Sitting of 4 July 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1° Prisons (Scotland); Cathedral Churches (Wales).
2°. Hackney and Stage Carriages.
3°. and passed:—Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
Private.—Reported.—Dundee Harbour; Argyllshire Roads; Lord Gray's Estate; Todhunters Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Thornely, from Farmers near Liverpool, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Tullamore, for the Repeal of the Legislative Union. — By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, against the Coroners Bill. —By Mr. Gibson, from Nottingham, for a Clause in the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—From Totness, for Amending the Parochial Assesment Act.—From a number of places, against the Factories Bill, and from Brodsworth, in favour of the same. —From Huddersfield, in favour of the County Courts Bill.

THANKS OF THE HOUSE—ARMY IN CHINA.
The Speakerinformed the

611
House, that he had received the following letter from Sir Hugh Gough,—
" Moncara Coorg, May 10 th, 1843.
" Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 20th February, transmitting me the resolutions of the House of Commons, expressing the sense of the House on my conduct, and on that of the general and other officers, non-commissioned officers and privates, as well native as European, during the several operations in China.
" I beg to assure you I personally feel the highest pride at having obtained so flattering a testimonial, and I feel quite conscious that my companions in arms, to whom, in accordance with the desire of the House, I have communicated this high distinction, will equally feel so valuable and acceptable an honour.
"Permit me to request you will convey to the House of Commons my grateful acknowlegments, as well on my part as on that of the force lately under my command; and that you will accept my best thanks for the kind manner in which you have conveyed the resolutions of the House of Commons.
" I have the honour to be,
" Sir,
" Your most obedient, humble servant,
"GOUGH, General."
To the right hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre, M.P. Speaker of the House of Commons.
The letter was ordered to be entered on the journals.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Mr. Wallacewished to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he had taken under his consideration the Complaints made by the seamen with respect to the constitution and appropriation of the merchant seamen's fund?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that he was desirous that the whole question should be inquired into, and that the fund should be placed upon a system more simple, uniform, and satisfactory to all parties. It was not in its nature an eleemosynary fund.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
Mr. Blewitt: I rise most respectfully to make the inquiry of which I gave notice yesterday. It is necessary for me to state two or three facts for the elucidation of the subject, and to them I shall strictly confine myself. In September, 1841, soon after the right hon. Baronet opposite received her Majesty's commands to form an administration, a list was published, as from authority, in the Times newspaper, in which the Duke of Wellington was
612
placed at the head of the Cabinet; it being understood that his Grace had no particular duties to perform, but was to be a Member of the Cabinet. I remember perfectly well that he went down to Claremont as one of the new Ministers to pay his homage. Soon after the death of Lord Hill, the Duke of Wellington was appointed Commander-in-Chief, retaining at the same time his seat in the Cabinet. On all occasions in the House of Lords he has taken part in the debates, and has acted as the official organ of the administration; be has vindicated his colleagues, and explained the acts of the Government. On the 1st of October, 1841, a question arose as to the prorogation of the House of Lords, and the Duke of Wellington took upon himself a share of the responsibility in advising her Majesty to dismiss the Parliament for a time. A day or two afterwards, his Grace spoke of his colleagues in the House of Commons, and on many subsequent occasions he employed similar language. It is to be observed, also, that he attends all the meetings of the Cabinet Council, and I may presume that he takes part in the deliberations of that body. On Saturday last, it sat for four hours, and no doubt the question before it was one of importance. Such appears to be the ostensible position of the Duke of Wellington, and I now wish the House to hear what he himself thinks of that position. A few days ago, Mr. Mulock addressed a letter to the Duke of Wellington, which his Grace acknowledged in the following terms—
London, June 15, 1843.
" Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Mulock. As it appears that Mr. Mulock has addressed the minister, the Duke concludes that he will give him an answer. He is one of the few men these days who does not meddle with questions over which he has no control."
About the same time a Mr. Espy, the Secretary of an association in Dublin, transmitted an address from the society, and the Duke of Wellington acknowledged it in this way:—
June 15, 1843.
" A society or association in Ireland should address the Lord-lieutenant, or Chief Secretary of the government of Ireland, and not the Commander-in-Chief of the army, who never interferes in any affair over which he has no control."
This note reminds me of a letter which

613
the Duke addressed to a deputation from Paisley, in October, 1841, which came up with the express purpose of soliciting an interview with his Grace, respecting the unparalleled distress prevailing in that town. The deputation, on its arrival, requested that interview, but the Duke sent them an evasive reply. The deputation repeated their request, when the Duke sent them the following letter —
" London, October 30, 1841.
" Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to the members of the deputation from Paisley.
" It is true that the Duke returned to town the night before fast, in order to attend at Buckingham-house, when her Majesty will be confined.
" The Duke's time has been, and will be, much occupied while he will be in London, and he must again decline to receive the deputation from Paisley.
"He pays every attention it is in his power to give to the distresses at Paisley, as well as elsewhere.
"A meeting to discuss them is not necessary in order to draw his attention to those distresses, and his other occupations render it necessary that he should decline to receive the deputation.
" He begs the deputation to observe, that he is not in the Queen's political service, that he does not fill any political office, and exercises no power or authority.
"The members of the deputation from Paisley."
The deputation wrote a reply to the Duke of Wellington, from which the following is an extract —
" November 1, 1841.
" Whatever may be the nature of the appointment your Grace may hold as a Member of the Cabinet, we, as a deputation, and the whole country, consider your Grace one of the most influential of her Majesty's advisers, and one of the principal heads of the Government. We feel justified in entertaining this opinion from the public declaration lately made by your Grace from your place in the House of Peers, that 'you would take on yourself the responsibility of advising her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.'"
I believe that the Duke sent no answer to this remonstrance from the deputation, which left town without being able to obtain an interview. I think I have stated enough to show that I have been justified in putting this question on the paper, and I, therefore, beg respectfully "to call upon Sir Robert Peel to explain to the House and to the country what is the political position of his Grace the Duke of Wel-
614
lington; whether his Grace is or is not in the political service of the Crown, subject to Ministerial responsibility, and possessed of any and what control over the administration of public affairs."
Sir R. Peel: I shall attempt to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman as respectfully as he has put it. With respect to the political position—that is, the official position—of the Duke of Wellington, I have to state that he is Commander-in-Chief of the British army. He is so far in the political service of the Crown that he is one of the privy councillors, honoured with the immediate confidence of her Majesty, constituting what is popularly called the Cabinet. As a Member of the Cabinet he is responsible for any advice he may offer. As to the control possessed by the Duke of Wellington, I should say that he has great control over the administration of public affairs—that is to say, that control which is implied by a willing deference to any opinion the Duke may offer, either upon civil or military affairs. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been put to so much trouble in collecting the minute facts with which he has favoured the House, in order that it may be justly inferred that the Duke of Wellington is a Member of the Cabinet, because if he had asked me the question, I should have had no hesitation in at once avowing the fact; and in stating, on my own part, and on the part of every Member of the Government, that we are most proud to have the Duke of Wellington for a colleague. Has to the letters and communications, the hon. Gentleman has read, they amount to no more nor less than this, that the Duke advises those who have business with particular departments to address themselves to those departments. I apprehend, that from general confidence in the integrity and judgment of the Duke of Wellington, his Grace is overburthened with correspondence on matters over which he has no immediate control; therefore, he refers the writers to the heads of departments who, after due inquiry, are able to give an opinion. I cannot answer for the accuracy of any of the letters published, but I am quite sure that the Duke of Wellington as a Minister of State did not mean to say that he was exempt from responsibility, or that he did not exercise a control becoming his age, rank, and station; all that he meant was, and I myself follow that course, that when

615
persons address him on matters belonging to the Secretary at War, or any other department of Government, he earnestly begs leave to refer them to the heads of those departments who are able to inquire into the grievance and to redress if it be found to exist. The Duke of Welington refrains from meddling with matters with which he has no concern, and over which he has no control, and perhaps, the hon. Gentleman himself might have profited by the example.

STADE TOLLS.
Mr. Hutt,in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, said he could not allow another Session to pass without, calling the attention of the House to a question so intimately connected with the interest and prosperity of our merchants and shipowners. There was no excuse for the delay which had been exhibited in dealing with this affair. It was only necessary that the Government should have followed in the steps of their predecessors, and should have carried out with vigour the measures begun by his noble Friend, the Member for Tiverton, to have ensured the settlement of the question long ago. They had now waited two years, and the matter had not advanced a step; for the Government had in fact abandoned all rational attempts for bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion. It was a question of the greatest importance, the House was probably not aware of its intimate connection with our commercial prosperity. The United States alone excepted, Germany was the country to which the greatest amount of our exports went. During the past year, notwithstanding the depression of trade, the declared value of our exports to that country amounted to between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000, five-sixths of which passed into Germany by the channel of the Elbe, and this fell under the operation of the Stade dues. The Government would not dispute the injurious effects of such a toll on British trade—nor could they deny, that at least in the extent in which it was levied, this toll was illegal. Well then, why had the Government not interfered to remove it? There it remained exactly where it was when the present Government took office, and all the consolation which the right hon. Baronet could give him in reply to a question put by him not many clays ago, was an expression of his sorrow, that he could not give him the slightest notion when this
616
evil could be removed. Here was a petty state of Germany, year after year levying arbitrary imposts on our merchants, accompanied with various acts of insult and oppression, yet the British Minister was not only unable to afford them any redress, but could not give them any assurance, that the grievance would ever be discontinued. It was high time that Parliament should he put in possession of the correspondence between her Majesty's Government, and the Crown of Hanover on the subject. If they were to be so humiliated—if they were to be sufferers to so great an extent in this matter—for God's sake let them know the reason why. Why did the Government not pursue in reference to this question, as they had in regard to so many others, the policy of their predecessors? Was it said, that they did not approve of that policy? A few months ago it was declared, that they did approve of it, and one of Lord Aberdeen's first acts on coming into office was to declare to the states bordering on the river Elbe his adherence to the policy of his predecessor, in regard to the Stade toll; and in order that there might be no mistake in the matter, the noble Earl transmitted to them an important despatch of the noble Lord, who preceded him in the Foreign-office, thoroughly explanatory of his views. This announcement was hailed by the north of Germany with feelings of the greatest satisfaction. A distinguished individual, holding a high situation at Hamburg, writing to inform him (Mr. Hutt) of the fact, alluded to this circumstance as a proof of the greatness of this country. For," said he, "it matters little what set of public men are in the Ministry, or what party is uppermost, the great interests of your country are always steadily pursued." Having made this formal communication, Lord Aberdeen appears to have changed his mind as to its propriety. He rejected Lord Palmerston's policy, and commenced negotiations with Hanover on a policy of his own. A treaty was then proposed by Hanover for our approval, he was happy to say, it was rejected; but the Government having rejected this treaty, and having declined to pursue the policy of his noble Friend, the Member for Tiverton, seem to have come to the end of their wisdom. They knew not what course to propose; but, hearing that the states bordering on the Elbe were about to assemble at Dresden, they determined—the British Government determined—to apply to the petty states of

617
Germany to redress the grievance. Was this the way, he would ask, to uphold the dignity and character of the British nation? The plan was as futile as it was undignified. Was there a rational man who entertained a hope, that by such means the matter could be brought to a satisfactory termination? If the states bordering on the Elbe could have settled the matter, it would long since have been brought to a settlement. In Germany, the project excited universal ridicule. The Government proposed to the state of Hamburg, by whose means its wishes were conveyed to the Elbe commission, to make a suggestion as a basis of a settlement, not only at variance with the views of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) but at variance with the treaty of Vienna. The proposition was rejected by Hamburg, with something approaching to scorn. No settlement was, therefore, made; the matter was left to Providence; and the King of Hanover continued to collect his black mail from British merchants, and the British Government offered no opposition. Year after year this state of things was allowed to continue injurious to our commerce and dishonourable to our flag. The Government declared that they could not mend the matter. Under these circumstances, he appealed to the House, whether it was not high time to take measures to redress so notorious a grievance? Was it ever to come to an end? He trusted he should meet the independent support of all those hon. Gentlemen opposite who were alive to the interests of their country and preferred its welfare to any party considerations. It might probably appear to some, that the supporters of this motion were actuated by feelings of hostility to the King of Hanover. From such a charge, he (Mr. Hutt) must at least claim exemption for he had brought forward this question long before his present Majesty ascended the throne of Hanover, with as much zeal and earnestness as at the present moment. He begged, moreover, the House to bear in mind, that he had attended in his place last Friday, for the purpose of recording his vote in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, having for its object the discontinuance of the allowance made to that monarch by this country. He was no admirer of the King of Hanover. In his opinion, the tenacity with which that Sovereign clung to his pension, was sufficiently degrading, and quite enough if there were no other case to justify the hostility and
618
alienation which prevailed towards him in this country. Still he considered that Parliament could not honorably withhold it, and he had voted very contrary to the popular wish—for continuing the pension of the King of Hanover. While, however, he felt bound to secure to him his just rights, he would take care that he got nothing more. He would do all in his power to prevent him from levying year after year, contributions on our commerce a thousand times more mischievous to British interests, than the annuity under consideration on Friday last. If the House would give him its support on the present occasion, the Government would at last be roused from their lethargy, and compelled to take the necessary steps for vindicating the honour and protecting the mercantile interests of this country. The hon. Member concluded by moving,—
" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House, copies of any correspondence which may have taken place between her Majesty's Government and that of Hanover, relative to the taxes levied on British commerce and navigation in the river Elbe, under the name of Stade tolls."
Sir J. Hanmerseconded the motion. The hon. Member for Gateshead, had been long known as careful of every thing that fostered the interests of the country; and as the hon. Member's successor, he might justly say he had found his merits appreciated by his constituents. The question had been argued before, and was perfectly understood by Parliament and the country. The vagueness of the tolls, the pretensions on which they rested, and the general inconvenience which the commerce of this country suffered from them, were recognised, and what they now desired to ascertain was, the steps which had been taken to relieve British commerce from this burthen, which it was rather extraordinary to find existing in this year, 1843, considering the long connexion of Hanover with this country. He thought it was high time that the Government should explain what was the condition of the negotiations, and what was the hope of their being brought to a speedy and satisfactory termination.
Mr. Gladstonewas perfectly satisfied with the honour and the candour of the motives with which the hon. Gentleman pursued his object, and he was glad he was

619
able to think better of the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman was animated, than the hon. Gentleman did of the Government; for he fully acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman had no other object than the public interest in view in bringing forward this motion, which had no reference to party feeling. Still he thought the House would find a difficulty in acceding to the motion which had now been suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and that it would be very easy for him to show—without giving any opinion on the merits of the case itself—that it was a motion which the House ought not to entertain. There were, however, a few of the incidental statements of the hon. Gentleman on which he would offer a few words. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Government found that when they took office in 1841 the elements of a satisfactory arrangement. That allegation, however, was susceptible of two interpretations. No doubt many of the elements were satisfactory to one party. It was true that her Majesty's Government did, on coming into power, find in the Foreign-office a clear and able statement, of the view which the noble Lord took of this question, and which limited the right of Hanover to 1–16th per cent., pursuant to the convention of 1791, and the noble Lord declared, absolutely and strongly, the determination of the previous Government to negotiate only on that basis; but so far from any progress being made towards a concurrence, Hanover objected to the arrangement of the noble Lord, and repudiated it without hesitation. There was no approximation between the parties, and no pledge that either would abate anything of its extreme claims, so that they were as far apart as possible. Without casting any blame upon the late Government—and this was not the time or the place to discuss the point—he must remind the hon. Gentleman who complained of these matters having been two years under discussion, that for many more than two years, or even than ten years, this question had been made matter of discussion between the two Governments; and if the only topic for discussion now were the division of the censure and crimination and recrimination between the late and the present Government, he thought he could show that only a small proportion of the blame would fall upon the present Government. He
620
had no intention, however, at that moment, of making any charge against the preceding Government, for even if he could make his charge good, it would not avail him as a vindication of the conduct of the present. The hon. Gentleman said next, that no progress had been made in this question, and he represented the head of the Government to have made a statement which, if it had been represented accurately, must have been most unsatisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and to others interested in the commerce of this country. The hon. Gentleman said, that his right hon. Friend had declared he was sorry to say that he had not the slightest notion when the evils which pressed upon British commerce with regard to the Stade duties would be remedied; and also, that he was utterly unable to give any assurance that the grievance would ever be discontinued. Now he had attentively listened to all that had passed in the House, and the hon. Gentleman had certainly been misled by the warmth of his zeal for British commerce into a declaration which did not correspond with the real state of the fact. Yet the hon. Gentleman had founded his motion on these very words, and it would be a ground, if it were true in point of fact, quite sufficient for enquiry. If the Government had not the slightest notion when the evil would be remedied, and if he could not give any assurance or guarantee to the House that it would ever be discontinued, then it would be perfectly open for the hon. Gentleman's Government, having declared the case to be hopeless, to call upon the Parliament to take part, and to vindicate the rights and interests of British commerce. But no such declaration had ever been made by the British Government; on the contrary, there was nothing in present circumstances which made them think there was a hopeless difficulty attending the settlement of this question. He admitted that this was a serious matter, affecting the interests of British commerce. Still he could not admit that there was anything discouraging in the present state of the negotiations In explanation of what had taken place he would briefly, but emphatically, say that nothing had been done with the petty states of Germany, or with the great states of Germany, which impaired in any manner, the liberty, or tied the hands of the British Government. There was

