§ On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Friday—
§ SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWART698 said, that it was with very great reluctance that he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Allan Pollok. He regretted that he should hare had to do so; but that gentleman had been placed in such a position in Ireland by the imputations with regard to his management of his property and treatment of his tenants, that he had found himself compelled to appeal to Parliament for redress. He (Sir M. S. Stewart) admitted that he was a friend of Mr. Pollok, and avowed that he regarded him with respect. Against Mr. Pollok, however, the most serious charges had been made; he had been held up to execration by the public press to an extent of which hon. Members might not be aware; not only in Ireland, but in Scotland, where statements most derogatory to his character had been publicly circulated. If he (Sir M. S. Stewart) believed those charges to be true, he certainly would not stand up to defend Mr. Pollok; but convinced as he was that Mr. Pollok was accused most unjustly and most cruelly, he should be ashamed of himself if he had not the courage to rise in his defence, and endeavour to remove the prejudice which had been created against him, by making a simple statement of the facts. He regretted that he had not been aware of the nature of the charges against Mr. Pollok at the time the petition which contained those charges was presented, as that would, of course, have been the most appropriate occasion for his vindication. The accusations against Mr. Pollok were summed up thus in the petition that had been presented against him;—that he had purchased, in 1853, property comprising 7,000 acres, with about 500 tenants and 2,500 souls upon the estates; that he had been guilty of a series of indiscriminate evictions, and of causing wholesale depopulation of the country; and the petitioners prayed the House to interfere and save them from extermination. Now, there were two estates of which Mr. Pollok was proprietor in the county of Galway. As to the first, called the West Estate, when he purchased it he proceeded to make arrangements with the tenants for their giving up occupation of their tenements on receiving compensation; all but nine acceded to these arrangements, and these nine had certainly been evicted, but they were immediately replaced in their houses as "care-takers," and were now in Mr. Pollok's employment, except two, who had 699 voluntarily left. In the advertisement of the property comprising the other estate, put forth by the authority of the Incumbered Estates Commissioners, at whose sale Mr. Pollok bought it, it was stated that there were no leases, and that the greatest portion of the land was held by tenants from year to year, and he was told that this would be a great advantage, as it would enable him to settle the estates as he pleased. When Mr. Pollok obtained possession of this estate, he endeavoured to make the same arrangements as on the other estate, and the tenants were at first ready to enter into such arrangements, but had afterwards been deterred from so doing, and had refused to give up their holdings. Upon this, Mr. Pollok had resorted to legal proceedings—not to eject the tenants from the country, but to show that he was legal owner, and had legal rights. Owing, however, to informalities, these proceedings had not been carried out; and, therefore, on the estate the tenants were almost in the same position now as they were when Mr. Pollok purchased it. It had been said that Mr. Pollok had "exterminated" the tenantry. But he was prepared to prove that this was very far from being the truth; so far from the population upon his property having diminished, it had increased not less than 25 per cent since he had it, and was one-fourth greater now than when he purchased the property—the best possible proof of the falsehood of this charge. It had been said that if the system Mr. Pollok pursued were continued, the country would be depopulated, and that the only way to prevent him from pursuing it would be to make him support all the poor upon his property who were driven to resort to parish relief. But the fact was, that on the estate where Mr. Pollok had been able to carry out his plans, not one person had been compelled to seek such relief. He (Sir M. S. Stewart) had numerous letters from clergymen of the Church of Ireland, from landowners, land agents, and others resident in the vicinity of Mr. Pollok's property, and they testified strongly in his favour. He would not read those letters, but there was one document to which he must call the attention of the House. It had been said that the population on Mr. Pollok's estates had been exterminated. The fact was, that on one estate the population had increased from 1,200 to 1,500 souls since he had it; and the following was a memorial 700 agreed to by 742 persons upon the estate:—
