Lords Sitting of 17 February 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Citations (Scotland); Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Inhabitants of the Parish of Newton St. Cyres, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From Rev. W. A. Morgan, Perpetual Curate of the Parish of Tresmere, near Launceston, complaining of the Conduct of the Churchwardens, who refuse to make a Church Rate, and for Relief.—From Magistrates, Burgesses, and others, of the Royal Burgh of Irvine, in favour, and from Tenant Farmers, and others, of Thirsk, against the Principles of Free Trade.—From Inhabitants of the Township of Osgoodby, and several other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—From the Presbytery of Ellon, in favour of the Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Bill.

BURDENS ON LAND.
LORD BEAUMONTnominated the fol-
1044
lowing Peers as Members of the Select Committee appointed on the previous evening to inquire into the Burdens on Real Property, and the impediments on agriculture caused thereby, as well as by the present system of Excise, Poor Laws, and Poor Taxation: — Lord President; Lord Privy Seal; Dukes Richmond, and Buckingham and Chandos; Marquesses Lansdowne, and Salisbury; Earls Hardwicke, Radnor, Clarendon, Malmesbury, Grey, Stradbroke, Lovelace, and Ellenborough; Lords Dacre, Beaumont, Redesdale, Dalhousie, Colchester, Brougham and Vaux, Stanley, Ashburton, Cottenham, and Monteagle of Brandon.
LORD BROUGHAMwas obliged to his noble Friend for his kindness in placing his name upon the Committee. He had no objection to the inquiry, though he had no very sanguine hope of its leading to any very practical result. The subject was one rather of discussion in their Lordships' House than of inquiry by a Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend may be able to persuade the Committee at once that they can arrive at no practical determination?
The DUKE of RICHMONDthought that the points which would come before the Committee were very simple; the statement which had been put forward was, that land was taxed to a greater extent than any other property. He apprehended, to decide that matter, it was only necessary to call upon a farmer to produce his books in order to show what was the amount of taxes to which he was subject; and then to call upon a manufacturer and upon a tradesman to do the same, and the fact, one way or the other, would be seen at once without any discussion. Until now he had never heard that there was any difference of opinion upon the subject. Which was the best investment at this time? Was the largest interest to be got upon money invested in the funds or in land?
The EARL of MORLEYobserved that it would be easy to get information on the question as to the result of the same amount of capital invested in land or in trade.
EARL GREY, as the Committee was to be so numerous, suggested that it would be well if their Lordships were to adopt a regulation which had been for some time in force (with the best results) in the House of Commons—that was that a Minute should be kept, showing the attendance of each Member of the Committee on each day of the Committee's sitting; so that when the

1045
Report should be presented, the House should know upon whose authority it rested, and that a Report, resting upon the authority of perhaps only three or four noble Lords, should not be supposed to carry with it that of the whole Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLORthought that the Minute should not only state the names of the noble Lords who attended the Committee each day, but how long they remained in attendance. He had known Committees on which some noble Lords had attended for four or five minutes only.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, there was another practice in the House of Commons' Committees which might be adopted with advantage—which was, that the name of every Member who put a question should be prefixed to the question in the Report of the evidence.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONconsidered that the suggestion of the noble Earl was well worthy their Lordships' consideration and adoption. If the noble Earl would move it as a Standing Order it would receive due consideration.
EARL GREYwould adopt the noble Duke's suggestion, and on some day next week would call the attention of the House to the subject by moving a Resolution, the particular terms of which he would give notice of on an early day.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was just told by the Clerk, that already the name of every Peer who asked a question of a witness in a Committee was taken down. All that was required further was to have it printed.
After some further conversation, the Committee was appointed, the name of the Earl of St. Germans being (at his request) omitted.