621
no pledge given or implied that this country would abide by the decision of the Congress. The British Government would use their own free and independent action if the course taken by other countries did not agree with the interests of our own. When the late Government were in and their arrangement, on which alone they declared they would negotiate, was rejected, there seemed to be no alternative except the miserable expedient of force. When they considered how much the commercial departments of the present Government, and how much the time of his right hon. Friend had been occupied during the last Session, he thought that the Government deserved credit rather than otherwise for having made any progress. Still, however that might be, progress had been made. The parties had arrived at the point where they could not agree. The hon. Gentleman might be assured that, by the suspension of the negotiations, in consequence of the conference at Dresden, the Government did not bind itself to abide by the decision there; neither did it tie itself up not to renew the negotiations. It reasonably appeared to her Majesty's Government that if the Elbe bordering states should adopt such a line of conduct as corresponded with the interests of this country, there would be a hope of arriving at an universal settlement of the question, which would not be the case if we alone made an arrangement. It would not be difficult for him to justify the proceedings of the Government with regard to the Elbe-bordering states. There was nothing to impair the free exercise of the powers of this country. But, then, it was said that the Government should not be satisfied to leave the matter for consideration or discussion by the Elbe-bordering states, and that if they did there was no hope of a speedy issue. He was not aware that there was anything in the character of the German nation which so disqualified them from giving an opinion upon political or commercial questions or which would make it impossible to arrive at a satisfactory adjustment; on the contrary, he believed that, by this discussion, they would be better able to do justice; for he believed that, as the German states were large importers of goods, and these dues heightened the price of articles, they would assist in requiring their diminution. If the Government were not satisfied with the part
622
taken by those states, they would be willing to resume negotiations; indeed, he had hoped that he would have been enabled that very day to communicate something to the House in reference to the resumption. Mr. M'Gregor, our able consul at Elsinore, who was known to the world as an efficient officer, had attended the conference at Dresden, not to take any part in the proceedings, but to give any friendly aid or advice of which he might be capable. The Government, however, had now taken the matter into their own hands, and had recalled Consul M'Gregor, who might, by the course of the post, have been home that evening, but being at the time he received his recal engaged with some matters of detail which were of value to the commercial interests of the states, he had not yet arrived in this country, though he might be daily expected. The hon. Gentleman would, he was sure, agree in the course taken, and that her Majesty's Government could not take any definite step till they had been in communication with Consul M'Gregor. This was the only bar to the active resumption of communications with Hanover on the subject; and though this was not the time or the place for vindicating the conduct of the Government, he agreed that British commerce had a right to demand a promotion of its interests, and that the vigilant and sedulous attention of the Government ought to be given to the matter. He had admitted that negotiations ought to be continued to bring about a speedy settlement, and after what he had said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman would be surprised if he declared this was not the time when the House should be called upon to vote "an humble address to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House copies of any correspondence which may have taken place between her Majesty's Government and that of Hanover, relative to the taxes levied on British commerce and navigation in the river Elbe, under the name of Stade tolls." All the objections to the premature disclosure of negotiations in progress applied to the motion of the hon. Gentleman, and he did not think that the prospects of British commerce ought to be painted in such dismal colours as the hon. Gentleman had painted them.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that the hon. Member for Gateshead, who had before

623
conferred much service on Commercial interests, had conferred additional obligations on those interests by bringing forward this motion upon the present occasion. He had listened with considerable anxiety to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for the former communications to the House had left the question in an unsatisfactory position, and his anxiety upon the matter had not been lessened by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Some things had come out in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which afforded grounds for apprehension to one who had watched most anxiously, as he had done, the progress of this question. It appeared, that the Government had departed from the principle laid down by his noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in which this country required as the basis of negotiation that the duties should be fixed at a maximum of 1–16th ad valorem. He knew that his noble Friend had come to that determination after great consideration, after long research, and after full consultation with those who were able to give an opinion. Thus the hon. Member for Gateshead had stated it, and it had not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the Government had originally adopted the views of his noble Friend, and that Lord Aberdeen bad written a despatch to that effect. He was satisfied that unless some simple plan were adoped as a basis, the negotiations would be almost endless; and he regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman treat his noble Friend's as an extreme view of the case, and say that the Government was prepared, on the part of England, to abandon it. He feared, therefore, if any progress had been made in the negotiations, that it had been purchased by an abandonment of the rights and interests of British commerce. He agreed also with his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead in thinking it most unfortunate that her Majesty's Government, instead of carrying on the negotiations with Hanover continuously, should have allowed any agent to attend the conference of the Elbe-bordering states at Dresden, watching what might turn up there, and suspending all negotiations in the mean time. He was the more surprised at this, knowing the position taken up by Hanover, that the Stade dues were not a river duty, but a sea toll. If this were true, what could the river-bor-
624
dering states which met at Dresden have to do with it? for their whole power, by the Congress of Vienna, was limited to river dues. How the Government could treat these as river dues, and allow the river-bordering states to discuss them, he did not know. To allow those states to settle the question, and to send Mr. M'Gregor to the congress, was one of the most extraordinary ways of conducting the public business he had ever known. The question mainly rested with the department for foreign affairs. He was not aware that this department was over-burthened with labour during the late Session; and he could, therefore, find no excuse for the delay. He could not help thinking that this shilly-shallying —one day adopting the principle of his noble Friend of 1-16th ad valorem, and the next day giving it up—at one time negotiating directly with Hanover, and then suspending negotiations and waiting for the conference at Dresden, to see what could be got there—must produce the effect upon Hanover of making her believe that we were not serious. If this mode were to go on till this Government had satisfied the Hanoverian government, this gross imposition on the commerce of this country—this unjust interpretation of the treaty would go on, and the question would be drawn out ad infinitum. It should be recollected that the party with whom we were dealing had a great interest in the delay. The King of Hanover was in possession of those lucrative tolls, and he was well satisfied that the British Government should go to Dresden and Hamburg, whilst in the meantime the tolls went into his treasury. He was glad to find that the Government had a full sense of the importance of the subject, and that it was desirous to effect a speedy settlement; but he felt that if the negotiation now to be recommenced were not conducted with better spirit, that a steady and satisfactory conclusion was not at hand. The commerce of the country had been for a long time injured by the Stade tolls, and, at any rate, he for one thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead for bringing forward his motion—the notice taken of the matter by the House could not but do good.
Mr. Ewartsaid, the President of the Board of Trade, had not told the House what the Government would do, and even refused the correspondence. He was

625
sorry to say that the proceedings of the foreign department of our Government had not been marked by energy and vigour; that it had been marked by a system of vacillation the most unsatisfactory to the parties interested. He believed if the objections to the production of the whole of the correspondence existed, there were parts of it which might be fit for public inspection; and if the hon. Member should press his motion he should support it.
Dr. Bowringcould not help thinking that the tone and spirit of the proceedings of the Government, in reference to this matter, were such as were to be deeply deplored. The tolls which were demanded were most humiliating to the English merchant and passenger, were most annoying and vexatious to those who were exposed to them. He thought that the ad valorem duty of 1–16th would be paid with satisfaction; but at the same time he thought that the King of Hanover was not entitled to the toll at all; that the claim was altogether untenable: and he believed that when the Government came to the settlement which was proposed—a settlement granted by this country with great liberality—from that time the question would be settled.
Sir Robert Peelfelt that the Government could not, consistently with their duty, enter at large into this discussion, and he hoped that as this negotiation was not concluded, the House would give the Government that confidence which they had not forfeited, and which the House had been hitherto disposed to give them. He did not contest the principle on which hon. Gentlemen opposite contended that this dispute should be brought to an end. He did not think that any prejudice should be raised against the King of Hanover on the ground of the pension which he received, but, on the other hand, he should contend that the peculiar relations existing between this country and that Sovereign did not entitle him to require from Great Britain any concession of her just rights. At the same time, however, he thought that before this country resorted to their extreme right—an application to force—they ought to be perfectly satisfied of the justice of their claim. There was no doubt that this country might compel obedience to their demands, on account of the superior power which we possessed; but it was that very
626
power which ought to make this country reluctant to apply that force, unless convinced of the justice of their claim. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the delay which had arisen in the settlement of this question. He admitted that British merchants had a right to be impatient for that settlement. The present Government had not yet effected any satisfactory adjustment of the subject. Terms had been proposed by the Government to Hanover, which had been acceded to; it had been felt from the outset that it would be of great importance that there should be a settlement of the whole question rather with a view to general commercial purposes, than with a view merely to the particular interests of this country. With such an object, there was no doubt that it was desirable that the claims of Great Britain should be postponed, in order that the interests of all nations should be adjusted; while on the other hand it could not be denied, that the general settlement of the question would conduce to the advantage of Great Britain. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had attempted to effect a distinct arrangement on the part of this country, but the King of Hanover had declined to accept the terms offered. The question was then taken up by the bordering states of the Elbe, but this country had never been bound, nor had ever admitted itself to be bound, by any arrangements they might make. The interests of many of those states were adverse to our own, and there was nothing more absurd than to suppose that we could pledge ourselves to abide by their arrangements. We were, on the contrary, perfectly free from all obligations on account of any arrangements which they might make, and we were perfectly at liberty to treat for ourselves; and we were, therefore, in a position to make such arrangements as should be most consistent with justice and with the interests of the commerce of this country. It was certainly of the highest importance that we should have an accredited agent on the spot during the negotiations; and whatever opinions hon. Gentlemen might have formed, great weight was due to any representations which might be made in respect to the interests of the commerce of this country, or to the general arrangements on the subject by the Government, who had been entrusted with his duty. He could

627
only repeat that we had never been committed by any acts of the Elbe-bordering states — that we had never considered ourselves identified with them; he believed that an onerous tax was imposed on our commerce by the Stade dues—that it was fit that some satisfactory adjustment of the question should be made. He regretted the delay which had arisen, but contended that the Government was not in any sense responsible for that delay, and was not open to the reflections which had been cast upon it in consequence of its occurrence. The subject was one which should occupy the attention of the Government, but he must resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman, and if he should persist in pressing it, he trusted that the House would, by a considerable majority, negative his proposition.
Viscount Palmerstonconfessed that nothing could be less satisfactory to his mind than the course taken on this occasion by the Government, except that which they had pursued in reference to these tolls. He thought that the Government had given a great many very bad reasons for not producing the papers moved for by the hon. Member for Gateshead, and had made a great number of very indifferent statements of the steps which they had taken in the course of these negotiations. He should like to know whether the statement of his hon. Friend was true. He had stated that when the present Government had come into office, the first step which they took was to declare that they had adopted the views which had been followed out by their predecessors; but neither the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, nor the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, had admitted or denied this statement. As this was so, however, he was entitled to suppose that the proposition was true, and he must say that if it were, if the British Government, in the full belief that it was their duty to act upon those views, had submitted to further injustice, they had been guilty of the greatest injustice to their own country. He maintained that in the correspondence which had taken place before the late Government had gone out of office, it had been established that Hanover had no right whatever to levy any greater duty than 1–16th per cent., and if the right hon. Baronet stated, that it
628
would be inconvenient for the Government to produce the whole of the correspondence which had passed since they came into office, he begged that they would lay on the Table of the House, at least so much as had passed previously to the retirement of the late Government, which would exhibit, on the one hand, the view taken by Hanover, and on the other, the British refutation of that view. It had been said that a part of the delay which had arisen, lay at the door of the late Government; undoubtedly some years had elapsed before they had taken up the case, but even the present Government admitted, that when they had done so, they had not allowed any unnecessary delay to occur in their proceedings. It was, therefore, very different from the fact of such delay having taken place, that the present Government should not yet have brought this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated, that the matter had made very considerable progress, for that, in the first place, there were various matters in dispute, but that now they had arrived at a point on which they could not possibly agree. It did not seem to him, he confessed, that this was a very satisfactory progress. The right hon. Gentleman had found the case in a position in which there was a disagreement, and after a year and a half he declared that great progress had been made, for that they had come to another point, at which they could not agree. He could not agree in any proposition of compromise, for he could not admit that in a case in which the commercial interests of the country were concerned, and in which the British Government possessed proofs that their claim was founded in justice, we ought to meet the King of Hanover half way in our concessions, because he insisted on that which he was not entitled to maintain. Then what had been done? It appeared that the King of Hanover had persisted in rejecting our claims. He was ready to acknowledge that his Majesty had not admitted the justice of our reasoning; but when the late Government was in office they had refused to give up the point on which they took their stand. But this being so, the Government had chosen to suspend the negotiations, to await the result of the negotiations between the King of Hanover and the Elbe

629
states. He was at a loss to understand the grounds on which that result was looked for. It was not admitted by the present Government that this was a river toll; the King of Hanover had always denied that it was, and that denial had been repeatedly asserted in the correspondence which had taken place. Then, this being so, what authority, he asked, had the Elbe commission to settle the question? The Government denied also that they were bound by this commission, and admitting this, they had assumed a most unbecoming position in suspending their negotiations with a view to its decision. If their proceedings did not interest us, was it fit, he asked, that we should have sent an agent to watch them; if they did, ought we not to have sent a man competent to act for us, and to represent our interests? We had, however, sent Mr. M'Gregor without power or authority, without any character except that of a watch over the proceedings of a body whose determination the Government professed to repudiate. Then it was said, would it not be better that this question should be set at rest in reference to the interests of all nations, rather than with regard to this nation only. He totally differed from this proposition. He saw no advantage in any such course of proceeding. That which he complained of was a burden on British commerce. He presumed that the Government were not going to set themselves up as the champions of other nations; if they were, it was a pity that the commercial interests of other countries were not placed in more active hands. All that the Government had to accomplish, in his opinion,' was to relieve this country from those burthens to which it was exposed. The conduct of the present Government in this matter presented a great contrast to that of her Majesty's late Government in reference to the Sound 'dues. Denmark had for a long period of time continued to demand tolls of an undue amount. The Government entered into negotiations with that country; they had shown to demonstration that the tolls demanded were not only higher in amount, but more vexatious in the mode of collection than was justified by any rights which Denmark possessed, and Denmark acted with honour and propriety. Unwilling to persist in wrong, in the most creditable manner it acceded to our representations, and
630
lowered the tolls in conformity with that which we showed to be a just rate of duties. The present Government, however, had been unable to procure any settlement with Hanover; no prospect had been held out that the King of Hanover was prepared to admit our rights; but, on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made a most ominous statement in his speech, that the Government was prepared to make great concessions of our rights, and that if the King of Hanover should consent to make the sacrifice required of him, an adjustment might be looked for. The right hon. Baronet had said that the papers for which the hon. Member had moved could not be produced. This was a statement made by a Minister of the Crown, to which the House was bound to give effect, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in taking the sense of the House on this subject; but he would entreat the Government to consider whether, although they could not produce the whole of it, they would not lay on the Table that portion of the correspondence which contained the statement of the claims on each side. He was sure that, although the hon. Member might withdraw this motion, the Government would be thankful to him for this opportunity of expressing their intention to maintain the cause of this country; they must feel that the strong manifestation of feeling on the part of the House upon the subject would strengthen them in the part which they must take in any negotiations which might be pending. He trusted that the Hanoverian government would not be misled by any consent of the hon. Gentleman to allow this motion to pass by default, with an apprehension that that House did not watch this matter as one deeply interesting to the commercial relations of this country.
Mr. Huttexpressed his intention to adopt the course recommended by the noble Lord.
Motion withdrawn.

STATE OF IRELAND.
Mr. W. Smith O'Brienspoke as follows.* I rise, Sir, to move,—
" That this House will resolve itself into a committee, for the purpose of taking into consideration the causes of the discontent at pre-
*From a corrected report published as a pamphlet by J. Brown, Dublin.

631
sent prevailing in Ireland, with a view to the redress of grievances, and to the establishment of a system of just and impartial government in that part of the United Kingdom."
I have undertaken, perhaps somewhat presumptuously, to set forth the causes of the excitement by which Ireland is at present agitated, and to invite the House to the consideration of those measures of redresss by which alone, that agitation can, in my opinion, be effectually suppressed. I do not intend to make a party speech—much that I have to say will not be acceptable to either side of the House. I cannot, therefore, expect a favourable audience; but I shall feel deeply obliged, if a fair and patient hearing should be accorded tome by your kind indulgence. I stand here to-night, to arraign the British Government and the British Parliament, for having misgoverned the country to which I belong. I make this charge not on the part of those who delight in agitation. Were Ito speak in their name, I should render to you their most hearty thanks for having, by the course which you have pursued, effectually promoted the objects which they have in view. I appear, on this occasion, on behalf of the class to which I myself belong—on behalf of those who cherish no other desire than to lead a tranquil life in their native land, (I will repeat the sentiment, although it was derided when I used it on a former occasion,) surrounded by a happy and contented population, in the full enjoyment of the free institutions of Great Britain, If I had brought forward this motion two months since, as I then intended, I might have had some difficulty in awakening the House to a sense of the irritated state of feeling which at present prevails throughout Ireland, The course' of events has rendered superfluous this, part of the task. The House and the public of England are now fully alive to the formidable character which the Repeal agitation has assumed. They have seen the perfect organization which exists amongst the people of Ireland—they have seen, that in three provinces, fifty thousand men can be called together on a notice of forty-eight hours, at any appointed spot—they have seen the receipts of the Repeal treasury rising from 500 l. to 3,000 l. per week—they are aware that not only are the poorer and less instructed masses of the population involved in this movement, but, that it also embraces
632
nearly the whole body of the middle classes of the Roman Catholic persuasion, as well as a large number of Protestants; and, that the Roman Catholic clergy, with only a few individual cases of exception, take part in or countenance its progress. It is true, that the aristocracy and landed proprietors, Catholic as well as Protestant, still, for the most part, stand aloof from this agitation; but, be assured, that unless your policy be speedily changed, they will not long consent to re' main as units, divested of influence in the midst of the population by whom they are surrounded. It is true also, that the majority of the Protestants have hitherto forborne to co-operate in this movement; but, as there no longer exists any cause for dissension with their fellow-country-men, no one can tell how soon the moment may arrive when they will make common cause for the restoration of the national Parliament of Ireland. The first question, then, which, under such circumstances, naturally presents itself, is —to what cause may he attributed the present attitude of affairs in Ireland? I know, that there are some superficial observers, who imagine, that this mighty confederation is solely the work of one man. I am the last person who would depreciate the power of Mr. O'Connell. I admit the matchless energy of his character, I acknowledge the influence which he has obtained over his countrymen by his long services, and by his perfect mastery of every chord which can touch their feelings, or govern their conduct; but, were he possessed of superhuman faculties, they would but little avail to produce such gigantic results, unless he were aided by the conviction of the national mind, as well as by the peculiar circumstances of the social condition of Ireland. To an English audience, Mr. O'Connell might for ever harangue upon the expediency of dissolving the Union, without producing a desire for its repeal; because he would be unable to convince them, that it has been productive of injury to this country, On the other hand, many of those who are now embarked in this great enterprize, are men as calm in their judgment, as capable of discovering the true interest of their country, as little disposed to revolutionary excesses, as any Member whom I now address. I do not know, that I can better illustrate the tone of feeling which prevails amongst a large portion of the