Honoured Sir,—Having seen and heard of so many false statements made in London as to your conduct towards us, we have deemed it our duty to write to you how much we are grieved at such a report, as we can satisfy the public that the reverse is the case. Most of us were tenants of yours at the time you became proprietor of the West estate. When we gave up our holdings you dealt liberally with us, and have found us liberal employment, at higher wages, and more regularly paid, than we have experienced before. We are all comfortable, contented, and happy, and should be very sorry if a stop were put to the present system of management. We return you thanks for your regular and good employment of our labour, and remain your humble servants.(Signed by 742 persons.)He (Sir M. S. Stewart) had shown this to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), who had brought the petition against Mr. Pollok before the House, and the hon. Member who had stated that Mr. Pollok had "exterminated" his tenantry would be happy to find that the persons exterminated were thus happy and contented. It was said, that although the tenantry might now be contented, yet that it was intended to turn the property to grazing purposes, and that that would entail the removal of the tenants; but he (Sir M. S. Stewart) would call the attention of the House to the farm buildings which Mr. Pollok had erected on his estates. He had made it his business to inquire particularly into that subject, for, although he was a friend of Mr. Pollok, he would not say a word in his defence he did not believe to be true. Now, he had been informed by persons well qualified to judge, that the farm buildings on Mr. Pollok's property were superior to anything in Ireland or Scotland. Any one would see at once that such farm buildings would become useless if the land were turned into pasture. Further than this, Mr. Pollok had erected a vast number of cottages on the estates and was building more. He was anxious to show that Mr. Pollok was not indeed, as he had been represented—A monster reared on Scottish soil,and he would, in a word or two, just state who that gentleman was. Mr. Pollok was certainly possessed of vast wealth, which he had, however, acquired in a very honourable way, and he was not a man to use his wealth merely for the purpose of making others miserable. He was possessed not only of the estates in Ireland which he had purchased, but of an estate 701 in Renfrewshire, which had been in his family for a great many years, and he was universally regarded as a good neighbour and a practical agriculturist. He was not the man to resort to legal proceedings to exterminate his tenantry uselessly and cruelly. If Mr. Pollok were only met in the same spirit which he desired to evince towards his tenantry, there would be no complaint, but the people of Ireland would only be too happy to have a few more landlords such as Mr. Pollok. He thanked the House for their attention; but it was only just to Mr. Pollok that this explanation should be given.
§ MR. M'MAHONentreated the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, as it was he who had brought forward the case of the conduct of Mr. Allan Pollok. The subject was one of considerable difficulty, as he was a total stranger to the county of Galway, to the petitioners whose case he had been requested to bring forward, and to every one connected with the estates of Mr. Pollok. In bringing forward the Motion he did not, therefore, make himself responsible for a single fact. He quoted from the petition of the tenants of Mr. Pollok, which had been presented to the House twelvemonths since, which many Scotch Members had seen, and which he had great difficulty in getting printed, observations being made by some Scotch Members of the Printing Committee, which he had perhaps better not mention. Upon two or three occasions he had postponed the Motion, in hopes that Mr. Pollok and his tenants would come to some amicable arrangement; but when the assizes were approaching, and these unfortunate tenants might have been evicted, he should have laid himself open to the charge of betraying their interests had he longer abstained from bringing the matter before the attention of the House. He would state nothing of his own knowledge. ["Oh!"] He begged the House to decide upon the admissions made by both parties. He did not know that Mr. Pollok would rest the defence of his conduct with regard to the tenants of Ballynakill upon the management of his West estates, and the statement as to the West estates had certainly come upon him with surprise. Mr. Pollok stated in his petition that he was charged with intending to evict by wholesale the whole tenantry of his estates. It was a grave and serious charge, and why, instead of this special pleading about the management of the Cornborough and West 702 estates, did not Mr. Pollok say he did not mean to evict these 500 people on Ballynakill? With regard to the Cornborough and West estates, occupied by 246 tenants, Mr. Pollok had made a clearance of every tenant, except a few who held leases upon lives, and he admitted that he had now in hand the whole 1,200 acres of which those estates were composed, with the exception of about 200 acres so leased on lives. The petition of Mr. Pollok would lead the House to suppose that no dwellings on those estates had been destroyed; but from a letter received on Saturday from the Rev. Father Derry, parish priest of Ayrecourt, it appeared that as many as two-thirds of the houses had been at once levelled to the ground. If that were so, what had become of these 246 tenants? He could believe that Mr. Pollok, coming from Scotland, where there were numerous manufactories and plenty of work, was not half so conscious as persons better acquainted with Ireland would be of the positive ruin which followed eviction in that country. It was his own statement, however, that when he took the estate, there were 246 tenants upon it, and in compensation for all these evictions on the West estate, Mr. Pollok had erected nine farmsteadings, twenty cottages, one corn-mill, and one mansion-house. Instead of the 246 tenants, there were now only a number of labourers. The West estate was one of the best managed in Ireland, and even during the famine the tenants paid their rents; when they were evicted none went to the poor-house, and that of itself was an admission that they were a respectable class of tenantry, and