THE CASE OF MR. GULSON.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY, in rising, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to ask a question with reference to the causes which led to the removal of Mr. Gulson from the situation of an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland, said that since he came into the House he had received a letter, which would very much shorten the observations with which he had intended to preface his question. He must in the first place state, that he had had no communication with Mr. Gulson relative to the causes of his dismissal from his high situation. It was entirely unknown to him that he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had given this notice. He would admit that Mr. Gulson sent him a letter
1046
six weeks ago, stating the extreme hardship of his case, and the loss of reputation he had sustained in eonsequence of his having been placed at the bottom of the list of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioners in England, instead of being at the head of the Poor Law Commission in Ireland. He did not intend to say that there might not have been sufficient reasons for Mr. Gulson's removal; but he did mean to say that the case was a hard one. It was admitted by all persons that he was one of the best public officers ever sent to Ireland; and had it not been for his indefatigable zeal and ability, the Poor Law would never have been established to the same extent in Ireland, or so perfectly carried out. Adverse as he (the Marquess of Londonderry), as a landed proprietor, was to the introduction of the Poor Law, he was free to allow that he had become a perfect convert, and that he was satisfied that the law would be one of the greatest blessings to Ireland that had ever been bestowed upon that country. It was upon these grounds that he had intended to bring the subject before the House. He was entirely ignorant whether Mr. Gulson's removal originated with the Government or with the Poor Law Commissioners, when he gave notice of his intention to ask the question. If he had known at the time that it had been done by the direction of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should have been more cautious in bringing the question forward; but he must say, that it was hardly possible for a man in the position of Mr. Gulson not to wish for some tokens of public approbation. The noble Marquess then read the letter to which he had referred:—
"I have received your Lordship's letter, informing me, most kindly, that a sense of justice towards me has induced your Lordship to give notice of a Motion for bringing my case under the consideration of the House of Lords. I am deeply sensible of your Lordship's kind intentions towards me, and of the high value of your Lordship's support on this (to me) painful occasion. As, however, I am still a public servant, anxious to do all in my power for the Government whilst in their service, I am particularly desirous that no step should be taken on my account, which could either annoy or embarrass the Government or the Poor Law Commissioners. It is quite true that by the act of the Government I have been depressed in my official position, and that whilst all my official superiors express their entire 'satisfaction at the whole of my proceedings in Ireland,' and their continued 'confidence in my discretion and zeal,' I am practically sent down to the ranks of the junior Assistant Commissioners, of whom I have for three years been the director, and that I am reduced to the point whence I started twelve years since in

1047
the public service. But I am nevertheless so anxious to do my duty properly, and to trust to the favourable consideration of the Government for my future reward, that I beg your Lordship to permit me to ask you to withdraw your Motion before the House of Lords, and throw my case entirely into the hands of Her Majesty's Government for their future determination."
The noble Marquess concluded by stating, that under these circumstances he should say no more on the subject, and that if he had erred in bringing the matter forward at all, he had erred in a good cause.
EARL ST. GERMANSfelt placed in a difficult position, because Mr. Gulson had expressed to him a very strong wish that his case should not become matter of discussion in that House; and he entertained for that gentleman a very sincere respect, and really believed he had discharged his duties in Ireland with the greatest zeal and ability; and yet to be silent would be acquiescing in the implied charge against the Home Secretary, of being guilty of an act of harshness and injustice. It was necessary, therefore, to state, that Mr. Gulson's only grievance was, that he had not been promoted. He was an Assistant Commissioner, and in that capacity conciliated the good will and esteem of the members of the different boards of guardians, and of every other gentleman with whom he came in contact; but he was an officer of the Poor Law Commissioners, and not of the Government; and the former employed him where they thought fit. The Government advised Her Majesty, under the accumulation of business, to appoint a fourth Commissioner, and that Commissioner was directed to proceed to Ireland; and the position of Mr. Gulson was, in some respect, affected thereby, and rendered inferior to what it was before. He found it painful and disagreeable, and the Commissioners thought it would not be advantageous to the public service that he should remain in Dublin, and he was removed to England. It was no disparagement to him that he had not been thought so fit for the new office as Mr. Twisleton, who had discharged a very difficult duty at Paisley in the time of the scarcity; and whether the principle of promotion from the next rank was a good one or not, it had not been the usage of this department to select the senior Assistant Commissioner to be Commissioner. No injustice had been done to Mr. Gulson. He (Earl St. Germans) again bore willing testimony to his zeal and ability, and believed him to be a most efficient public servant: nor had he had any reason to be dissatisfied with that gentleman's conduct or with his
1048
judgment, though he did not appear to have exercised a sound discretion in complaining of the conduct of the Home Secretary in selecting another gentleman for the office alluded to.
After a few observations from the Marquess of Londonderry, subject at an end.
House adjourned.