633
intelligent classes in Ireland, than by reading to the House a letter, upon which amongst many others of a similar character, my attention has happened to rest. It is written by the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese of Ossory, in reply to a communication by which he was invited to attend a meeting for promoting the Repeal of the Union:—
" Dear Sir—I was just leaving Kilkenny when I received your letter, requesting me to attach my name to a requisition for a Repeal meeting. The matter was too important for me to decide at the moment.
" I have always felt, that the very serious and onerous duties of my profession, left me but little time for matters of a nature purely political; and I have still so much reluctance to embark in political agitation, that I must beg most respectfully to decline signing the requisition you have sent me.
" But I hope my feelings on the present subject will not he mistaken. I have always believed that domestic legislation must, of its own nature, be the best means of promoting the happiness of a nation; and daily experience convinces me, that the serious evils under which Ireland labours, cannot be so easily removed by those who are ignorant of their causes, or indifferent to their results. Besides, I cannot but feel, that Ireland is not fully represented in the Imperial Parliament. It is to be deplored, that when the enthusiastic exertions of the Irish people, and the patriotic firmness of the Irish representatives, carried the Reform Bill against English majorities, Ireland did not receive her fair share of the advantages then obtained.
" It does not appear to me, that she has her due proportion of representatives in Parliament. She certainly has not a Parliamentary franchise equal in all respects to the English franchise; and, of course, she has not any thing like a proportionate number of Parliamentary electors.
" Under such circumstances, we cannot wonder, that the wants and wishes of the Irish people, even when made known by a large majority of Irish Members, are frequently treated with neglect, if not with contempt; and while such a system is pursued, it would be vain to expect that a loyal and high-minded people would abstain from seeking, by legal and constitutional means, that equality of civil rights which has been so often professed and promised, but not yet fully granted to this country.
" I have the honour to be, dear Sir,
" Very truly yours,"
"ઠW M. KINSELLA.
"JOSEPH H ACK ETT, ESQ."
Is there anything in that letter which is unworthy of a Christian Bishop, or of a sincere lover of his country? Yet its
634
writer arrives at the conclusion, that the interests of Ireland. require the restitution of its domestic legislature. I would further ask, those who believe that the agitation for the Repeal of the Union owes its vitality solely to the influence of Mr. O'Connell, how they account for the universal sympathy which prevails amongst foreign nations throughout the civilized world, all of whom, without exception, regard Ireland as suffering under oppression, and applaud every indication of a disposition to recover its national independence. For my own part, I am deeply convinced that the present demand for a Repeal of the Union is not a mere unreasoning clamour, raised to serve the purposes of Mr. O'Connell, or of any knot of individuals, but, that it results from the deliberate opinion of thousands of intelligent men, who have sunk into a feeling of settled despair of obtaining good government for their country through the instrumentality of British legislation. I am persuaded, that an increasing conviction has gradually obtained possession of the public mind in Ireland, which leads many to believe, that the interests and happiness of their country would be promoted by the restitution of self-government under the British Crown, in friendly connexion with the remainder of the empire. In arriving at this conclusion many natural feelings must be overcome—many objects of legitimate ambition must be surrendered. There is scarcely a family in the kingdom which is not united with this country by domestic ties? and the people of Ireland may well feel a pride in the greatness of your empire, when they reflect how much they have contributed to its extension. What then are the causes of that universal discontent which has found its expression in the present agitation for the Repeal of the Union? In seeking to develope these causes, I must content myself with merely adverting, in a summary manner, to the various elements which contribute to the general result. In endeavouring to penetrate the feelings of a people so sensitive as the Irish, it is not enough to consider whether the last act of injustice of which they complain is sufficient to produce the dissatisfaction which we witness. As they have been perhaps too I hasty in their disposition to bury in oblivion the memory of past injuries, when they have perceived a disposition on your

635
part to resort to a kindly and generous policy; so, when they view indications of a return to that system of misgovernment, under which they have suffered so much and so long, the accumulated wrongs of centuries recur to their recollection and inflame their discontent. The philosophic enquirer, who desires to trace national antipathies to their origin, would be compelled in order to estimate justly the feelings of the Irish people, to search the ancient records of our history. The necessity of compression requires me to dismiss in a few sentences every thing which occurred previous to the Union. The characteristic features of Irish history may be thus briefly described:—Our nation has unhappily been at all times prone to internal dissension. By taking advantage of those dissensions, the English power first obtained a footing in Ireland. By their promotion, conquest was extended. By stimulating and fostering successive rebellions, a pretext was obtained for continued confiscation, until nearly the whole soil of Ireland had been subjected to repeated forfeiture. These confiscations continued until the reign of William and Mary, and were followed by the atrocities of the penal code—a code worthy of the ingenious malice of a demon. The mass of the nation was placed in cruel bondage under the feet of the minority. At length the dominant party found that the interests of the country were sacrificed to their own ascendancy—that England was enabled, by thus dividing the Irish people, to oppress her trade and trample upon her independence, The American war called the nation to arms, and in 1782 the Irish people stood united as one man, presenting to England a demand for their national rights. All their requests, before contumeliously rejected, were now hastily conceded, and Ireland appeared in all the majesty of union and national greatness. Unhappily the same patriotic energy which had wrung from England freedom of trade and Parliamentary independence, was not applied to internal reforms. The nation relapsed into apathy; a rebellion the seeds of which were sown by the principles of the French revolution, acting upon a diseased condition of society, and which rebellion there is too much reason for believing to have been fomented by England, afforded a pretext for the Union. Still the Union could not have been ac-
636
complished without the basest corruption Every one knows that the Irish parliament consisted for the most part of nominees of an oligarchy. Two-thirds of the members of the Irish house of commons were named by individuals. That oligarchy Mr. Pitt bought by titles, by places, and by money. He deceived the Catholics by the promise of emancipation, and thus neutralized, to a certain extent, their opposition. In the mean time the people were prevented by armed force from assembling to petition, and the national voice was stifled in the utterance of its remonstrance. Thus, by the united influence of corruption, fraud, and force, an union was imposed upon Ireland, which has never been recognized by the Irish people as a national compact. Its terms were unjust and offensive, and accordingly they have produced in the continued discontent of the Irish nation, that retribution which always follows injustice. In passing under review some of the consequences of the union, we shall have no difficulty in discovering whence arises the desire for its abrogation. The first topic to which I shall advert, is its effect upon the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Upon this point the most extraordinary difference of opinion prevails in the two countries. One can scarcely meet a person in society in England who does not consider it a great hardship, that Ireland should be exempted from any of the taxes borne by England. The first Lord of the Treasury, Sir R. Peel, tells us that Ireland is treated in regard to taxation with peculiar indulgence. Yet in Ireland it is generally believed that grievous financial injustice is one of the consequences of the union. The light in which this question is regarded in Ireland may be stated as follows. At the time of the union, the debts of the two countries were respectively—

Debt.

Ann, Charge.

Funded debt of Britain in the year ended Jan. 5, 1801

£420,305,944

£15,800,106

Unfunded debt of Britain in the year ended Jan. 5, 1801 Exchequer Bills

26,080,100

766,480

£446,386,044

£16,566,586

Funded debtor Ireland, debt of Britain in the year ended Jan. 5, 1801 Exchequer Bills

£26,841,219

£1,150,284

Unfunded debt of Britain in the year ended Jan. 5, 1801 Treasury Bills

1,703,915

43,722

£28,545,134

£1,194,006

(Par. Paper, No, 256, Sess. 1824.)

637

Total annual charge for debt incurred by Great Britain previous to the Union

£16,566,586

Total annual charge for debt incurred, by Ireland

1,194,005

Difference, being the amount of separate taxation to which Great Britain is fairly liable on account of debt incurred previous to the Union

£15,572,580

Assuming that Ireland has been taxed in proportion to its resources equally with Great Britain since the union, there ought still to be this difference of taxation; otherwise, the poorer country is called upon to pay the debt incurred by the richer previous to the partnership. But instead of a separate taxation on Great Britain exceeding fifteen millions, the produce of all the taxes to which Great Britain is liable, and from which Ireland is still exempt, exclusive of the property-tax, does not now amount to much more than seven millions. The property tax will produce about five millions, of which a portion is derived from the tax on the incomes of Irish absentees. In order to show that Ireland contributed, to the extent of its resources, equally with Great Britain during the war, I will quote an extract from the report of the select committee of 1815, on the public income and expenditure of Ireland:—
" Your committee cannot but remark, that for several years Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain itself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, and including the extraordinary and war taxes. The permanent revenue of Great Britain having increased from the year 1801, when the amounts were first made to correspond in the proportion of 16½; to 10. The whole revenue of Great Britain (including war taxes), in the proportion of 21¼ to 10, and the revenues of Ireland in the proportion of 23 to 10. But in the twenty-four years referred to by your committee, the increase of Irish revenue has been in the proportion of 46¾ to 10."
The above statement was made by a Parliamentary committee at the close of the war. But it may be said, that in the remission of taxes since that time, greater indulgence has been shown to Ireland than to England. I have moved for a return of the amount of taxes affecting each kingdom, which have been repealed since 1814. That return has not yet been presented. I must therefore rely upon secondary authority, and quote the statement made by Mr. O'Connell, in the debate in the Corporation of Dublin, upon the Repeal of the Union, in which he computed that the produce of taxes
638
affecting Great Britain which have been repealed, amounts to 47,214,338 l.; whilst during the same period the taxes repealed which affected Ireland, amounted only to 1,57.5,940 l., being one-thirtieth. Whereas in the imposition of taxes, it was computed that Ireland ought to be subjected to a burthen proportionate to that of Great Britain in the ratio of 2 to 15, or 7½ to 1. The financial jugglery by which Ireland has been brought in as a debtor to Great Britain, has been as follows. Mr. Pitt, in dictating the terms of the Union, assumed that Ireland could pay towards the general expenses of the United Kingdom a contribution in the proportion of 2–17ths, or 1 to 7½, although the previous revenue of Ireland had borne to the revenue of Great Britain the proportion of less than 1 to 12. Separate accounts were kept for each kingdom. Loan was added to loan, and placed to the account of Ireland, although over such loans Ireland had no control until at length the Irish revenue was unable to meet the interest on the nominal debt so accumulated against it. In the mean time taxation had been carried in Ireland to that point at which increased taxation produced a diminution instead of an increase of revenue. At length in 1816, the exchequers of the two countries were consolidated, and since that period successive attempts have been made to assimilate the taxation of Ireland to that of Great Britain, until the Irish people will have the privilege of contributing equally with the English towards the payment of the charge on the debt incurred by Great Britain previously to the Union. The people of Ireland are unable to perceive the justice of these financial arrangements; and they feel indignant when they are told upon every occasion on which a grant of 10,000 l. may be required for Irish objects, that they do not contribute in their fair proportion to the taxation of the United Kingdom, and that England ought not for ever to be made a "milchcow" to Ireland. Those who desire a Repeal of the Union contend, that if that measure were to take place, the financial relations of the two countries would be adjusted on a footing more favourable to Ireland than that on which they at present stand, and that either the taxes upon the principal articles of consumption, such as tea, sugar, malt, tobacco, &c., would be reduced to the standard which prevailed previous to the Union, or that

639
the surplus revenue of Ireland would be applied to the promotion of local improvements. For my own part I am fully aware that is a subject of great intricacy, and although upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the Irish view of this question is founded on justice, yet undoubtedly much may be said on the part of England, which would lead to a different conclusion. All that I have to ask, therefore, in reference to this branch of my subject, is, that a committee of intelligent and impartial men should be appointed, who may listen to the statements of those who consider that Ireland has sustained a wrong in consequence of the Union, and that the financial relations of the two countries may, for the future, be placed upon some defined and well-understood basis, so that we may not be for ever taunted with endeavouring to escape our fair share of taxation, at the very time at which those who have given most consideration to the subject, are of opinion that Ireland has been unjustly dealt with in regard to matters of finance. Next in the train of consequences which followed the Union, is to be noticed the increase of absenteeism. There are two classes of absentees. One class consists of great English proprietors who have obtained by confiscation large tracts of territory in Ireland. As an instance I may mention, that the greater part of one county, Londonderry, belongs to the London companies. This class is almost of necessity permanently non-resident. It is scarcely to be expected that the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Lansdowne should live continually in Ireland, whilst they have superior inducements to reside in this country. The other class of absentees consists of the nobility and gentry of Ireland, who were in the habit of resorting to Dublin previous to the Union, but who are now naturally attracted to the seat of Government, and whose views and associations become gradually interwoven with English rather than with Irish interests. It is believed, that this latter class would be immediately brought back to Ireland by a Repeal of the Union, and with respect to the permanent absentees, it is conceived that a moderate tax, which would be imposed by the Irish Parliament upon non-residence, would compel them either to sell their estates, or to reside in Ireland for a portion of the year, or to yield a pecuniary contribution towards those useful
640
objects which would be promoted without such contribution by their residence. It is only an act of justice to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), to acknowledge, that to a trifling extent he has conferred a boon upon Ireland, by his imposition of a tax upon absentees, in connection with the Property-tax. He would now do well to act upon the suggestion thrown out a few evenings since by the noble Lord the Member for Newark, (Lord John Manners) and apply to the purposes of local improvement in Ireland the proceeds of the tax upon Irish absentees. Such a measure is the more justifiable, because in estimating the revenue to be derived from Ireland by the imposition of new taxes as her equivalent for the Income-tax, he did not place to its credit the amount derivable from this source. Not only did Ireland lose by the Union the advantages resulting from the residence and expenditure of a large portion of the wealthier classes, but the drain upon her resources has been still further augmented by the gradual abstraction of all her public establishments. Upon grounds of economy and general policy, I am far from objecting to any consolidation of the public departments which may be attended with diminution of expense, and greater uniformity and vigour of administration; but in withdrawing from Ireland the various fiscal establishments which existed previous to the Union, an attempt ought to have been made to compensate in some other manner the pecuniary loss sustained by such withdrawal. Many opportunities of making such compensation have been neglected. As an instance, let us see how Parliament has dealt with Ireland in regard to the naval expenditure of the United Kingdom. None of the harbours of England can rival those which we possess. How advantageously some of them are situated for naval expeditions, is proved by the recent rendezvous at Cork, of a fleet destined for some peculiar service, which appears to have a reference to the affairs of the Peninsula; yet there does not exist in Ireland a single naval dockyard. In this country there are nine—Deptford, Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Pembroke, Deal, North Yarmouth. In Ireland there is only a small victualling establishment at Cove. I asked a short time since for a return which would have shown the proportion of the amount voted on the navy

641
estimates, which, during the last twenty years, has been expended in Ireland. That return having been refused, I have been compelled to make the computation for myself. The results are not placed before the House in so authentic a form as if they had emanated from the department, but I believe that the following statement will be found quite accurate. I have carefully examined the navy estimates for the current year 1843–44, and I find that out of a gross expenditure of 6,579,960 l., not more than 10,000 l. will be expended in Ireland, exclusive of the small amount of provisions now purchased there. If it be said that this comparison of the aggregate expenditure, with the amount expended in Ireland, is fallacious, because the naval service of Great Britain is carried on in every quarter of the world; this remark does not at least apply to those heads of the naval expenditure which are of a local character. Let the comparison then be confined to those heads:—

Gross estimate for 1843–44.

To be expended in Ireland.

Admiralty Office

£125,459

none.

Establishments at home

126,813

about £500

Wages to artificers in establishments at home

591,951

about 500

Naval stores

1,117,895

none.

New works and repairs in yards

234,868

none 118

Packet service for the Post-office

430,702

noun 9,000

for conveyance of mails between Kingstown and Liverpool—half of which amount ought to be placed to the account of England. With respect to the army the case is different. I admit that Ireland enjoys a fair proportion of the expenditure of the army, but it has never been insinuated, that any portion of the British army has been stationed in Ireland with a view to give to that country the advantages resulting from its expenditure. The motive which has led to its being placed there is, that the public tranquillity may be secured; and in proportion as that end has been attained by other means, the military force has been withdrawn. Those who argue against a Repeal of the Union, talk largely of the advantages which must result to a poor country from being associated with one wealthier than itself. If
642
such language has any meaning, it must be, that there is a constant tendency which attracts the surplus wealth from the richer to the poorer country. We had already seen what has been the result of the Union with reference to the expenditure of the incomes of private individuals. Let us now see whether the financial intercourse of a public nature between the two countries, in any degree compensates for the drain upon the resources of Ireland which arises from absenteeism. I find by a parliamentary paper which was laid on the Table during the Session of 1842, No. 305, that the balance of remittances between the exchequers of the two kingdoms for a specified period, stands as follows:

Remitted from the Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer between 1795 and 5th Jan. 1842

£25,995,453

Remitted from the British Exchequer to the Irish during the same period

8,331,274

Balance remitted from the Irish to the British Exchequer

17,664,179

In order to show that the causes which have produced this result are still in operation, I may mention that of the above amount of 25,995,453 l., the portion remitted from the Irish to the British Exchequer during the nine years ended 5th January, 1842, was

£6,355,000

Whilst during the same period there was remitted from the British to the Irish Exchequer only

80,000

Balance of remittance from the Irish to the British Exchequer.