not poor squatters or cotters whom it would be undesirable to keep on the property. With regard to the petitioners of Ballynakill, Mr. Pollok alleged that they had paid no rent. Mr. Pollok purchased the estates in December, 1853; he commenced ejectments in the spring of 1854; no rent was then due, and no opportunity had been afforded the tenants of making payment. There was not a single allegation that Mr. Pollok ever expressed his willingness to receive the rent. The rent would be paid now if he would accept it. The tenants were ready to pay it. Why was not the hon. Baronet authorised to say Mr. Pollok would accept it? The reason was that if he had offered to receive his rent it would have been considered as a waiver of ejectment. Mr. Pollok wanted the land and not the rent. Mr. Pollok gave the 703 House to understand that the people upon his estate were quite happy and comfortable; but if that were so there would have been no necessity for an increase of the police force. Mr. Pollok said that any additional police force upon his property had been paid for by him. Now, the Irish constabulary were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and it was worthy of inquiry whether a special portion of that force ought to be placed at the disposal of any private gentleman for the purpose of enabling him to effect evictions. He (Mr. M'Mahon) had brought the conduct of this gentleman before the House on the ground that it was calculated to disturb the public peace, and Mr. Pollok had given a proof that this was the tendency of these evictions by increasing the police force at his own expense. He hoped that he should be encouraged to bring this subject forward again, and that such proceedings as those of Mr. Pollok would not be tolerated or encouraged by the House. He trusted that Mr. Pollok, in mercy to these people, and out of consideration for the peace of society, would abandon his proceedings, and come to reasonable terms with his tenants, who were ready to meet him upon a fair understanding.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman left the House to infer that the Scotch Gentlemen upon the Printing Committee had allowed national feelings to influence their proceedings. He was acting with those hon. Gentlemen, and he could not believe that any such idea had occurred to the Scotch Members of that Committee. The sole reason why the Committee hesitated to print the petition of the tenants was that it contained language that was unparliamentary. If any one had acted from national feeling, he would rather say it was the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon). If he had taken the trouble to get up his brief with a little more care, he would have acted a more friendly part towards those whom he represented, and more justly towards a gentleman whose conduct and character would not justify the aspersions of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. M'MAHONhad not imputed to the Scotch Members that they had acted from national feeling—one of them, indeed, had expressed himself in strong terms upon Mr. Pollok's conduct. He had purposely stopped himself when adverting to the Scotch Members of the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he 704 could not help expressing his regret that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, when unable to contravene the main facts alleged by Mr. Pollok, in his petition, and in the printed papers, had not met the question with greater frankness, and admitted that he had been led to make, unintentionally, erroneous statements. There could not be a stronger contrast than in the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir M. S. Stewart) and the hon. and learned Gentleman. The former hon. Gentleman had come forward in a manly manner, and had brought forward this question with a propriety, a moderation, and a good feeling which had been acknowledged on all sides of the House. He (Sir John Pakington) had made himself acquainted with these papers, and his conviction was that Mr. Pollok deserved to be ranked amongst the greatest benefactors of Ireland. He was sorry that a gentleman who had done so much to mitigate the demoralisation which prevailed in portions of that unhappy country should have been exposed to so much obloquy. If he recollected rightly, on a former occasion he had understood the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown to have expressed feelings strongly adverse to Mr. Pollok; but he trusted that after what had taken place to-night, both the noble Lord and the House would be convinced that Mr. Pollok was not amenable to the charges brought against him.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had expressed no opinion whatever with regard to Mr. Pollok; but he did express his entire concurrence with what had fallen from an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House as to the system of depopulation which Mr. Pollok was charged with having exercised, without expressing any opinion whether that charge were just or not. He rather thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, whom he did not see in his place, did express an opinion with regard to Mr. Pollok, but certainly, he (Viscount Palmerston) did not.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he would join the hon. Member for Northumberland in assuring the House that the Printing Committee were most anxious to meet the views of every Member, and that it was only the strong wording of the petition that prevented them from printing it. The right hon. Gentleman in the chair was consulted on the subject, who said 705 that the petition might be printed, if necessary, for the use of Members alone.
§ MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, this was a question on which no special pleading should be resorted to on either side. Since the question had been mooted in this House he had had an interview with Mr. Pollok, and that gentleman had evinced such a thorough and rightminded sense of his duty towards the people on his property that he (Mr. Moore) scarcely thought it necessary to make any remarks on Mr. Pollok's vindication. The case, however, was this:—Mr. Pollok had taken possession of a large property; he had converted the inhabitants into farm labourers; but he paid them well and treated them handsomely. Mr. Pollok had adopted the system of high farming on a large scale, and no doubt, as long as the great expenditure which he had entered into continued, the people would be well paid and comfortable; but, like most other gentlemen who had tried high farming, he was becoming tired of the system, and was about to relet this property in large farms. The question then arose what, if the land should be laid out in grass cultivation to any great extent—as would probably be the case—what would become of the people who had been dispossessed? Such a system was, in his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, highly dangerous to the population of the west of Ireland. He hoped, however, that the ultimate result would be an arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
MR. A. HASTIEsaid, it was a mistake to suppose, as had been done, that the tenants on the estate in question had all been in comfortable circumstances before Mr. Pollok became the owner of it. The hon. Member then read part of the report of Mr. Michael Kelly, the receiver of the Court of Chancery, to show that the tenants who had been described as in affluent circumstances owed large arrears of rent. Mr. Kelly described them thus—
The great bulk of the tenantry are persons in a humble rank of life, and for the most part persons in doubtful and in very many instances insolvent circumstances.
MR. NAPIERsaid, it had been represented that his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had expressed an opinion unfavourable to Mr. Pollok; but if his right hon. Friend had done so, his opinion was merely founded on the ex parte statements contained in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Wexford. He (Mr. NaNapier) 706 thought, after the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir M. S. Stewart), that it was not necessary for him further to vindicate the. conduct of Mr. Pollok.
§ MR. BELLEWsaid, that, although minor points in the petition might have been exaggerated, he thought it but fair to declare that the main statements contained in that petition, when he seconded the Motion brought before the House on the subject, were known by him to be true. Mr. Pollok did not in the least intend to contradict the main facts alleged—namely, that of having ejected a great many persons. He admitted that he had ejected 177 tenants from their holdings on the estate to which the petition referred. He did not wish to prejudice the House against Mr. Pollok. The complaint which he made was against the system, and not the individual. It could not be denied that a system of eviction had taken place in Ireland to a very great extent. The object of Mr. Pollok was to introduce the system of large farms on his estates in Ireland, but there was no guarantee that high farming would pay in that country. It involved the necessity of converting small tenants into farm labourers; but those farm labourers would have no security of being permanently employed. They might have work this year and next; but what would be their condition five years hence? Mr. Pollok was a man of capital, and was no doubt anxious to do good; but he (Mr. Bellew) wished to impress upon the House this fact, that changing tenants of the soil into farm labourers was a hazardous experiment, for though they might be employed to-day this day fortnight they might be houseless and penniless. He hoped that nothing more would be said about this individual case; but that the House would direct its attention to the working of the system on which Mr. Pollok was proceeding, and that an inquiry would be made into the effect which that system was likely to have upon the condition of the population of Ireland.
§ SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, the inevitable conclusion of all those that were acquainted with the actual circumstances of the case from what had been stated by some hon. Gentlemen, must be that Mr. Pollok had perpetrated wholesale evictions. Now, he (Sir A. Campbell) begged to state that not a single person had been evicted upon one of the estates. The fact was, that, influenced by the results of his experience with reference to 707 an estate which he had formerly possessed, Mr. Pollok was anxious to put in force a system of improvement grounded upon the same plan in the case of his new purchase. With that view he entered into communication with his tenants, and for some time he was led to believe that they would cheerfully come into his arrangements. However, in the course of time a change came over the feelings of the tenantry, and then Mr. Pollok took out summonses of eviction. Nevertheless, those summonses had never been acted upon, nor did he (Sir A. Campbell) think they ever would be. But the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), in