson that might ulti-

83
mately become troublesome to him. He (Mr. Reynolds) had said, that he would vote for this proposition upon a certain condition. That condition was, that all the property in Ireland, all the incomes derived from real property, should be made liable to this rate—that they should charge the funds, annuities, rent-charges, and jointures. He was reminded by an hon. Member that Ireland was not subject to the same imposts as England. Granted. They were not made liable to the window tax, or the assessed taxes, for this reason—the Government of this country had already tried it, and found that Ireland could not pay it. There was an old, vulgar saying, "You cannot take a knee-buckle off a Highlander." When the income tax was about to be imposed, Ireland was excused, first, on the ground of poverty; and the second reason, which was the most important was, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said, that he would assimilate the stamp duties, as an equivalent for the non-extension of the income tax to Ireland. There was another item which they had not given Ireland credit for. England received close upon 9,000,000 l. per annum, arising from absentee rents and interest on mortgages held by persons resident in this country. Now, this 9,000,000 l. paid about 300,000 l. a year in the shape of income tax, which money made its way into the English Exchequer, and he thought that Ireland was fully entitled to credit for so much.
SIR W. VERNERsaid, that after the remark made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as to the loyalty of Ulster being conditional, he felt that as one who had been perfectly acquainted with that province for the last fifty years, he would not be fulfilling his duty if he allowed such an observation to pass unnoticed. Hon. Gentlemen might not he aware that the loyalists of Ulster had on two occasions received the thanks of that House, and on one occasion the thanks of the other House of Parliament, for their exertions in suppressing the rebellion which raged from one end to the other of the remaining provinces. He would also remind the House, that last year, when the presence of 40,000 troops was necessary to maintain the peace of Ireland, the few troops in Ulster had been withdrawn and sent to other parts of the country.
SIR L. O'BRIENbegged to explain that he could not vote for going into Committee in the absence of any explanation as to the
84
manner in which the proposition was intended to be carried out.
Question put. The House divided.—Ayes 195; Noes 96: Majority 99.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Hastie, A.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hawes, B.

Adair, H. E.

Hay, Lord J.

Adair, R. A. S.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Anson, hon. Col.

Headlam, T. E.

Armstrong, R. B.

Hencage, G. H. W.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Henley, J. W.

Henry, A.

Bagshaw, J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Baines, M. T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Heyworth, L.

Bass, M. T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hodges, T. L.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Hollond, R.

Bernal, R.

Horsman, E.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Howard, Lord E.

Blackall, S. W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Brackley, Visct.

Howard, P. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Jackson, W.

Bright, J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Brotherton, J.

Kershaw, J.

Brown, W.

Kildare, Marq. of

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Bunbury, E. H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Cardwell, E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Carew, W. H. P.

Lennard, T. B.

Carter, J. B.

Lewis, G. C.

Cayley, E. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Christy, S.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Clay, J.

Locke, J.

Clay, Sir W.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

M'Gregor, J.

Cobden, R.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Coke, hon. E. K.

Maitland, T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mangles, R. D.

Craig, W. G.

Marshall, J. G.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Marshall, W.

Deedes, W.

Martin, S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Matheson, A.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Matheson, Col.

Duff, G. S.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Duncan, G.

Melgund, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Milnes, R. M.

Dundas, Sir D.

Mitehell, T. A.

East, Sir J. B.

Moffatt, G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Morris, D.

Ellis, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Enfield, Visct.

Mure, Col.

Ewart, W.

Norreys, Lord

Eagan, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ferguson, Col

Nugent, Lord

Fordyce, A. D.

O'Connell, J.

Forster, M.

O'Connell, M. J.

Glynn, G. C.

O'Connor, F.

Grace, O. D. J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Paget, Lord C.

Greene, T.

Paget, Lord G.

Grenfell, C. P

Pakington, Sir J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Grey, R. W.

Parker, J.

85

Pearson, C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Pechell, Capt.

Stuart, Lord D.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Peel, F.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Pilkington, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Pinney, W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Power, N.

Thompson, Col.

Pryse, P.

Thornely, T.

Pusey, P.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Raphael, A.

Towneley, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Townley, R. G.

Reynolds, J.

Townshend, Capt.

Ricardo, O.

Vane, Lord H.

Rice, E. R.

Villiers, hon. C.

Rich, H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Walter, J.

Romilly, Sir J.

Ward, H. G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Watkins, Col. L.

Russell, Lord J.

Wawn, J. T.

Russell, F. C. H

West, F. R.

Rutherfurd, A.

Westhead, J. P.

Salwey, Col.

Willcox, B. M.

Sandars, G.

Williams, J.

Sandars, J.

Willoughby, Sir H

Scrope, G. P.

Wilson, J.

Seymer, H. K.

Wilson, M.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Simeon, J.

Wood, W. P.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Wrightson, W. B.

Smith, J. A.

Wyld, J.

Smith, J. B.

Wyvil, M.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Spearman, H. J.

TELLERS.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Tufnell, H.

Stanton, W. H.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Adare, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Adderley, C. B.

Gore, W. R. O.

Anstey, T. C.

Granby, Marq. of

Archdall, Capt. M.

Greene, J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Grogan, E.

Bankes, G.

Halford, Sir H

Barron, Sir H. W.

Hall, Col.

Bennet, P.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bernard, Visct.

Herbert, H. A.

Boldero, H G.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Bourke, R. S.

Hildyard, R. C.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hood, Sir A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H

Castlereagh, Visct.

Jones, Capt.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Ker, R.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Knox, Col.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Cobbold, J. C.

Lewisham, Visct.

Cocks, T. S.

Lockhart, W.

Cole, hon. H A.

Lopes, Sir R.

Coles, H. B.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Conolly, T.

Macnamara, Maj.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Meagher, T.

Cubitt, W.

Manners, Lord G.

Dick, Q.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Disraeli, B.

Meux, Sir H.

Dod, J. W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Dodd, G.

Miles, W.

Dundas, G.

Monsell, W.

Dunne, F. P.

Moody, C. A.

Du Pre, C. G.

Mullings, J. R.

Farrer, J.

Napier, J.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fox, R. M.

Newport, Visct.

Fox, S. W. L.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

86

Nugent, Sir P.

Stanley, E.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Stuart, J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Taylor, T. E.

Ossulston, Lord

Tenison, E. K.

Pigot, Sir R.

Thompson, Aid.

Plumptre, J. P.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Prime, R.

Verner, Sir W.

Renton, J. C.

Waddington, H. S.

Rufford, F.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Scott, hon. F.

Wodehouse, E.

Scully, F.

Sibthorp, Col.

TELLERS.

Spooner, R.

Beresford, W.

Stafford, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Matter considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That in each of the two next years there shall be paid by every Union in Ireland, a sum equal to a rate of sixpence in the pound on each electoral division in such Union, towards a General Fund for the relief of the Poor in Ireland.
"That the said sum shall be paid to a separate account at the Bank of Ireland, in the name of the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland, and shall be applied in such manner as Parliament shall direct."
Committee report progress.
House adjourned at half-past One o'clock.