6,275,000

Being upon an average an annual remittance of about

700,000

Now, those who seek for a Repeal of the Union, believe that instead of such an annual tribute being sent out of their country, the supplies voted by an Irish Parliament would be expended in Ireland, by Irishmen, for the benefit of Ireland. Is it wise to allow the Irish people to feel, that in regard to the financial connection between the two countries, the condition of Ireland is worse under the Legislative Union, than it would be if the Irish Parliament were restored? During the twenty-eight years which immediately followed the Union, all the energies of the Irish nation were concentrated upon the struggle of the Catholics for emancipation,

643
either in resistance to or in support of their claims. I presume it will not be contended that the conduct of Parliament with reference to this question, was calculated to create any very strong feeling in the minds of the Irish nation in favour of British legislation. The Catholics considered that they had been betrayed by Mr. Pitt, when they saw him return to power without stipulating for the fulfilment of the promises which he had held out to them. Their just rights were withheld by the Anti-catholic prejudices of the English people, so long as they could be denied with safety; and at length when they were conceded, not to a sense of justice, but to apprehensions of a civil war, they were granted in a jealous spirit, and accompanied by offensive conditions. For six years the Catholic Relief Bill remained a dead fetter in regard to appointments to office. It had, indeed, given to the Roman Catholics increased power, but although it declared their eligibility to official station, yet, with the exception of a few individuals, they remained practically excluded. At length, under Lord Normanby's Government, the principle of perfect equality was Carried into full effect. He endeared himself to the Catholic population of Ireland, by having been the first viceroy since the Revolution of 1688, who did not make the profession of the national faith a ground of exclusion from office. Nor can it be said, that he showed an undue preference for Catholics, for it has been repeatedly stated, that of the persons appointed to situations under his Government, a majority were Protestants. I charge the present Government. with having returned to the former system of exclusion, and I undertake to show, that though the Catholics are nominally admissible to every situation, yet that practically they have been all but proscribed. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) has refused me a return which would have shewn the religious persuasion of every person who has been appointed to any situation under Government since his accession to office; but I have reason to think that the following list is nearly perfect as regards the principal appointments made under his administration. It shows the proportion of Roman Catholics advanced to office in a country of which above four-fifths of the population profess the Roman Catholic faith.
644

Lord de Grey

Lord Lieutenant

Protestant.

Lord Eliot

Chief Secretary

Protestant.

Mr. Lucas

Under Secretary

Protestant.

Sir Edward Sugden

Lord Chancellor

Protestant.

Pennefather

Chief Justice

Protestant.

Blackburne

Master of the Rolls

Protestant.

Lefroy

Baron of the Exchqr.

Protestant.

Jackson

Justice of the Com. Pleas

Protestant.

T. C. Smith

Attorney-General

Protestant.

Greene

Solicitor-General

Protestant.

Brewster

Advising Counsel to the Castle

Protestant.

Litton

Master in Chancery

Protestant.

Mr. Long

Register to the Court of Chancery

Protestant.

Mr. Kemmis

Chairman of Kilmainham

Protestant.

Messrs. Tombe, Jebb, and O'Dwyer.

Counsel to the Excise..

Protestant.

Mr. A. Bate

Clerk of the Crown for Co. Galway

Protestant.

Mr. Seed

Clerk of the Crown for the Co. Limerick

Protestant.

Mr. Starkey

Account-Gen. to Ct. of Chancery

Protestant.

Mr. Welsh

Dep. Keeper of the Rolls

Protestant.

Major Cottingham

Inspector of Convicts.,

Protestant.

Mr. Shaw

Stipendiary Magistrate

Protestant.

Mr. Brereton

Stipendiary Magistrate

Protestant.

Mr. Butler

Crown Prosecutor of Carlow

Protestant.

The above are all Protestants. Now compare the list of Catholics appointed to office:—

Mr. Coppinger

Assist. Barrister for Kildare

R. Catholic,

Mr. O'Leary

An Officer in the Ct. of Chancery

R. Catholic,

Mr. Kernan

Stipendiary Magistrate

R. Catholic,

Three Catholics appointed to subordinate situations, against which are to be placed two dismissals of Catholics without cause—those of Mr. O'Brien, stipendiary magistrate, and of Dr. Phelan, assistant Poor-law Commissioner—for whose removal from office no reasonable ground has yet been assigned. The House, from this statement, will be able to judge whether the present Government has been partial or impartial in its distribution of patronage between Protestants and Catholics. It is no sufficient answer to say, as has been said in justification of the Government, that they cannot be expected to appoint to office their political opponents. This answer involves the admission that they have forfeited the confidence of the whole Catholic population of Ireland. They first adopt a line of policy which calls forth the hostility of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and then they make such hostility the ground of their perpetual exclusion from office. But the fact is, that in reality they were not reduced to such a dilemma. With regard to appointments of a political nature, I

645
quite agree that they could not with propriety have taken into their confidence men who had been active partisans of a rival Administration; but in regard to judicial station, it is very questionable, under the present circumstances of Ireland, whether a Government ought to declare, that none of those who peculiarly possess the confidence of the great body of the population, shall be selected for such situations. But even if I were to admit, that they could not be expected to raise to the bench such men as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Pigott), still there are many other Roman Catholics in Ireland, whose moderation in politics would have permitted their appointment to office by the present Government. Amongst many whose names occur to me, I shall only mention one, and I select him chiefly because his name is familiar to the House, and because he has been often mentioned with commendation by Gentlemen of the Conservative party—I allude to Mr. Howley, the assistant barrister for Tipperary. I find that in regard to professional standing—a point insisted upon in a former debate by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—he was admitted to the bar earlier than the present Attorney-general; and his other professional qualifications would have justified his nomination to some of those offices which have been filled with persons whose chief merit appears to have been hostility to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. The next great legislative measure by which the interests of Ireland have been affected, was the Reform Act. It will be admitted, that the Reform Bill could not have been carried, if it had not been supported by the votes of a majority of the Irish representatives. Yet, in the adjustment of the representation, the claims of Ireland were overlooked. Previously to the Reform Act both Ireland and Scotland had reason to complain that they were not represented adequately in proportion to their population and resources, in comparison with England; but Scotland had less reason for complaint than Ireland. Yet Scotland obtained an addition of eight Members, whilst only five were given to Ireland. This injustice was the more flagrant, because even Lord Castlereagh, when computing, at the time of the Union, the number of Members to which Ireland was then entitled, could not, though he took the most unfavourable view of its
646
claim, reduce the number below 108. Notwithstanding such computation, the British Ministry gave to Ireland at the Union eight Members less than the number to which, by their own admission, it was entitled. It might have been expected therefore, that in re-constructing the representative system of the United Kingdom, this injustice would have been redressed. Let us now examine the claims of Ireland with reference to representation, The most natural foundation for representation is population. I believe, that in the formation of new states in the confederation of the United States, population is the sole basis on which the representative system is constructed. The whole population of the United Kingdom in 1841 was 26,717,091 persons, to which aggregate Ireland contributed 8,175,238 persons. The whole number of Members in the House of Commons being 658, if the number to be assigned to Ireland were proportionate to its population, Ireland would he entitled to more than 200 representatives. If other elements, such as revenue, exports and imports, rental, be made, conjointly with population, the basis of the computation, this number would be reduced, according to some calculations, to 170 Members—according to others, to a still lower number; but no calculation which Can be made on the part of Ireland, will reduce our claim to less than 125 Members, being twenty more than we now possess. The detail of the injustice which Ireland has suffered in reference to its representation, is even more striking than the general view here presented. The corrupt borough of Harwich, with its population of 3,829 persons, together with the nomination borough of Ripon, possess as much influence in the Legislature as the county of Tipperary (including the Members for Cashel and Clonmle), with its population of 435,553, and its rental of 886,439 l. Again, compare the representation of Dorsetshire with that of the county of Galway. The area of Dorsetshire is 627,220 acres; its real property assessed to poor-rate in 1841, 735,234 l.; its population in 1841, 174,743 persons; the number of its Members—County 3, Bridport 2, Dorchester 2, Poole 2, Lyme Regis 1, Shaftesbury 1, Wareham 1, Weymouth 2—total 11. The area of Galway is—county 1,485,533 acres, town 25,059 acres—total 1,510,592 acres; the rental, as estimated by Griffith—county 850,000 l.,

647
town (excluding the value of the houses) 18,894 l.—total rental 868,894 l.; and if the value of the houses in the town be included, not less than 900,000 l. per annum. The population in 1841 was—county 422,923, town 17,275 — total 440,198. Members—county 2, town 2 —total Members 4. In each of the particulars of area, rental, and population, Galway greatly exceeds Dorsetshire. Yet Dorsetshire has 14 representatives, while Galway enjoys only 4. Though the claim of Ireland to increased representation is scarcely more acceptable to the party on this side of the House, than to that which sits on the opposite Benches, I am bound to say that 1 consider this claim as of primary importance, not only with reference to the interests of Ireland, but also in regard to the ease and satisfaction with which that country may be governed. I do not urge its importance on account of the opportunities of distinction which seats in Parliament afford to the active and ambitious minds of a community, nor on account of the patronage which naturally follows representation, nor even on account of the advantages which parliamentary influence carries with it in the competition of local interests. These considerations ought not indeed to be overlooked. Suppose, for instance, a question arises as to which is the most eligible harbour for a packet station—that of Falmouth or that of Cork—and that the advantages of each are nearly balanced, is it not obvious that the pressure made upon the administration by forty or fifty members connected with the west of England will overbear the representations of ten or twelve members connected with the south of Ireland. The most disadvantageous result, however, arising from inadequate representation, is the necessity which it creates for perpetual agitation. In England the Government bends at once to the voice of public opinion, as spoken by a majority of the English representatives; but it is enabled to defy the opinion of Ireland, as expressed by its Members in Parliament, in consequence of the paucity of their number. Hence arises the necessity for constant excitement in Ireland, to reinforce and give effect to the representations of the Irish Members. Thus the seeming advantage which England appears to possess over Ireland in regard to representation, is countervailed by an extraneous power
648
created by your injustice, which repairs by an action on the Government of a character by no means desirable in itself, the wrong committed towards Ireland. If the number of our representatives is inadequate, not less so is the constituency by whom they are elected. I shall not now accept the challenge offered by the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, (Lord Stanley,) to institute a comparison between the Parliamentary franchise of England and that of Ireland. It is scarcely possible to adjust the elements required for such a comparison, because there are some franchises in England to which we have in Ireland none analogous. The conclusion, however, to be drawn from a comparison of the number of persons qualified to vote in each country, sufficiently proves, that in proportion to its population and resources, Ireland does not possess an electoral body nearly as numerous as that of England. The population of Ireland in 1841 was 8,175,238 persons. The number of electors registered between the 1st February, 1835, and the 1st February, 1843, was as follows:—Counties, 63,389: Cities, 27,091; Boroughs, 19,465.—Total 109,945, being less by 14,332 than the number registered during the five years previous to the 1st of February, 1837. But, inasmuch as this registry extends over a period of eight years, a large deduction, probably not less than one-third, ought to be made for double registries, deaths, and expiration of title. After these deductions have been made, the actual number of persons qualified to vote, cannot be assumed to be more than 80,000, or say one per cent. on the population. If property be regarded as the legitimate basis of the franchise, the number of electors is almost equally inadequate in reference to this test. Assuming the rental of Ireland to be 15,000,000 l. per annum, which is not far from the truth, there would not be more than one elector for every 187 l. 10 s. of rental. Now, in the first year after the Reform Act, the proportion of electors to population in England was, in Counties as 1 to 24, and in Boroughs and Cities as 1 to 17. The number of electors in England has since that time considerably increased. In Ireland the constituency is yearly diminishing. So much for the general view. Now look at the detail. Assuming first that the Parliamentary franchise ought to be commensurate with

649
population, let us compare the number of electors in two counties of Ireland and England in which the population is nearly the same—Mayo and Lincolnshire. In Mayo, which has only two representatives, the population in 1841 was 388,887 persons. The number of electors registered between the 1st February, 1835, and the 1st February, 1843, was 1494. This number is subject to a deduction of say one-third for double registries, deaths, and loss of title. In Lincolnshire, which is represented by eleven members, the population was in 1841, 362,717 persons, the number of electors qualified to vote in 1840 was, county electors, 18,876—town electors, 3,999—Total, 22,875. But if it be said that the franchise ought not to be proportionate to population, but to property, let us compare two counties in regard to rateable property. In Meath the population amounted in 1841 to 183,828 persons; the rateable rental according to the townland valuation, which is much below the actual rent, to 527,.5931.; the number of electors registered between the 1st of February, 1835, and 1st February, 1438, 1841, subject to deduction for double registries, deaths, and loss of qualifications. In Westmoreland the population was in 1841, 56,469 persons; the real property rated to poor rate in 1841 was 266,335 l.; the number of electors qualified to vote in 1840 was, county, 4,480; town, (Kendal,) 351; total, 4,831. Now, if Meath had a constituency as large as that of Westmoreland, in proportion to the real property of each county, Meath would have about 9,000 electors instead of 1,481 upon the registry, of whom probably not more than 1,000 are qualified to vote. Will any one who has followed me in this comparison, contend that the Irish parliamentary franchise is more liberal than that of England? But it is not enough that the parliamentary franchise of Ireland is of so restricted a nature, as almost to deprive our representation of the character of popular election. It is not enough that the constituencies are year by year dwindling away. The conservative party of Great Britain have still further sought, by the most unjustifiable and unconstitutional expedients to frustrate the choice of the electors of Ireland in their selection of members who possess the confidence of the community. The people of Ireland have not forgotten the manner in which, at the time of the Spottiswoode
650
subscription, you raised a cry against their representatives, and endeavoured to expel them from their seats, by bringing the power of money into action against them, under favour of the partial constitution of election committees. Neither have they forgotten the attempt made by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to filch away their franchise under the cover of a registration bill. What is your present position with regard to this bill? When it was brought forward the people of Ireland denounced it as an insidious attempt to diminish the constituency. The noble Lord at that time vehemently protested that he had no such design, and that the bill would have no such effect; yet, the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, (Sir J. Graham,) announced to the House a few nights since, that after careful consideration, he had found that it would be impossible for him to frame any registration bill which would not have the effect of diminishing the county electors of Ireland, and that, therefore, he was preparing to afford some compensation for this result of the measure which he was about to propose, by an enlargement of the franchise. With regard to the necessity of a registration bill, all parties have been unanimous. The liberal party have suffered from the want of such a measure even more than their antagonists. My hon. Friend, the Member for the county of Longford (Mr. Lefroy,) will permit me to say, that he owes his seat in this House to the defects of our registration system. His opponent was returned by a majority which considerably exceeded 100, (I forget the exact number,) but was displaced from his seat, because the present state of the law allowed the committee to take upon themselves the office of the revising barrister, and to remove from the poll persons whose right to vote ought to have been finally established at the time of their registration. Such being the case, if the noble Lord had been simply desirous to give to Ireland a good system of registration, and had referred his bill to a committee consisting of members from both sides of the House, a measure might have been agreed upon in a week, which would have accomplished the legitimate objects of registration, without annihilating the franchises of the Irish people. But such a course would not have served the purposes of party. The majorities obtained by the late opposition in the various stages

651
of this bill, were invaluable instruments of party warfare, and it became in fact the "cheval de bataille" upon which they rode into office. Whilst the conservative party was in opposition, this measure was one of paramount importance in their eyes. They could not brook the delay of a single night in their attempts to advance it in its different stages. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) even volunteered to tell the House that he had left the bedside of a near relation in order to be present at its discussion. Yet, the same statesmen who were at that period eager to pass this bill with such breathless haste, in opposition to the remonstrances of the Irish people, have been now two years in power without even venturing to lay upon the table of the House, any bill for the registration of electors in Ireland. We who think that no measure which they could bring forward, would be framed in a spirit favourable to the rights of the Irish people, have, perhaps, reason to thank them for their forbearance; but I would appeal even to Irish Members on the opposite Benches, and ask them whether there is any party in Ireland which does not feel indignant, when they find their national interests thus made the stalking horse of English faction. In considering the constitutional representation of Ireland in the imperial legislature, I must not altogether omit to notice the injustice which was inflicted on the nobility of Ireland by the terms of the Union. The equivalent given to the Irish House of Peers, in compensation for their extinction as a separate branch of the Irish parliament, was the introduction into the British House of Lords of only twenty eight representative Peers. The position of the Irish nobility is marked by a degrading inferiority. The Irish peerage is a sort of hybrid dignity. An Irish Lord is something between a peer and a commoner, without the faculties of either. He is excluded from his natural place in the House of Lords, and yet cannot exercise many of the privileges of a commoner; he cannot sit on grand juries; he cannot vote at elections; he cannot sit in the House of Commons as the representative of an Irish constituency. I have often been surprised how any man of good family can consent to remain in so ambiguous a position. Perhaps it may be said, that as the majority of the Irish House of Lords were consenting parties to the Union, they
652
have, therefore, no reason to Complain; rut this remark does not apply to the dissenting minority and their descendants. So long, however, as they acquiesce without complaint in their degradation, the Parliament of Great Britain can scarcely be blamed for allowing it to be perpetuated. Let us now pass in review the principal measures relating to Ireland, which have been brought forward since the enactment of the Reform Bill. The first of these measures was the coercion bill. I cannot advert to this violation of the constitutional liberties of Ireland, without implicating in Censure many of the Friends who sit around me. I will, therefore, content myself with saying, that this measure at least was not calculated to inspire the people of Ireland with any great confidence in the British Legislature. The next Irish question to which the attention of Parliament was directed was that of the Irish Church. As no redress has yet been afforded with reference to this grievance, I am compelled to dwell upon this topic at more length. Let me first state the relative numbers of the several religious communities existing in Ireland, as ascertained in 1834 by the commissioners of public instruction.