speaking of another of the estates, mentioned sundry tenants as having been evicted from their homes, and turned loose upon the wide world. Now the fact was undoubtedly that certain houses had been pulled down; but then those who resided in them were located in other houses on the estate. And let him add that a great number of the people thus referred to were included in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Wexford. They had no right therefore to say that those people had been turned loose upon the world. Let him also observe in passing that the greater part of the petitioners were parishioners of the Rev. Mr. Derry, and certainly they might be considered to be as good judges of their own position as the rev. Gentleman. However, what he mainly wished to impress upon the House was, that no evictions had actually taken place. At the same time he thought the general feeling of the House seemed to indicate that the case had been taken up against Mr. Pollok upon insufficient grounds; but if such was not the case he was quite sure that nothing would be more in consonance with Mr. Pollok's feelings than that there should be a searching investigation at the hands of the House into all the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. DRUMMONDI rise, Sir, to protest against the whole character of this discussion. I do not do so on the part of either Scotch or Irish landlords—I do not do so on the part of Mr. Pollok, with whom I have no acquaintance—but I say on behalf of landlords in the abstract, that it would be impossible to devise a more tremendous inquisition than this House will become if it allows of statements being made in reference to the management of our estates in the absence of every one capable of meeting them. The very idea 708 of the thing is perfectly monstrous. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) told us that there were two facts upon which the whole case rested, and that he did not want special pleading. Neither do I want special pleading; but I do want facts. And what were his two facts? Why, one was that there had been a depopulation on these estates; the other that the estates had, under the former proprietor, been better managed. Yet it now turns out that there are actually a greater number of persons on the estates at this moment by twenty-five per cent than there had been at any time previously. So much, therefore, for the cry as to depopulation going on. Now, as for this admirably-managed estate, that was in such fine condition before Mr. Pollok got it, what became of its owner? Why, he ended in the Insolvent Debtors' Court. And who is the person that takes the lead in raising this outcry? Why, Mr. Kelly, the late agent of the estates. My impression is, that these estates are now in a much better condition than they were, and that they are in a far better state than almost any other property in the county Mayo. I therefore think it would be wise for gentlemen to encourage such a landlord as Mr. Pollok, and to copy his example, instead of raising a clamour against him. But you say that Mr. Pollok knew that this petition would be presented a year and a half ago. Now, that is not true; for the printer did not print it until a month ago, and it was not until within a few days that Mr. Pollok received a copy of it. To the petition there are only three names appended, namely, those of two priests and Mr. Kelly the manager. All I will say is this, that I have had under my own eyes the instance of an estate in Scotland managed upon the plan adopted by Mr. Pollok. That estate, a very large one, had been even worse managed than the estate purchased by Mr. Pollok. Nevertheless, it was taken in hand by a nobleman of great wealth, who divided it into large farms. That happened twenty years ago, and the estate is now a most productive one, and I doubt not that Mr. Pollok's efforts will be attended with a similar success. However, no matter whether that gentleman's experiment is a good or a bad one, I do trust this House will never again hearken to such a discussion as we have had raised in this instance.
MR. E. ELLICE,(St. Andrews)explained 709 that his observations on a former evening had been founded upon the statements which had been made in that House, on the understanding that the petition had been presented a year ago, and its statements had not been controverted. Upon that faith he expressed a very strong opinion respecting wholesale evictions and depopulations such as had been productive of very great distress and suffering in Scotland. It appeared new that this was not a case of that wholesale eviction which he had imagined it to be; but at the same time the facts had been fairly stated by the hon. Member for Mayo. No doubt the system of Mr. Pollok would ultimately produce great advantages to the district; but it would easily be conceived that any attempt to change the condition of the population, made suddenly, and without sufficient consideration for the feelings of that population must entail very great distress and dissatisfaction. It did appear that there had been a considerable number of evictions which had led to much dissatisfaction; but after the statements which had been made that night the matter had assumed a totally different aspect to that which induced him to make the observations which he had done on a former evening.