Members of the Established Church

852,064

Presbyterians

642,356

Other Dissenters

21,808

Roman Catholics

6,427,712

7,943,940

Now I would ask any man of common sense on either side of the House, whether it is possible that any nation could be contented with an ecclesiastical system which provides a religious establishment for the Church of so small a minority of the people, whilst the remainder of the population are excluded from similar advantages. Would the people of England tolerate such an arrangement, if it were possible to conceive the existence for a single hour of such an anomaly in England? What would be their opinion as to the chances of contentment in any foreign country in which they should find (if there be a ease parallel on the face of the globe) such a system in force? The answer is obvious. It can excite no surprise that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should make every effort in their power to extricate themselves from a position which necessarily impresses them with a sense of

653
inferiority. It might naturally be expected, that they should, through their representatives, apply to Parliament for relief from the encumbrance of an establishment from which they derive no benefit, and demand that the national property now in the possession of the Protestant Church, should be applied to uses of a national character, from which the whole people would derive benefit. They refrained from taking this course when the subject was under consideration. They only asked that the expenditure upon the Protestant Church should be brought down to the lowest point compatible with a due provision for the religious instruction of the Protestant Episcopalians of Ireland, and that the surplus revenue should be appropriated to purposes in which Catholic and Protestant have a common interest. This moderate request, urged during several successive years, was denied by the British Legislature. It might have at least been expected, that when Parliament expressed its determination to uphold the Protestant establishment in all its integrity, it would have said to the Roman Catholics of Ireland,—We disapprove of the voluntary principle, and cannot consent to reduce the revenues of the Protestant Church, which do not appear to us excessive in relation to the religious wants of the Protestant community; but recognising your clergy as de facto the religious ministers of the great majority of the Irish nation, we are prepared to offer to them every advantage which it is consistent with their sense of religious duty to accept. We are told by you, that you are averse to the establishment of an independent provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. We cannot therefore force it upon your acceptance—but if you can point out any other mode by which we may be enabled to shew that we are not desirous to establish an invidious distinction in favour of the Protestant clergy in the midst of a Roman Catholic population, or by which we can promote the comfort of your clergy to your satisfaction, we are most ready to entertain with favour such a proposal. It is possible that the Roman Catholics of Ireland might at that time have been willing to accept from the state, not a stipendiary provision, but advantages of a different kind. I have reason to know, for instance, that the greatest possible inconvenience is sustained by the Catholic clergy,
654
from the difficulty which they experience, particularly in Country parishes, in obtaining a place of residence upon their first induction to a living. Why should not the state, if it resolves to uphold a Protestant endowment, make provision also fur the purchase of glebe houses for the Catholic clergy. So also with regard to the erection of Roman Catholic churches. If you determine to apply out of a fund which belongs to the public at large, grants for the erection of Protestant churches, ought not a sense of justice to tell you, that similar contributions should be coffered in aid of the Construction of places of worship for the great body of the Irish population. But instead of thus treating the Catholic clergy with consideration and respect, and instead of making arrangements for the convenience of the Catholic population in regard to their religious worship, you have exasperated their feelings by the contumely with which they have been treated, not only by the press of this country, but also in discussions in Parliament. Even the miserable grant for Maynooth college cannot pass through this House, without furnishing topics for invective and insult against the Roman Catholic clergy. 1s it surprising then, that they should, almost without exception, strenuously advocate the Repeal of' the Union. For my own part, if I were au Irish Catholic clergyman, I would leave no efforts untried to obtain a dissolution of the Union. It is obvious, that in an Irish parliament their interests and feelings would be treated in a very different spirit. I do not say, that there would be a Catholic ascendancy, for I do not believe that the Catholic population of Ireland desire such an ascendancy, but they would at least be placed upon a footing of perfect equality with the other religious communities in regard to ecclesiastical arrangements. But it is not only the Roman Catholics who have reason to complain of the mode in which the present Government have dealt with the affairs of the Irish Church. Great abuses still exist in its internal system. The Protestant landlords, who now pay the tithes, are beginning to be very much discontented on finding themselves called upon to contribute considerable sums of money, for which neither they nor the community at large receive any value. I will not now take upon myself the invidious task of

655
enumerating, these abuses in detail. Their existence was frequently admitted by the present Ministry when the subject was formerly under discussion. Yet they have been two years in office, without having given even an indication of an intention to apply themselves to the correction of the acknowledged defects and abuses of the Irish Church. In treating the whole of this subject, I feel that there is, under present circumstances, great difficulty in offering any practical suggestion for its final settlement. The principle for which I am myself disposed to contend is, that in relation to Church affairs there should be perfect equality between the different sections of the population of Ireland. I will not conceal from the House, that the mode of producing such equality, which would be most acceptable to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, would be the adoption of the voluntary principle: but if Parliament is not prepared to resort to so extreme a measure let it recognize to the fullest extent such religious equality, by making whatever arrangements for the advantage of the Catholic population of Ireland in regard to their religious worship shall be found acceptable to them, and consistent with their conscientious views. I wish particularly to guard myself from the supposition that I desire that the tithes should be given to the landlords of Ireland. For my own part, having always, upon political grounds, (although in regard to the interests of religion I am not equally convinced of the inexpediency of the voluntary system,) inclined to the opinion that an endowment by the State for the religious ministers of the population is desirable, I think that instead of making so large an allowance to the landlords, it would have been a much wiser course to have superadded the 25 per cent. which was taken from the tithe property in Ireland, to whatever surplus might arise from a reduction of the Protestant establishment within its just limits, and to have appropriated the fund so created, to the religious purposes of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Next in the catalogue of Irish measures is the Act of Reform of the Municipal Corporations. I fear that your conduct with reference to this question affords but too much justification for those who seek a Repeal of the Union. How was it treated by the British Parliament? When you passed, with the concurrence of both sides of the House, a
656
measure of corporate reform for England, it seemed to be a natural consequence that you should extend to Ireland a similar enactment. Instead of doing so, you refused for two years your assent to anything beyond the extinction of the former corporations. On what grounds? Simply because the people of Ireland professed the Roman Catholic faith. If there had been any doubt about your motives, these doubts were removed by the declaration of the person whom you have since made Lord Chancellor of England. He told the people of Ireland that they were not to enjoy the benefit of municipal institutions, because they were "aliens in blood, in language, and in religion." At length you found that your party interests would be injured if you persisted in resistance to the reform of our municipalities. You therefore consented to subject the corporations of Ireland to popular control, but you contrived to embarrass the measure with a variety of harassing restrictions, apparently with no other view than that of rendering it nugatory. Such conduct, founded on an unworthy distrust of the Irish people, has naturally called forth their resentment. Let me elucidate the difficulties with which corporate reform has been encumbered in Ireland, by referring to the case of Dublin. In order to qualify for the exercise of the municipal franchise in Dublin, it is necessary to pay sixteen local taxes. I will enumerate them as stated in a recent report from the corporation of Dublin:ߞ1. Poor-rate; 2. Parish-cess; 3. Minister's-money; 9. Grand Jury-cess; 5. Paving and Lighting-tax; 6. Wide-street-tax; 7. Police-tax; 8. Pipe-water-tax; 9. Borough-rate; 10. Stephen's-green-tax; 11. Poddle-tax; 12. Cholera-tax; 13. Mountjoysquare-tax; 14. George's-church-tax; 15. Quay-wall-tax; 16. Merrion squaretax. The claim for making out lists of the above taxes in 1841, amounted to 926 l.; and the costs of printing the lists required by the Irish Municipal Act was, for Dublin, no less than 5,000 l. Surely there is nothing unreasonable in the demand with which this statement is accompanied, that the corporate law of Ireland should be assimilated to that of England, and the refusal of this reasonable request, is one of the many causes which have induced the people of Ireland to seek for a Repeal of the Union. I now

657
come to the Irish Poor-law. Here again I have to complain of the overbearing spirit which has been evinced towards Ireland, both in the enactment and in the administration of this law. After long hesitation the public opinion of Ireland at length pronounced itself in favour of a provision for the poor. The principle and the details of such a measure were thoroughly canvassed by men of the highest intelligence in Ireland. A commission of enquiry composed, for the most part, of men perfectly acquainted with that country, was occupied for three years in investigating every circumstance which could form an element in the consideration of this question, and at length presented to Parliament a series of reports containing elaborate statements of their views. Their suggestions were cast aside, almost as if they had been unworthy of consideration; and to Mr. Nicholls, a perfect stranger to the country, was delegated the task of framing a Poor-law for Ireland. He has since been invested with powers almost absolute, in order to enable him to carry his own law into effect. What has been the result? The law which, in regard to many points, was originally defective and objectionable in its provisions has been so administered, as that the feelings of every class of the community have been wounded, and a general feeling of repugnance has been produced against the measure itself. Nor can we be surprised at such a result, when we are made sensible of the anti-national spirit in which it has been administered. It seems to have been established as a principle, that Irish- men were wholly disqualified for the task of carrying this law into effect, and that entire ignorance of the country to which it was applied, as well as of the feelings of its inhabitants, was to be the best recommendation of those who were called to take part in its administration. Let me place before the House a view of the composition of the Poor-law department in Ireland. There are six English assistant commissioners, and only four Irish!—Mr. Gulson, Mr. Power, Mr. Voules, Mr. Senior, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Muggeridge— English. Mr. Hancock, Mr. O'Donoghue, Mr. Burke, Mr. Otway—Irish. In the chief clerk's department there are three Englishmen—none Irish. In the registry department, four English and four Irish. In the head cash-keeper's department, one English and one Irish. In the copying
658
department, one English and seven Irish. In the architect's department, (the architect himself being an Englishman,) five English and four Irish. Total—fifteen English — nineteen Irish. It thus appears that of the clerks in these offices, the majority are Irish, but it was only in April, 1843, that by the addition of six Irish clerks that majority was produced. The English, it is to be observed, are in the higher offices; the Irish in the lower, with lesser salaries. Universal dissatisfaction has been excited by the manner in which these officials, perhaps from ignorance of the country, have carried the Poor-law into effect. At the commencement of this year, a general desire for enquiry pervaded all classes of the community, with a view to the correction of the system. When an Irish Member in obedience to the wishes of his constituents, brought forward a motion for a committee of enquiry, an attempt was first made to stifle the discussion, by resorting to the expedient of counting the House, and when this attempt failed, the motion was rejected, on the plausible ground, that as the Government were prepared to bring forward a bill for the amendment of the Irish Poor-law, a committee of enquiry would rather impede than expedite the correction of its defects. At length the promised bill appears, and it is found to be so framed, as to lay the foundation for two new popular grievances, whilst its other enactments are of most doubtful expediency. Is it surprising that the people of Ireland, when they find their most important local concerns thus contemptuously and clumsily treated, should deduce from this experience the conclusion, that the British Parliament is incapable of properly legislating for a country with respect 'to whose feelings and interests it is so imperfectly informed. The last specimen of British legislation for Ireland is the Arms Bill—resistance to which has occupied so much of that time which ought to have been bestowed on the consideration of remedial measures. The conduct of the present ministry with regard to this bill, has been most offensive to the Irish people. They have collected together all the unconstitutional clauses of former Arms Bills, which having been enacted during periods of insurrection, had become obsolete after the emergency which justified their original introduction had passed away, They have called upon

659
us not only to give to these obnoxious clauses a new sanction by their formal reenactment, but they even propose to render them still more harsh and oppressive. In vain do the Irish Members who represent the wishes of the great body of the nation, remonstrate against this proceeding. Their voice is altogether unheeded, and this odious law is to be forced by English majorities upon a reluctant nation. How can you blame the Irish people for seeking to abstract themselves from a system of legislation which is thus regardless of their representations and remonstrances? So much for past legislation. If I were now to advert to all that has been left undone, I could make out a case perhaps even stronger on the ground of commission than of commission, against the British Government and Legislature. In order to avoid trespassing too much on your time, I must content myself with noticing only one or two instances. Let me advert to your proceedings with regard to the proposal to construct a system of railways in Ireland. Those who pay any attention to what passes on the other side of the channel, know that when an attempt was made in the early part of the year 1841, to elicit a declaration of opinion on the subject of railways, the requisition for a public meeting to be held in Dublin, with a view to their promotion, was signed by almost every influential person in Ireland of all ranks and of all parties. It may therefore be reasonably inferred, that if an Irish Parliament were in existence, measures would be immediately taken for giving to Ireland the advantages of a system of railways. Gentlemen must not apply to the consideration of this question the principles which are acted upon in this country. In England there is such a superabundance of capital seeking investment, that it would be considered a grievance by English capitalists, if the state were to interfere with this means of profitable investment, by taking upon itself the construction of railways. But in Ireland the case is different. Capital is there comparatively scanty. It would seem reasonable therefore to apply to Ireland, not the principle of non-interference acted upon in England, but rather that which has regulated the conduct of other nations of the world in which capital is not so abundant as in this country, almost all of whom have brought the assistance of the state to the aid of private enterprise in the
660
construction of public works. An attempt was made by the late Government to secure to Ireland the benefit of railways by means of such a combination. In 1838 Lord Morpeth proposed that the credit of the state should be employed in raising the capital required for such undertakings in Ireland, and that the counties interested should guarantee the payment of 4 per cent. as a minimum of interest, in case the receipts from the traffic did not secure this rate of profit. This proposal was effectually defeated by the party now in power, and the English capital which would have then been embarked in railways in Ireland, greatly to the advancement of the national interests of both countries, has since sought investment in foreign states, which have given to their population the advantages you have denied to Ireland. How differently have you acted towards Canada, although that colony does not contribute a fraction towards your revenue. During last Session this House, almost without an observation, consented to guarantee interest of 4 per cent. on a loan of 1,500,000 l., about to be raised for the promotion of public works in Canada. During the very same year in which Parliament rejected the proposal to allow the Irish counties to borrow 2,500,000 l. on their own security, with every prospect of a remunerative, return from the enterprise itself, the Government entered into a contract to allow 240,000 l. per annum for the conveyance of the mails between Great Britain and the West Indies. An annuity of this amount would have enabled the Government to raise nearly as much money as would have been required to extend to every part of Ireland, north, south, and west—leading lines of railway. In the case of Ireland, internal communication by means of railways, which would probably have been a source of profit rather than of loss, would have brought into nearer approximation eight millions of your fellow-subjects. In the case of the West India contract, while the sacrifice of income is certain, the object of the undertaking is to facilitate your intercourse with colonies which do not contain a million and a half of inhabitants. Yet the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) tells us, that Ireland, is, upon all occasions, treated with peculiar indulgence with respect to concerns involving public expenditure. With regard to national education, the present Government take

661
to themselves great Credit for not having' overthrown the system established by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley). It is true that they have greatly offended some of their own partisans in Ireland, but I cannot perceive that they have established any legitimate claim upon our gratitude. There is scarcely a Protestant clergyman in Ireland who does not consider that he has been betrayed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in regard to education; with what degree of justice I leave it to Gentlemen on the opposite benches to determine. For my own part, I think that they have some ground for complaint. There is no reason why the religious prejudices of the minority of the people should not be respected in the case of the Protestants of Ireland, as well as in the case of the Catholics of England. I greatly prefer as the basis of a national system the principle of mixed education, such as that established by the national board; but if there be sections of the population, either amongst the Catholics or amongst the Protestants, who entertain conscientious objections to any system of education which does not inculcate their own peculiar tenets, I am not prepared to say that they ought to be excluded from all participation in the benefits of a fund to which they contribute in common with the rest of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse,) in his elaborate report from the committee of 1838, shewed how all these jarring views might be reconciled in a system of national education, without impairing its efficiency, and without violating the rights of conscience, or the principles of justice. That report still remains at once both a monument of his ability, and of the apathy of the British Government with reference to the instruction of the Irish people. When ministers claim our applause, because they have not interfered with the system of education which they found in existence, let me ask them what have they done for its extension? The funds at the command of the national board are altogether inadequate to provide for the due instruction of the population of Ireland. In their second report the commissioners estimate that an annual income of 200,000 l. would be required to accomplish this object. Only one-fourth of this sum is now granted. So also with regard to provincial colleges, nothing has been done by the present Government. Though
662
above four-fifths of the population of Ireland are of the Roman Catholic persuasion, Catholics are excluded from all participation in the endowments of our only university. Nor is the academical instruction provided by Trinity College adequate to meet the requirements of so large a population as that of Ireland. Such being the case, my hon. Friend in his report recommended the establishment of a college in each province, with the understanding that the Belfast Institution should be considered as the college of the province of Ulster. The proposal to establish a provincial college in the south of Ireland, was received with great satisfaction by the Irish public. Many even of those who entertain conservative opinions, signified their approval of the intention. The late Government received it with favour, and requested my hon. Friend (Mr. Wyse) to submit to them a detailed report upon the subject, and there is every reason to believe, that they would have sanctioned the proposal if they bad continued in office. This was an opportunity of meeting the wants and satisfying the wishes of a great community, of which a wise Government would gladly have availed itself, more especially as the parties locally interested in the project, were prepared to co-operate in the effort with pecuniary contributions. By the present Government, nothing whatever has been done to promote so laudable an object. The report of 1838, the paper of my hon. Friend, the recorded indications of public support, all he unheeded on the shelves of the Irish office, and my hon. Friend has been deterred from submitting his project to Parliament, lest by the opposition of the Ministry its future success may be impeded. In like manner when an attempt was made by some disinterested members of the legal profession, to carry into effect the recommendation of another, portion of this report, with reference to legal education, Sir E. Sugden, our Lord Chancellor, bringing with him to Ireland his English prejudices, successfully used his influence to defeat the attempt, although it had received the sanction of; almost all the heads of the profession in Ireland, without distinction of party. A similar disregard of the educational interests of Ireland, has been evinced by the present Government, in their rejection of a proposal to establish a national museum seum in Dublin. Every one must feel

663
that the establishment of a good national museum would contribute greatly to the instruction as well as to the enjoyment of our community. The committee, of which I was chairman, appointed in 1836, to inquire into the proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, suggested that in case the society should adopt certain recommendations contained in our report, it would be desirable to connect with that institution a national museum. The society having acceded to all our proposals, applied in the early part of this year to the Treasury, for means to fulfil that portion of the recommendations of this report which related to the enlargement of their museum. Their request has been denied upon pretexts altogether frivolous. Now, when Parliament grants, and in my opinion most wisely grants, large sums annually for the support of the British museum, amounting during several successive years to as much as 80,000 l. per annum, is it not natural that the people of Ireland should expect that some effort should be made to give to Dublin the advantages of a similar institution. Can there be a doubt that an Irish Parliament would found such a museum? Upon what ground then is this disregard of the most legitimate claims of the Irish people to be justified? I have now to notice the characteristic features by which the administrative Government of Ireland has been distinguished, and I am compelled to designate it as eminently anti-national. In all free states the distribution of patronage forms an important element in the machinery of Government. Amongst the most recent examples of the mischievous consequences which may arise from an unwise employment of this engine of power, I may remind the House, that no cause was more efficient in producing the disruption of Belgium from Holland, than the systematic exclusion of the Catholics of Belgium from the administrative government of the Netherlands. In Canada discontents, which ended in rebellion, were excited chiefly by the exclusion from office of the native inhabitants of French origin. Now let us see how the people of Ireland have been treated in reference to the distribution of patronage. Look at every department of local or general administration in Ireland, and you will find that Irishmen are studiously excluded from all the superior offices of direction and control, I will quote in support of
664
this assertion the following extract from the Dublin Evening Mail, a conservative journal, which is conducted with much ability. Let me first observe, that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland is an Englishman; the Chief Secretary is an Englishman; the Lord Chancellor is an Englishman. The writer in this journal proceeds, in answer to an article in the London Times relative to this topic of complaint.
" The Archbishop of Dublin is an Englishman; the Chief Administrator of the Irish Poor-law is an Englishman; the Paymaster of Irish Civil Services is a Scotchman; the Chief Commissioner of Irish Public Works is an Englishman; the 'Teller' of the Irish Exchequer is an Englishman; the Chief Officer of the Irish Constabulary is a Scotchman; the Chief Officer of the Irish Post-office is an Englishman; the Collector of Excise is a Scotch-man; the Head of the Revenue Police is an Englishman; the Second in Command is a Scotchman; the persons employed in the Collection of the Customs, &c., are English and Scotch in the proportion of thirty-five to one. But the Times may perhaps observe, true, but all this is only the elucidation of our plan for unbarring the gates of preferment unsparingly, impartially, and honestly.' Scotchmen and Englishmen are placed in office in Ireland, and Irishmen in return in Scotland and England, in order to draw closer the bonds of union between the three united nations. Again, let us see how facts actually stand: there are Cabinet Ministers, Englishmen 10, Scotchmen 3, Irish O."
The Duke of Wellington is so much denationalized, that I believe he scarcely considers himself an Irishman, and certainly cannot be called a representative of Irish interests in the Cabinet.
" Lords of the Treasury, Englishmen 4, Scotchman 1, Irishman 1; Clerks of the Treasury, Englishmen or Scotchmen 112, Mr. Fitzgerald (query an Irishman) 1; Members of the Lord Steward's and Lord Chamberlain's departments of the Royal Household, Englishmen and Scotchmen 225, Irishmen 4; British Ministers to Foreign Courts, Englishmen and Scotchmen 131, Irishmen 4; Poor-law Commissioners, Englishmen 3, Irishmen O. We presume," (adds the editor) "that these facts show that the natives of the three kingdoms are all placed upon an equal footing, the chances of access to preferments to an Englishman or Scotchman in Ireland, being in the few instances that have occurred to us while writing at 6 to 0; while the probability of an Irishman obtaining place in England, appears from an analogous calculation, to be in the proportion of 491 to 10, or as 1 to 50. We could easily swell" (he adds) "this list, were it necessary. Ireland has been always used by English ministers as a means of pro-

665
viding for poor relations, dependents, and partisans. Our highest as well as our lowest offices have been prostituted for this purpose. What would be thought of an Irish lawyer being called over as Lord Chancellor of England? yet, we are forced to take English lawyers as our Lord Chancellors. So through all departments of the Government, injustice to Ireland everywhere meets us, and so will things continue, until we learn to think less about party, and more about our country."
It is only just to the present Government to say, that they are not more exposed to the reproach of having excluded Irishmen from office than their predecessors. I am bound to tell my friends at this side of the House, that with respect to this topic of complaint, no act of the present Government has given more general dissatisfaction than was exhibited when an affront was offered to Lord Plunkett, one of our great historical characters, by forcing him to resign the office of Lord Chancellor, in order that an Anglo-Scotch common lawyer, for whom personally I entertain the greatest respect, might be enabled to fill for the space of a few weeks the situation of our first equity judge, previous to the abandonment of office by the late Government. Neither, indeed, do I blame the Government of England so much as ourselves, with reference to this cause of complaint. We have been so much in the habit, on both sides, of endeavouring to convince the world that our antagonists are unfit to be entrusted with power, that it is not surprising that we should have succeeded in convincing bystanders, that Irishmen are quite incapable of administering the affairs of their own country. I am sorry also to add, that in general the contending parties in Ireland appear to witness with more satisfaction the appointment of a stranger to office, than that of a native whose opinions are opposite to their own, and this feeling being mutual, the exclusion is perpetuated with a view to the satisfaction of the complaining party. It is singular, that what was said of us by Swift a century since, should still be true.
" The Irish had long made a deuce of a clatter, And wrangled and fought about mewn and tuum,
'Till England stept in, and decided the matter, By kindly converting it all to a suum."
Speaking seriously, however, I would ask, is it fair to native talent, thus to take away the prizes of every profession from those who have earned them by a life of
666
honourable toil? If, indeed, there were a fair reciprocity between the three kingdoms, there would be no ground for complaint. But I would ask, if a single instance can be named in which an Irish clergyman has been taken from the active exercise of his profession in Ireland, in order that he might be appointed as bishop in England. I might extend the question to the law and to other professions. It is true, that a few Irishmen occasionally force themselves by their talents into office in this country, in spite of the most adverse Circumstances, but before they can do so, they must become completely denationalized. They must cease to identify themselves with Irish feelings and interests, and dissociate themselves, as much as possible, from connection with their own country. I must not omit here to mention a complaint which I have heard repeatedly made by persons connected with trade. When the revenue establishments of Ireland were withdrawn and consolidated with those of England, a formal pledge was given, that a due proportion of the revenue officers to be thereafter appointed, should be always taken from among the natives of Ireland. I hold in my hand a printed statement prepared some years since by a person well acquainted with the excise department, in which it is shown that this pledge has been forgotten or violated, and that Irish men are systematically excluded from the superior offices of excise. This paper is too long to allow of its being read upon the present occasion; but the Government and Parliament are bound to enquire whether these allegations are well founded. The result is stated to be most unfavourable to the interests of those who ate connected with any trade in Ireland which is subjected to fiscal regulation. If a charge is to be made, or a defence to be offered to an unjust accusation, the Irish trader alleges that he is always encountered by a strong anti-national prejudice, which predisposes the public officer to whom he appeals, to take a view of his case unfavourable to his character and interests. Time will not allow me to elucidate this ground of complaint by a reference to particular instances. Indeed, if I were to make a statement of cases of injustice towards individuals, (of which the late mail coach contract, commonly called the Croal contract, is one of the most recent specimens,) I know not when

667
I should be able to bring to an end my observations upon the administration of Irish affairs. I turn therefore to an important question of public policy, and charge the Government with having acted in an anti-catholic as well as anti-national spirit in their distribution of patronage. Considering the known sagacity of the Premier—considering that he volunteered to tell the House upon a former occasion, that he knew how difficult was the task of governing Ireland, I am at a loss to understand how he could have shewn such fatuity in his conduct towards the majority of the Irish people. Never had a minister a fairer opportunity of conciliating the good will of a nation without making concessions of principle than that which was presented to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) upon his accession to office. After the results of the late general election had shewn that a change of ministry was unavoidable, the people of Ireland exhibited a marked disposition to give a fair trial to the new administration. For the first twelve months after their appointment, there was an extraordinary lull in agitation. Some might have even mistaken this tranquillity for apathy and indifference; but it was in truth a period of rational observation. The Irish Government was to be judged by its conduct, and not condemned by anticipation. Of Lord De Grey nothing was known, except that he was a man highly respected in his private character. Towards the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), the most favourable prepossessions were entertained. His conduct with respect to the municipal bill was remembered with kindly feelings, and the liberality of his declarations at the hustings in Cornwall, was calculated to raise the most favourable expectations. It is painful to me to tell him that these expectations have been disappointed. I know not whether he has failed to carry into effect the policy then avowed by him, from want of ability to realise his own views. He is, in truth, powerless. Not possessing a seat in the Cabinet, he is little more than under-secretary to the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), who is in reality, the ruler of Ireland. It excites in me much surprise, that a person occupying the high station of the noble Lord, should consent to be held responsible for a policy which he does not himself direct. If, on the other hand, he really approves of the system of Govern-
668
ment now adopted towards Ireland, I know not what we gain by his reputed liberality. The general result of the principle which has been acted upon towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland, has been to leave no link of connection between the Government and the majority of the nation. Such a state of things is the more dangerous, because the tendency of all recent legislation has been to increase the political power of the Roman Catholics, and nothing can be more unwise than to give power to men, unless you are prepared to allow them to enjoy its fruits. The Emancipation Act—the Reform Bill —the Corporation Act—the Poor-law have given to the Irish people organs for the expression of the national will; yet no effort has been made to bring these powers into harmony with the Executive. When the Roman Catholic finds himself proscribed by a system of exclusion, is it not natural that he should assist in the restoration of a legislature to Ireland, the existence of which would compel the British Government to conduct the affairs of Ireland in a manner compatible with his own interests, and acceptable to the wishes of the nation? This feeling is strengthened by the contrast presented in the principles of government adopted towards Canada, and towards Ireland. There are many points of analogy between the circumstances of Canada and of Ireland. In Canada, as in Ireland, you endeavoured for many years to govern by means of a minority, for the benefit of a minority. The attempt led to perpetual contention between the Executive and the Legislature. These collisions terminated in a rebellion, which cost this country more than 3,000,000 l., and very nearly involved it in a war with the United States. At length you felt that its possession on these terms was a burthen rather than a benefit, and you had recourse to a wiser policy; you sent out one of your ablest statesmen, Lord Durham, to examine personally into the causes of Canadian discontent. In the report which he made after his return from this mission, he told you that the continued difficulties which had arisen in the government of Canada, had sprung from the attempt which had been made to conduct the affairs of that colony through executive officers who did not possess the confidence of the Legislature and of the people. He recommended that in future the Executive should be

669
brought into harmony with the representative assembly, by the employment in official station, of those who enjoyed the respect and support of the majority of the people. This principle of government was partially adopted by the noble Lord the Member for London, (Lord J. Russell,) and has since been fully carried into effect by Sir Charles Bagot, under the sanction of the present administration. The people of Ireland are unable to understand why one system of government should be adopted in Canada, and another of a totally opposite character should, greatly to their disadvantage, be applied to Ireland. Will you leave yourselves open to the imputation of having given to Canada, through fear, advantages which you withhold from Ireland, because you imagine that you can oppress us with impunity? Having completed my review of the causes of discontent which are connected with legislative and administrative government, I have now to notice those which arise from the social condition of the country. Whatever might be the prosperity of the people, the causes to which I have already adverted would produce dissatisfaction, but undoubtedly the national discontent is aggravated by the pressure of distress upon the various classes of the community. A general complaint is heard throughout Ireland, that trade is less flourishing than before the Union. The population has increased by 3,000,000, and therefore the actual amount of consumption is probably greater; but it is much to be doubted whether command of the comforts of fife has increased in the same proportion as the population.* With regard to Dublin, this define of prosperity cannot be denied, and there is but too much reason to fear that similar complaints from other parts of the coun-
* In answering this part of Mr. O'Brien's argument, Lord Eliot dwelt upon the increase of exports and imports since the Union as evidence of increased prosperity. When a country exports the surplus of its productions, after all its own population have been amply provided for, an increase of exports may be considered as a test of increasing prosperity; hut we must not rely upon such an increase as an infallible indication of improvement. If the ox which was formerly sent to Kilkenny, to he exchanged for Irish cloth, is now sent to Leeds, in exchange for English manufactures, the table of exports and imports would exhibit an increase concurrently with an actual define of trade in Ireland.—Note by Mr. O'Brien.
670
try are equally well founded. In reference to the condition of the labouring classes, I am persuaded that at no period of the history of Ireland, did they experience equal difficulty in obtaining the means of subsistence; and this state of things is the more painful, because their moral habits are much improved, and because it can no longer be said, that their destitution is to be traced to intemperance, The great majority of the agricultural labourers of Ireland are unable, during several months in the year, to obtain the scanty pittance of 8d. for their day's toil. It is obvious therefore that life could not be supported, if the family of the labourer were to depend upon wages alone. He accordingly provides for their subsistence by taking each year a spot of ground, on which he grows as much potatoes as are sufficient for sustenance throughout the year. The difficulty of procuring such portions of land—called in Ireland conacre or quarter ground—increases every year. In like manner, the universal disposition which now prevails on the part of landlords to consolidate small tenements, presses very severely upon the poor farmer. In some instances the clearance system by which small holdings are depopulated, has operated most injuriously on the peace of the country. The unsatisfactory state of the relations between landlord and tenant, is the source of that cry for fixity of tenure, of which so much has been heard of late. The meaning of this expression does not appear as yet to be very well defined. As used by some of its advocates, it means that the tenant who happens to be in casual possession of land shall acquire a sort of feefarm right in it, subject only to a fixed rent to the landlord. The objection to this scheme is, first that it transfers the proprietary right from the landlord to the casual tenant, who may in many instances be a person little deserving of such an advantage; and next, that it makes no provision for the interests of the labourer, who under almost all circumstances is more an object of compassion than the tenant for whose benefit this plan has been devised. According to others, fixity of tenure, means that the tenant shall in all cases be entitled to obtain a lease for a certain term of years. This plan is open to the objection already stated, that it disregards the claim of the labourer. It is also obvious that unless it be accompa-

671
nied by some regulations to guard against the imposition of an excessive rent—regulations incompatible with freedom of contract—no real benefit is conferred upon the tenant; because the landlord will indemnify himself for compulsion to grant a lease, by exacting the highest possible rent. The third plan of fixity of tenure is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, (Mr. S. Crawford,) who proposes that the occupying tenant shall be compensated by his landlord for whatever capital he may invest in substantial improvements. Though there is great difficulty in framing the details of such a measure, its principle is perfectly just, and well deserves the consideration of the House. I am fully sensible of all the difficulties which surround every proposal of this kind, but I am convinced, that if a bold attempt be made to grapple with these difficulties, much may be done to ameliorate the relations between landlord and tenant. Let a committee be appointed, first to ascertain facts connected with ejectment, about which the most contradictory assertions are made, and next to devise remedies. I am persuaded that even though it should be found impossible to meet existing evils by direct interference between landlord and tenant, much might be done by indirect legislation. Let it be remembered, that it is to collateral legislation that we chiefly owe the present condition of the tenantry of Ireland. The sub-division of farms was first greatly promoted by the efforts of the landlords to obtain political influence through their forty-shilling freeholders, and has subsequently been checked by their disfranchisement. The present undue tendency to depopulate small farms, has in like manner been augmented by the operation of the sub-letting act, and I much fear that it will be still further increased by the proposed enactments of the Bill for the amendment of the Irish Poor-law. As the interests of the tenantry have been already injuriously affected by indirect legislation, so it is to be hoped, that by a series of beneficial measures, counter-tendencies may be created, which will produce an advantageous change in their condition, as well as in that of the labouring classes. I have now completed this exposition of my views respecting the principal causes of the discontent which exists in Ireland. Whether I have traced it to its real sources or not, its existence
672
is unquestionable. A large part of the nation is impressed with a settled belief, that there is no hope of obtaining from the British Parliament a due consideration of the rights and interests of Ireland. They therefore seek good government through the instrumentality of a domestic legislature. I am most anxious to impress the House with the conviction which I myself sincerely entertain, that the cry for Repeal is not the voice of treason, but the language of despair. Of those who seek a dissolution of the Union, not one man in a thousand at present wishes for separation from this country. Nor does there at present exist the least perceptible desire for a republic. Still less is there any wish for a change in the person of the Monarch. The people of Ireland have no ground for complaint against their present Sovereign. They believe her to be animated by the most kindly feelings towards them, and accordingly they entertain towards her the most enthusiastic attachment. Is it not enough to excite indignation, that our gracious Queen should not be allowed to visit her Irish dominions, to receive there the acclamations of her loyal subjects, because her Ministers fear that with those acclamations will be mingled signs of disapprobation towards themselves. I have now to ask Parliament what course it will adopt in the present crisis of Irish affairs. A few weeks since I should have addressed this question to the Government, but from them we have now nothing to hope. They have pronounced their ultimatum. " Conciliation has been carried to the utmost," is the language of the Home-secretary, who now rules Ireland. "Arms' bills and measures of coercion, if necessary, are all that we have to offer you. Redress you need not expect from us." I appeal, therefore, to you, the representatives of the nation, and ask you, what course will you pursue? Will you recur to a mild and beneficent policy, and strive to suppress agitation by removing the grounds of national discontent? Or will you fold your arms in inaction, and wait the course of events, without endeavouring to guide them? Or will you attempt to stifle the national voice by measures of coercion? I do not think you have had much encouragement to proceed in such a course. Every indication which has been already made on this side of the channel, of such an intention, has been received with shouts of defiance on the other. It needs no political saga-

673
city to predict, that if any portion of the population of Ireland, whilst the country is d vided in opinion, should resort to force, a rebellion would be speedily crushed by the power of England, supported by a British minority. But, on the other hand, I will assert with equal confidence, that if the people of Ireland abstain from violence, and rely only upon moral organization, supported by the justice of their cause, and the sympathy of mankind, they will sooner or later compel you, either to accept the alternative of a Repeal of the Union, or to place the Government and institutions of that country on such a footing as shall be acceptable to its inhabitants. I listened with feelings of mingled regret and indignation to the right hon. Baronet, (Sir R. Peel,) when he de-dared, that under any circumstances, he would hazard the chances of a civil war, rather than concede a Repeal of the Union, even to the unanimous demand of the Irish nation. This ill-advised declaration, so offensive to our national pride, compels me to tell him, that if the people of Ireland were unanimous in desiring the restoration of their Parliament, they would obtain it without even striking a blow. There are numberless methods by which a nation of eight millions can give effect to their resolute determination. I will only mention one; I name it because I have seen you during the last twelvemonths prostrate your national dignity, suspend your legislation, derange your finances, and disturb an important branch of your trade, in the hope of obtaining from the kingdom of Portugal a treaty of commerce, which would enable you to sell to that country an additional amount of woollen goods to the value of a hundred thousand pounds. When I see you making such sacrifices, in order to obtain this mighty boon, I would remind the representatives of the manufacturing towns in England, that a non-intercourse resolution passed by the Irish people, would take from them a market for their goods to the value of eight or ten millions. Let it not be said, that self-interest would prevent them from depriving themselves of the benefits which arise to both countries from the mutual interchange of their productions. A nation which has voluntarily imposed upon itself abstinence from an indulgence to which it was addicted, by refraining from every intoxicating beverage, is capable of making greater sacrifices
674
than that of consuming at home its own agricultural produce, greatly to the advantage of tile domestic manufactures of Ireland. But if, at all hazards, the right hon. Baronet should determine to go to war with us, 1 would ask him, where are the forces at his command? In the British army there are 40,000 Irish soldiers, ever? one of whom is animated by sentiments as patriotic as those of the classes from which they were drawn. Let me tell him, that in such a struggle, the chances of failure are at least equal to those of success. If he should succeed, what is his gain? In Ireland— wide spread—universal desolation. To England, a countless cost. Should he fail, then indeed the glory of England will have departed for ever. History will tell of you, that at the moment when you had reached the summit of your power— when by peaceful colonization you had laid the foundations of mighty kingdoms at the Antipodes—when you had made the Ganges and the Indus your own streams—when by the combined prowess of British and Irish valour you had planted your standards upon the walls of the ancient capitals of China, heretofore unapproached by European arms you fell from the lofty pinnacle of your greatness, because you preferred to trample upon the rights of a sister kingdom, rather than to win its affections by kindness and justice. I do not envy the feelings of that Minister who shall go to his Sovereign and say—When I took office I found the people of Ireland tranquil and contented; I found them devotedly attached to your Majesty's person. By misgovernment I induced them to seek the restoration of their own Parliament, and after uniting them in an universal confederation to obtain it, I went to war with them, rather than yield to the national demand; and now, may it please your Majesty, I have to announce the melancholy truth, that you have lost one-third of your bravest and most attached subjects. I know that I shall be blamed for holding this language, but I should deem myself unworthy of the country to which I belong, if I were to listen in silence to such a declaration as that of the right hon. Baronet, without retorting the threat which it conveyed; and it is better you should hear in time the voice of friendly warning, than that you should too late deplore the results of your own blindness and injustice. Before I conclude, I shall