§ MR. MAGUIREI venture to detain the House for a short time, while I offer a few remarks rendered necessary by the observations of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond). That hon. Member has, in the first place, charged my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford with having brought his accusation forward without due notice, and thereby taken Mr. Pollok by surprise and at a disadvantage. Is that the real fact? By no means; for I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. Allan Pollok, who, as I am informed, was the purchaser, and is the real owner of these estates; and in that letter, which is dated April, 1855, or a period of thirteen months since, this Mr. Pollok alludes to the fact, of which he states his knowledge, that my hon. and learned Friend had the charge of a petition on this very subject which he was about bringing before the House of Commons. How then can it be fairly said that Mr. Allan Pollok has been taken by surprise, when he, as well as his relative, was fully aware of the determination to bring the petition of those unhappy people before this House, as the great court of appeal in all matters of public wrong? 710 But the hon. Member for West Surrey has gone farther still; he has ventured to represent Mr. Allan Pollok as the great regenerator of Ireland—such a benefactor as that country has not seen for a hundred years. Now as an Irish representative, I most solemnly express my conviction that such men as Allan Pollok are the greatest curse with which the country and its people could be inflicted. God knows—and I use the name with every reverence—I believe in my soul and conscience that the system pursued by this gentleman, whatever may be his intentions, or his motives, is one that is the most mischievous and fatal that could be conceived, not merely to the district in question, not even to the prosperity of the country and the population thus experimented upon, but to the strength and stability of the empire. For what is it? It is simply converting the farmer, who enjoys at least a position of comparative independence, into a day-labourer, who is not only in a position of complete and total dependence, but whose means of existence depend upon the chance of accident or the calamity of sickness. I ask the House, is that the way to regenerate Ireland?—is that the mode by which its people can be rendered self-supporting, and raised in the social scale? Of Mr. Pollok I know nothing, neither am I acquainted with Galway, or with the circumstances of the particular property; but in the very reply of Mr. Pollok himself, I see quite enough to condemn him and his system, and to vindicate the petitioners who protest against both. Just take his own admissions—that from one estate of 12,000 acres, he removed 240 tenants, some of whom, or the most of whom, he converted into day-labourers. Will any Gentleman have the goodness to divide the number representing the tenants into the number representing the acres of land which they occupied; and he will see that, taking into account the fact that many of the tenants on that estate occupied but small holdings, say of ten and twenty acres, there must have been tenants on the property who held, not ten and twenty, but 100, and perhaps 150 acres of land. If this be so—and it must be so—for the average is over fifty acres—I ask any hon. Member, was Allan Pollok the benefactor of the tenant of 100 acres of land, when he turned him out of his farmhouse, removed him from the farm which he had cultivated, and turned him into a day-labourer, no matter how well he paid 711 him in that capacity? If this is being a benefactor to Ireland, I say, God forbid that we should have many more Allan Polloks in that country. If this example, which we are told is so valuable—in fine, such a blessing—were imitated by all purchasers in the Incumbered Estates Court, the result would be a scene of wide-spread misery and ruin. ["No, no!"] What else could it be, when by it you degrade and destroy the class you should render independent, and should cherish, as the best strength of the nation? If this is to be the principle on which foreign capital is to be introduced into Ireland, I hold, as an Irishman, that it is a cause of congratulation that so little of that capital has been introduced; and that out of £17,000,000 of property purchased in the Incumbered Estates Court, not much more than £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 has been purchased by strangers—in fact, that we have imported so few Allan Polloks. It is also a source of congratulation that those Irishmen who have purchased the property so sold—whether they be of the ancient proprietary class of the country, or men who have honourably acquired capital in trade—have not adopted this system, which hon. Members represent as such a blessing, but have adopted a system which, in my mind, much more entitles them to the name of benefactors. When coming into the possession of large estates, and to the control of numbers of human beings, they do not clear off every farmer, and tumble down his house, and degrade him into a day-labourer; no, but they give his land at a fair rent—they encourage him by kindness and liberality—they stimulate his industry by counsel and example—they assist him to a better mode of farming—they endeavour to raise him and his family to a condition of independence; and, in return, they get their rents well paid, and, by their ample returns for their capital, justify the wisdom of their investment. I know several purchasers myself who have carried out this system of managing their new estates; relatives and friends of my own have so managed them, and the result is that they have the best possible interest for their money, and the satisfaction of knowing that those under them are prosperous and happy. Mr. Pollok got 12,000 acres of land into his hands by amicable arrangement, and he is attempting to get thousands of acres more by the same amicable arrangement. I know what this "amicable" arrangement adopted by 712 Scotchmen means; it is the same "amicable" mode by which thousands of poor Irish are amicably deported from Scotland to their own country, by benevolent Scotch parishes. It does not in the slightest degree alter the mischievous character of the system, which, however attempted or carried out, is an injury to the people and a curse to the country. Gentlemen hope it may be imitated; but if it be, I may with safety predict that neither the noble Lord at the head of the Government, nor any Member of his Government, will soon be able to congratulate the House on the improvement in the state of Ireland which is mainly idebted to the change of property from the hands of bankrupt proprietors to men of a different stamp from Allan Pollok, its greatest modern benefactor. I do not say that making a new division of an estate, or taking some portion of land from one tenant, who has too much, to give it to another who has too little, may not be wise and useful on certain properties; but I do protest against this wholesale, this reckless mode of dealing with the land and the people; and while I give every credit to the hon. Baronet who has brought the matter forward, for his good feeling and admirable temper, I defy him, or any man, to prove, even by the petition on which he relies, either that Allan Pollok is a benefactor of, or that his system is a blessing to, Ireland.
§ House at rising to adjourn till Friday.