675
not, on this occasion, shrink from expressing my own opinions with reference to the Repeal of the Union. As regards personal motives, I have nothing to gain, and much to risk by the severance of the legislative connexion of the two countries. As regards convictions, I have always been of opinion, that a perfect incorporation of the three kingdoms, accompanied by a due consideration of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, and an entire equality of civil rights, would be more advantageous to all, than the maintenance of separate Parliaments. Nor am I insensible to the difficulties which beset the attempt to dissolve the Union. But, at the same time, I am bound to declare, that such an incorporation has not yet been realized: and that looking back to the history of the last forty years, it is my conscientious conviction, that Ireland would be at this moment a more happy and more prosperous country than it now is, if the Union of 1800 had not taken place. I have now sat for nearly twelve years in the British House of Commons, and during that period have wasted as much time within its walls as any of my cotemporaries, and if I were asked honesty to state the result of my observations, I am afraid I should be compelled to say, that with Irish feelings this House has little sympathy—little knowledge of Irish wants, and still less disposition to provide for those wants. I have seen during Session after Session, measures which would have been hailed with enthusiasm by an Irish Parliament, though supported by a large majority of the Irish Members, yet by this House almost contemptuously rejected. I have seen even during the present Session, measures forced upon a reluctant nation by English majorities, notwithstanding the remonstrances of those who represent the majority of the Irish people. I have seen the laws, institutions, and customs of Great Britain pleaded against us, whenever we have asked for deviations from your system which would have been advantageous to Ireland; whilst at the same time, when we have sought a full participation in the benefits of your institutions, we have been told that the circumstances of the two countries are wholly different, and require separate legislation, With this experience, is it surprising that I should often doubt whether the abstract opinions which I have formed in favour of an Union, such as seems never about to
676
be realized, are consistent with the duty which I owe to the country possessing the first claim upon my devotion. What is it to me that the maintenance of the Union is essential to the strength and security of the empire, if it do not bring with it welfare and happiness to my native land? Still, however, I cling to the hope of good government from a British Parliament. When that hope is extinct, I shall not fear to contemplate the remaining alternative; nor, if I should be compelled to espouse the cause of Repeal, shall I be the least earnest of its advocates. I have satisfied myself that it is practicable—I have satisfied myself that it is consistent with the allegiance which I owe to my Sovereign. Looking to the future, rather than to the past, I am not yet fully satisfied that it is equally advantageous to Ireland, as such an union as I have described. Give to us then, who still cling to the legislative connexion, with the hope of obtaining justice at your hands, but with the determination that if it be withheld, our country shall command our services—give us, by your decision this night, something which we may present to our fellow-countrymen, as a pledge of your disposition to repair the many wrongs which have been inflicted upon Ireland — give us arguments which we may address to them, when they tell us of the many instances which prove that Ireland has lost much and gained little by the Union. Depend upon it, that though in making such atonement, your national pride may be hurt, your position among the nations of the world will be exalted. The same sympathy which you feel for oppressed Poland other nations bestow upon Ireland. A country which, if well governed, would be the right arm of your strength, is now a source of weakness; and if a French army should, at this juncture, cross the Pyrenees, it would do so because that nation believes that your military re, sources are required in Ireland. I speak not of more disastrous contingencies, nor will I use one word of menace, but the aspect of affairs around us, justifies me in assuring you, that you cannot more effectually Confirm the good will of those allies who wish you well, or defeat the ' machinations of foes who are jealous of our national glory, than by following the course which I now invite you to pursue, in resorting, to measures which shall soothe animosities, obliterate distinctions

677
founded upon differences of race and of religion, and consolidate the Union of the two kingdoms by the bonds Of equal laws, common rights, and of international justice. I now move,ߞ
" That this House will resolve itself into a committee, for the purpose of taking into consideration the causes of discontent at present prevailing in Ireland, with a view to the redress of grievances, and to the establishment of a system of just and impartial government in that part of the United Kingdom,',
Mr. Wyseseconded the motion. He concurred entirely in the statements and sentiments of his hon. Friend. The proposition he had submitted to their consideration was a most reasonable one; it was a, just, a constitutional, a parliamentary proposition. It was within the strictest precedents, in accordance with the most usual practice of the House. It was not a resolution pledging them at an inopportune period to some future course of action, which, when called on to carry out, they might find impracticable, or at all events inconvenient: it was not an address to the Crown, requesting immediate proceedings, on questions, in which they were far front being generally agreed: it was not even a motion for leave to bring in a hill, which, from the little chance at this late period of the Session, of carrying through any contested measure, could not be introduced with any hope of proceeding beyond one or two stages. It was a motion for a committee of inquiry—of inquiry into grievances alleged, and more than alleged to exist, affecting many millions of their fellow subjects,—grievances stated to be many, enormous, unendurable—grievances, which it was the bounden duty of this House and of the Government to disprove, or failing in that, at once to proceed with their whole soul and strength to their investigation and correction. The question was not how parties might be affected by such a motion, or what might he the convenience of Members. It was of a far higher and vaster import. It concerned matters of the greatest moment, and embraced, he might truly say, a whole people. Were the allegations well founded? Were the grievances real? Was Ireland in the position represented? Were the causes of that position truly stated? Were there remedies to be found for these causes? Was this the time to apply them? Could they with justice, with safety be deferred? These were the questions, simple hut solemn questions, asked not by him, or by
678
his hon. Friend only, but by the whole country, and on the answers given to which depended, not merely the interests and happiness of Ireland, but the dignity, peace, prosperity, perhaps the security of the entire empire. What was the actual condition of Ireland? Was it one in which any Government or Legislature could justify itself, by the cheap trickery of kindly intentions, or afford to sit down with their arms crossed, in the absurd expectation, that the evil would by some necessary law of its nature, waste or burn itself out. Such was not the usual march of national wrongs or national' calamities; Statesmen had something more to do than to allow events to take care of themselves, and even the cleverest physician would admit, that if less brilliant, it was always wiser and safer to prevent, than to cure a malady. Ireland was, he much feared, in a condition, which if permitted to continue, would render prevention no longer possible; he much feared, that every day diminished even the chances of a cure. From north to south, and from east to west, she was either in a state of excitement or of anxiety. Irritated by recollections of the past, goaded by new stimulants to resistance in the present, dreading and yet looking with vague and wild hope to the future—everywhere exhibiting uneasiness and uncertainty—no wonder she caused in the minds of all thinking men, feelings and forebodings the most painful; and to which they who were entrusted with her destinies, ought of all others to be the most sensible, It was of little use to rebuke her for this or that proceeding; it was only in the ordinary course of human nature, that she should grasp at every expedient, risk every experiment, which offered rescue, or even relief from her present state of suffering and forced inferiority. Nor was it any answer to say that these efforts were futile, or these experiments destined never to be realised. It was a narrow and cruel view of the case. Hon. Members ought to know, that the very effort successful or riot was in itself an evil; defeat was sure to be followed by outbreak or despair, either by open resistance to the law, or what was scarcely less injurious, by that sullen hopelessness and despair, which strikes at the root of all progress and civilization. And were none even of these fatal consequences ultimately to arise, were some intervening providence to conjure away, when on the point of exploding this threatening storm—were there

679
to be no collision, no struggle, no catastrophe—was the present, he would ask, such a state of things, as to satisfy any man, who had at heart, the honour or interests of either country; was it such, as it became this empire for one hour to suffer, not in any outskirt of her distant dominions, not in a foreign dependency, or in a new conquest, but in her very heart, in one whole third of that very territory which constituted the strength and vitality of her moral and physical existence. Disease had seized one-third of her frame, and England consoling herself with the still continued soundness of the remainder, looked on with the most heroic or stupid tranquillity on the gradual advances of the malady. There was no ground that he could see to flatter themselves, that they would be able to put down the revolution, or prevent its arrival: the revolution had already arrived: this was a revolution: the worst of revolutions; diverting the public energies; wasting the public resources; eating into the public strength; stopping the road to every improvement; adjourning even the chances of every progress. These were evils, substantial evils, evils which no one attempted to deny which every one felt, and which could not be permitted to endure, without sooner or later involving this country also in them. It was no consolation to say they were caused by this or that circumstance, or by this or that individual. It is the ordinary course of blunderers, when some fatal mistake is committed, to attempt to shift the blame from themselves to others. But he denied the justice of these charges; he denied the adequacy of these causes. If they produced the present unhappy state of Ireland, he had a right to ask what produced them? Some hon. Members saw in Mr. O'Connell the whole "spring and origin of the evil;" others discovered in the Catholic Priests, acting under his directions, the chief spirits who directed the movement; others ascribed it to the inherent and indomitable tendency of Popery; others again, to the fatal error of conceding; should he say too soon or too late? Catholic Emancipation. Now these at best (giving them all the efficiency Claimed for their action or influence) were mere secondary agencies. He looked, as did every man, who thought an instant on the subject, somewhat farther. They were mere outward symptoms, mere results of causes, seated far deeper in the system. With Mr. O'Connell, this Government and Legislature, at least, had no
680
reason to quarrel. They had created him, educated him, taught him, encouraged him, rewarded him. From their own statute-book he had learned all; it was his book of power; thence drew he all his magic. If he were an agitator, they were agitators before him—greater than him, stronger than him, more censurable than him. Without them, as he himself most truly said, his power would not endure one hour. It was not the work of a day he admitted: they had laboured at it sedulously: it took many a right refused, many a wrong inflicted: oppression continued and justice (as it was now) adjourned to make him what he was. Such had been the usual consequences of such a process of Government in other times and countries, and he saw no reason why nature should be diverted from its course, for the pleasure of any man in these. The Catholic clergy were, as far this country would allow them to be, the peace-preservers of Ireland. Hon. Members had each their own type of a Catholic priest, and especially of an Irish Catholic priest. He was not disposed to rectify or reconcile these differences. But there was none of them but must know, that coming from the people, living with the people, supported by the people, and above all, teaching, comforting, and consoling the people, Irish Catholic priests, not by compulsion, but by sympathy, must necessarily, think, speak, and act with the people, whenever the people had good grounds to know and feel themselves aggrieved, and to call on them for their co-operation. By becoming priests they had not ceased to be Irishmen. And perhaps it was fortunate it was so. There were many cases, where whatever the Catholic might feel, the Irishman did not hesitate to oppose their dictates. They were often obliged to place themselves in the van of popular movements, more to keep back than to encourage onward. If they halted they would be left behind, or perhaps trampled on in the rush forward. Take away this influence, cut through this sympathy—what had they to substitute in its place—and what would a people be left to itself—left without such influences and sympathies—but an excitable mob, exposed to every random impulse, from its own ignorance, or the designs of those interested in their excitement. Of the tendencies of the Catholic religion, this he felt was not the place to speak: he left the question without apprehension to the verdict of history. Every religion in its intermixture with human

681
nature and human passions was, of course, liable to perversion; none were exempt from the imputation: but there were few that could not with success be defended from the charge of, by doctrine or influence, encouraging crime. He thought it, therefore, most unjust, to taunt, (as had been too often the practice in that House), the members of the Catholic religion with belonging to a faith which patronised sedition, violence or intolerance. If there were Philips the 2nd, there were also Catholics as willing as any Protestant to resist him and his intolerance. He could refer to examples still nearer, which would be enough to prove, that religious charity and liberality were not of any faith or party exclusively, but belonged to Christianity itself wherever it was rightly understood and practised. What Catholic but did not feel a pride in having it in his power in answer to these taunts, to point to the glorious example of Lord Baltimore, the truly great founder of the republic of Maryland.
"In the year 1636, the Catholics (he quoted the American historian) took possession of the little place, and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home in the wide world, at the humble village which bears the name of St. Mary's."
In that colony Lord Baltimore— that same Lord Baltimore, be it remembered, who had been driven from Virginia, by the zeal of its Assembly, which had insisted on an oath, which no Catholic could take, the oath of supremacy,—Lord Baltimore, absolute lord and proprietor of Maryland, almost as his first step in taking possession of the new Government, in noble contrast to these Virginian legislators and the still more boasted pilgrim fathers, penned with his own hand, an oath—the only oath required to be taken in the freest representative body amongst the whole of the American colonists, to the following effeet:—
"That he would not, by himself, or ally other, directly or indirectly, molest any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of religion."
It was easy for present men, to boast of their liberality, with the influence and example of other countries around them, but to direct and stimulate them in that age, when every country, he might almost say every faith, was a persecutor, with the exception of this very Catholic state to which he had just adverted. The experiment succeeded as it would have succeeded in Ire-
682
land, as it would succeed in every country, where it should be allowed a fair trial. Under his mild administration, under these just equal laws, the wilderness became a garden, domestic factions were unknown, and even Protestants found a friendly asylum in the arms of Catholics, from the persecutions of fellow Protestants. Its history was the strongest eulogium on the wisdom as well as beneficence of religious freedom; no other colony surpassed Maryland in prosperity, as none had surpassed it in true religion, and in sound policy. Why was not this example followed in Ireland? Was it surprising, that from its not having been followed, Consequences precisely the reverse to those just noticed, had resulted? It was idle to trace to such a faith as the faith of Lord Baltimore and let him add the faith of 7-8ths of the Irish nation, grievances and calamities, which no other nation, professing to the same extent, the same religious creed, had ever yet experienced. The true causes lay beyond all this; such plea was a mere self-condemning, shallow pretext, to conceal from public inquiry and reprehension, the real origin and state of the malady. To those causes he would now address himself, not indeed in detail, which had fortunately been altogether rendered unnecessary by the searching and ample exposition of his hon. Friend, but in sufficient extent, at least, to justify him before the I louse in the course he was then adopting. He did not wish to charge the existing Government with the whole weight of this notional guilt: he well knew they had many participators; the history of Irish wrongs stretched through generations, not to speak of ministries, the misgovernment was of old standing, but this he would Charge them with, (and he knew not whether, taking into account their superior knowledge and augmented experience, it was not the greater delinquency of the two), he would charge them with the guilt of having continued that misgovernment, or if they liked the phrase better, allowing that misgovernment to continue without using, as men were bound to do who took upon themselves such sacred and awful responsibilities, measures the most effective, measures the most immediate, to put a stop, now and fur ever, to a system, which had not produced, and could not produce any other fruit but injustice and wrong to one portion, discord and insecurity to every portion of the community. He would first call their attention to the

683
condition of the agricultural population of Ireland. It was not surprising that in a country exclusively agricultural, there should be in reference to the population, a disproportionate competition for land. Whether this exclusiveness were as some thought salutary, whether it were unavoidable in the geographical position of Ireland, in the limitation of means and opportunities for manufacturing industry possessed in such great abundance by England, and especially in the difficulty of competing even if they did exist, with so near a neighbour, with so long established a system, already in possession of all the great markets, and above all with the immense capital, and the boundless credit which England possessed, were all questions of the highest importance, but the discussion of which he must for the present defer. The existence of the fact was sufficient for his argument; it was enough, that the competition of land in consequence was most active, in many instances most pernicious. From it arose the whole system of extravagant demands on, the part of the landlord, careless cultivation, and utmost misery on the part of the tenant. In this country the bidding for land, was file the bidding for any other description of property; failing in obtaining one, the bidder had always the chance, or rather choice of some other kind of investment for his capital. In Ireland, it was struggle for food or no food—a contest of life and death. But this evil was enhanced by another. In this country, the tenant had usually but one landlord—the landlord many tenants. In Ireland the case was often reversed; the landlord might have but one tenant, but there was many a tenant who had half dozen landlords. This was the Middleman system to which even in that House, be presumed few were strangers, a system more ingeniously calculated to exhaust, separate, and demorafise—to injure and corrupt all the relations between proprietor and occupier, he did not believe was to be found in any other country. At the same time, he was far from attributing all its evils much less its origin to existing parties. It was of some antiquity. It dated as high as Cromwell, if not higher. When Ireland was attacked by a succession of different armies—he would not Call them colonists—who were planted or who planted themselves as it was termed in the country—it was necessary in order to retains their fickle services, or reward if not fix their ambiguous loyalty, to confiscate a propor-
684
donate quantity of land from the actual inhabitants, (grounds for confiscation were always ready) and transfer it from these possessors, to the leaders of the invading hosts or hordes, and their rapacious followers. Soldiers as the majority were, it could not be expected they should so easily change their sword into the sickle, or evince much taste or knowledge of agricultural pursuits; they soon returned to their old vocation, and consigned their lots at a small profit, to some new adventurer. A succession of these transfers rapidly took place— at first in the shape of purchases, then of mortgages, finally of leasehold interests. The proprietor preferred receiving little, and punctually, than with the hope of receiving much, running the chance of receiving nothing. These arrangements generated that subordination of tenure, which not less than the excessive subdivision of land, high rents, and uncertainty of interest, have been the fruitful cause of the misery of Ireland,—a subordination of landlords—or rather a subordination of vultures, all preying in succession on the unfortunate cultivator. The Non-Subletting Act was the first measure of any efficiency directed against this system, but it may be doubted, if the distress of the times, which between proprietor and tenant, crushed many of these intermediate landlords, had not assisted, whether this like many other similar laws would not have been eluded. Nor was this remedy unaccompanied by a certain degree of injury. Where many of these leases had been got rid of, it was not so easy to get rid of what during their continuance these leases had produced. Estates were left covered with a generation of paupers, encouraged by Middlemen for their own profit, reckless of proprietor or occupier. Proprietors in many Cases attempted to apply an immediate remedy. The attempt was as impolitic as it was cruel. Clearances took place—they were met by agrarian outrages—outrages not directed against class, religion, or law, but against the man, often as much from a fear of what might take place, as from a spirit of revenge at what actually had. The "Fixity of Tenure" plan, which had been proposed as a means to check these evils—had neither in its extent, or nature, he thought, been sufficiently explained. Its importance for good or evil entirely depended on this explanation. Proprietorship, or such interest as Came nearest to proprietorship, he

685
had always thought a much greater stimulant to effective cultivation of a farm, than extent or situation of the farm, be it what it might. He had seen in various countries, holdings not larger than those occupied by the smallest farmers in Ireland, brought to a degree of fertility he might almost say garden nicety —through the cheerful, and so far cheap industry of the occupier, which he did not believe attainable by any other process. But the cultivator and the proprietor were, it must be observed, one. What he sowed he felt he was sure to reap. To attain this security, to inspire this conviction was indeed a matter of utmost moment, and worthy the attention of the greatest statesmen. It was obvious it was not compatible with a system, which exposed the cultivator at every turn to the caprices of a landlord, as ignorant of his own interests in many instances as of that of his tenants, at the same tune he doubted much whether in this more than in any other contract the arm of the legislature could be called in with advantage to either party duration of leases, amount of rent, periods of payment, with the thousand other particulars involved in the very nature of the relations between landlord and tenant were so much matters of circumstance, of place, time, individual feeling and object, that he feared they could be regulated by no other authority, than by the parties themselves, and any attempt to interfere with this freedom of action by laying down an uniform course of proceeding, whilst intended to protect against an abuse, might be opening the way to many others. But short of this there were many grievances to remedy, many gross oppressions to check, quite within the reach of ordinary legislative enactment. The clearances of estates might be controlled by a proper application of an emigration tax; fair remuneration determinable by certain recognised estimates, for outlay in improvements with the consent of the proprietor, might without any violence to the rights of ownership be efficiently guaranteed to the occupier, above all, the people themselves, by diligent attention to their wants moral and physical, on the part of their rulers, by furnishing them with fair opportunities for employment, by not merely recommending but encouraging industry, the people might be so raised in the social scale as to have the power themselves of exacting these equitable conditions, as he understood they were enabled to do already in the north of Ireland, by the force of sound public
686
opinion, without the intervention of any act of Parliament. But for this, as he had already said, the Government must afford the country opportunities, not indeed by a. lavish and profitless expenditure of the public money, but by doing what every other government in similar cases had done,— by stimulating the national energy and inviting the public capital. Ireland was amongst the few countries now in Europe, where no efforts on an extensive scale for railroad communication were carrying on. All preliminaries of survey and inquiry had been gone through—all that remained, but that was the essential, was the work itself. The Government thought this should be left to private enterprise, as in England, but Ireland was no more in the same position as England—than France or Belgium.—She was near England geographically—but not near her in socials improvement. She had been forcibly kept back by England—it was the duty of England now to atone for this crime and error—and by the exhibition of at feast equal force, to bring her onward, to bring her up to a level with herself. If ever there were a case where departure from the rigid rules of political economy would be sound policy this assuredly was that case. No private capitalist, no company could stand in the same position, or hope to reap the same advantages as a government. The Government not only had a right, to expect the same per centage on its outlay, but had beside to reckon, on the augmentation of the Customs and Excise, on the diminution of want and crime, consequently on the lowering of the expenditure for the army and police, which were the never failing results—of increased communication. These were matters, no doubt, of pounds, shillings and pence,—but he hoped the Government and Legislature of a free and enlightened countryߞif they set the least value on either distinction—looked somewhat higher than all this. A country which had in one night voted away twenty millions for the liberation of the blacks of the West; Indies, need not be told, that there was a greater glory, a loftier aim, for a great people, then the merely heaping up of gold, in the coffers of their Treasury. To redress wrongs, to conquer discord, to plant peace, for poverty and discontent to substitute justice, industry and prosperity, these were the acts which became her, who boasted the noble privilege of leading on the civilization of Europe. But he would at once be told, that this depended not on this country, but on Ireland itself—that as

687
long as agitation reigned, commerce would naturally keep aloof, capital would fly its shores, and industry no matter what efforts might be made to rouse her, continue as she now was palsied, and apathetic. It might be so, but this merely carried the question, only one or two steps farther. What was the cause of this agitation? The voice of a single man could not command it, there must be other voices to reecho his in the bosom of the nation, to give his voice effect. These voices were the expression of a real grievance, not of one only, but of many grievances—grievances felt generally, felt deeply. He need not look far fine such. He had already dwelt on the agrarian and physical position of Ireland—he turned now to its moral condition—and he was at once met at the very outset by the Protestant Church. It was now no time to shut their eyes to the importance, to the urgency, of this branch of the great Irish question. Indeed it was no longer in their power to do so—they might not wish to meet it, but it met them, at every turn. No one act of public policy which did not more or less take its colour. He did not at present intend to go into an elaborate discussion on its many bearings. There would be abundant opportunity, he was well assured, perhaps even before this session closed, but certainly in the next, for such considerations; nor was he unaware of the little favor which a Catholic member was likely to obtain, at any time, for such deliberations. He would content himself in consequence, with merely asking the House to remember and ponder well on sonic few facts. He would ask them, was it or was it not true, that in Ireland, a nation of no inconsiderable importance, containing eight millions of inhabitants, seven-eighths of the entire population were members of the Catholic religion, the remaining one-eighth of the Protestant. He would ask them, whether that one-eighth, were not in the exclusive enjoyment of the revenues originally destined for the education and religious instruction of the seven-eighths, as well as the one-eighth, that is of the whole nation: be would ask them could they point out a similar state of things in any other Country of the globe, in this nineteenth century, or indeed in any other former one, without its having been maintained by the strong arm of open tyranny, or resisted, and at fast triumphantly shaken off by an indignant people?—And with this voice of mankind, this communis sensus gentium, to instruct and rebuke them, he would there leave them and not press the
688
question farther, but merely warn them, after such and so clear a manifestation, not to tempt the Providence too far, that guides nations and chastises rulers, or expect miracles contrary to the invariable law of moral nature, to be worked he did not well see, on what pretension, for their special indulgence. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side said, that they had no choice—they must preserve the Protestant Church in Ireland in the full integrity of its power in order to maintain the Union; while others again told them they must support the Union in order to preserve the Protestant Church. Now this at the best was a very double-edged, a very dangerous argument. It might be turned the contrary way. Those who were opposed to the Protestant Church, might on this principle, be impelled to oppose the Union, in order to get rid of the Protestant Church; while those who were hostile to the Union, might think themselves justified, in order to effect its repeal, to begin first by getting rid of the Protestant Church. He did not admit the force of either argument, but he would not say how it might operate on the minds of two very powerful parties in Ireland. He would wish to place it, irrespective of all these circumstances on its own merits. He would therefore argue it, not as a question de facto but dejurc. He asked the House to suppose for an instant that the three countries—England, Ireland, and Scotland, were still separate nations; each with its peculiar laws, its special institutions, its particular faith. He asked them to proceed with him a step farther, and to imagine that after a series of idle and absurd struggles, certain losses and doubtful or fruitless victories they had at last come to the conclusion that it was not good for them to live alone, but that for their common benefit and mutual security, it was essential they should combine their hitherto hostile strength and wasted resources, not merely in a federal but an incorporated Government, and that each state had appointed their commissioners to arrange the terms of this junction and incorporation. There had been no conquest, no subjection, no submission the only condition therefore on which they could consent to meet — would, of course, be perfect and entire, equality—paribus si legibus ambæ invicla gentesf or reciprocal advantage, common laws and united support. Now, if in the course of these sittings, the English Commissioner were to say to the Irish, "we insist on establishing in. Ireland, our

689
Protestant Church: we know, it is not the religion of the majority of your nation: on the contrary, we believe it to be the faith of a very small minority: we know that if you shall continue separate it will not be suffered, it Can not be established: we know also that we have Come together, on the understanding of perfect equality, but then, as we are henceforth to be one united people; and that we are more powerful, more numerous, and above all have the good fortune to profess a faith in every way superior to yours, we do not see that by enforcing such demand we are imposing on you an unfair or unreasonable condition, but on the contrary, rendering you an essential service." He would not say what under such circumstances, would be the reply, or what ought to be the reply of the Irish Commissioner, but allowing for a moment the force of this English reasoning, allowing that it were, acquiesced in, by the Irish Commissioner, he did not sec why he in turn, should not be entitled to use every single word of the argument to the Scotch representative, and insist on precisely the same grounds on the establishment of his Catholic Church, in Scotland. Ireland was in reference to Scotland, what England was in reference to Ireland, of greater extent, larger population, more power, and had quite as strong a conviction of the superiority of the Catholic religion to the Presbyterian, as England could possibly have of the superiority of the Protestant to the Catholic. He did not think indeed an Irish Commissioner would be likely to make such a proposition—he saw no indication of it, in the history of the Irish Catholics, when in power—but he well knew, if he should, what would be the indignant answer of the Scotch. He would answer, and the whole people would with him, as their forefathers had more than once done before, "that they had taken their religion by solemn covenant for better or worse, that no earthly power should separate them from it, that betide what might they would abide by it, and that if such was to be the conditions of this pretended Union, but real subjection, live their religion, and perish the Union." Could Ireland blame them for such determination? Certainly not. Could England? He knew not—but this he knew, whether blaming such determination 'or not, England had before this been obliged to yield to a very similar answer. Scotland made such an answer to her pretensions, in the reign of William, and followed up her words, by a more powerful eloquence, an appeal to
690
her claymore. If it were a good answer to Ireland, and Irish Catholics; (and he did not deny it was), he did not see why Ireland and Irish Catholics had not just as good a right, and as much reason, to make a similar answer to Protestant England. It was no answer to say, that circumstances were different: unfortunately they were, but as he before said, he would argue the question "de jure," the question was not what was, but what ought to be, and when what ought to be did not coincide with what was, how could they in justice blame any people, for endeavouring by every means in their power to effect it. To talk of an union, founded or maintained on every other principle, was not merely folly but insult. if not resulting from attachment, and sustained by common interests and equal rights, it resulted from conquest, and was held together by force—in other words, give it what name they pleased, it was at best hut a virtual tyranny. He was not for going into the special merits or demerits of the Protestant Church still less of Protestant Churchmen; he had no doubt that many of its members were an honour to any community; he attacked, and in the interests of Protestants and Protestantism itself he would add, not the man, or his faith, but the system. He did not believe, as many would wish to insinuate, that the only motives for the wide spread hostility of the country to this institution arose from religious bigotry, or pecuniary rapacity. He saw less of either of these vices in the true uncorrupted character of the Irish people, than in that of most other nations. But action will produce re-action, and oppression resistance, and persecution intolerance. A people had a right to know what was done with their own, and it was no great stretch of parsimony to complain of the application of Catholic funds to purposes purely anti-Catholic. It was not the Catholic Church that was looking to the resumption of Protestant endowments, but it was the Irish people claiming the establishment and maintenance of British, equality. The English people were a mercantile people, but surely they would allow the operation of causes and motives quite as powerful as any which could originate from mere pounds, shillings, and pence. Money was not the all-absorbing passion, the all-in-all of Ireland. Was nothing to be allowed to the nobler springs of her nature, to wounded pride, insulted honor, the stinging sense of injustice, the deep seated conviction of truth and right?

691
The people of Ireland must be destitute of the commonest feelings not of Irish, but of human nature, if they could with patience look on, day after day, on the many scenes which they were condemned to witness. Why, they excited the astonishment of every traveller of every nation — even of Englishmen themselves; in this country, if by any possibility they could be exhibited, they would not be tolerated for four-and-twenty hours. Congregations of four or five thousand persons were to be seen kneeling in the rain round some miserable hovel, (there was no cover for them within), under the name of a parish chapel, probably built on the site, and often from the ruins of one of their own ancient churches, while not far distant they might perceive the handsome English-built, new raised, well lit, well ventilated, well warmed Protestant Church, with a lady-and-gentlemen congregation of four persons. It did not require a people to be very ignorant to feel excited at such a contrast. On the contrary, they must be ignorant indeed, if they did not feel it. Yet to ignorance, to an ignorant impatience of all religions but their own, were these feelings not of Irish nature but human nature as he had said, most ignorantly ascribed. The public prints of this country again and again asked their own bigotted public, far more bigotted and with far less cause, in many respects, than the Irish" what else could they expect from this brutal and ignorant people?" If this charge were true, a more severe impeachment could not be preferred against any people. Guilty, indeed, were those who allowed the immortal part of any nation thus to he in darkness and immorality. But on whom in this case lay the guilt? Who had the management of the Irish people? To whom was entrusted their education! or rather, who forced their education out of the hands of its natural and legitimate guardians? It could not, he thought, but be admitted by any one pretending to the least acquaintance with them, that the Irish people generally possessed from nature the highest intellectual dispositions. If these dispositions had not fructified to knowledge, the fault lay in the instructor, and not in the pupil. The English Government and Legislature, not content with merely neglecting, prohibited education; they made knowledge penal, they enacted ignorance, and with ignorance all its fatal consequences by act of Parliament. They hunted Catholic
692
priests not only from the chapel, but from the school-room, banished them from their functions, flocks and country, rendered education abroad a felony, and then penetrating the recesses of the domestic circle at home, rendered the demoralisation perfect, by forcing the child from the father and consigning, him, under a feigned name already an orphan during the lifetime of the parent to the cruelties and depravities of their own Charter schools. All this was written in large letters in their statute books and reports, they could then see that the evil became at last so monstrous as to work its own cure, it was declared in that House to be beyond reform and there was no remedy but suppression. The public indeed, had anticipated the verdict, and from the notorious demoralisation which prevailed in those chosen seats of vice, ignorance and proselytism had long held it a disgrace to have their families Contaminated by any apprentice who had incurred the misfortune and stain of receiving, could he call it, an education in their bosom. Yet was it the descendants of the men who did all this who gloried in having done all this, who now turned round and ventured to tax the Irish people with that very ignorance which their own forefathers had so sedulously and for a while so successfully, endeavoured to cultivate and extend. Every tree produced fruit alter its hind; not with the fruit ought they to quarrel but with the tree; nor with the tree, but with its planters and propagators. But the fact was, the people of Ireland were not ignorant, neither were they blind —that was not their crime; by their own efforts, despite of any obstacle, they had long since rescued themselves from that imputation; their fault, with this country, whatever they might assert to the contrary, was not the seeing too ill, but the seeing too well—not feeling too little, but too much. They knew their rights, they knew their wrongs, the most important of all knowledge for a nation; above all, they knew the means by which wrongs were to be redressed, and rights were to be attained. It was not ascendancy they aimed at, but equality they demanded; not to extinguish the Protestant Church, but to place their own by its side was their object. He feared, however, front the statements made by the right hon. Baronet opposite some nights ago, he could entertain no hope, that as far as he was concerned, this desire of the Irish people was likely to be speedily realised. The

693
right hon. Gentleman, if he understood him well went so far as to declare such event impossible. He reduced his doctrine on the subject to three very distinct propositions. He asserted that the ruin of Ireland would result from the extinction of the Protestant Church, that this extinction was sure to follow the severance of its temporalities, and the severance of any one portion of these temporalities, entailed the severance of the remainder, in other words, that any change in the application of the present endowments of the Protestant Church in Ireland, led inevitably to the ruin of that, not Protestant, but Catholic kingdom. He would be sorry to go with the right hon. Gentleman to the extent of so monstrous a proposition. He believed nations, and especially the Irish nation owed its vitality to very different, he might say opposite, Causes than those to which the right hon. Baronet ascribed it If it had any share of prosperity it was in a despite and not in consequence of its overgrown Church establishment. But the other steps of the proposition were just as untenable. Churches had lived without establishments, nay flourished, and religion had risen and grown up without churches. If it were upon such axioms as these, he based his opposition to all future adjustment, he must say he had as little chance of maintaining it as his former resistance to Catholic emancipation. It would be ludicrous if it were not painful to hear this, or any other measure, which did not come up to the full level of the wants and wishes of the times, denominated a final measure. Every measure of the kind had in turn been declared final, and undoubtedly so continued until another final measure in its turn took its place. He knew of no finality but that which was to be had through full-sufficing justice; hall justice was often worse than no justice—it continued to refuse rights, but gave additional motive and power to obtain them. The Catholic Emancipation of 1829, no more closed the question than the Catholic Emancipation of 1793. It was the last of a series but the beginning also of another. That was the natural progress of things; the history of Ireland, throughout, like every other history, bore evidence of it. If it were otherwise, history itself would be inexplicable, and Government a mere guesswork. That history could not have been read by the right hon. Baronet (the Secretary for the Home Department), or he would never have made the declaration he charitably presumed which they had heard
694
from him on a recent occasion, that concession had reached its ultimate point and could not be carried farther. Why, this was the very declaration made at every stage from 1776 down to the Catholic Emancipation, and where were the Catholics now? Did the right hon. Baronet mean that it would have been well in the Catholics to have taken such declarations when made for what they purported to be, and there have stopped, or did he not think that the men of that day had acted not only with more patriotism, but more wisdom, in disregarding these unalterable resolutions as they affected to e to grant no more, and confiding in a good cause their own exertions, and coming events, heedless of this man's hate or the other man's fears, until they had attained their present merited and rightful position, were right in pursuing as they had done their own resolute and victorious course. If it were good sense and sound policy then, it was good sense and sound policy now. He must know, that concession will produce more concession, until there be nothing which ought to be conceded; he must know that the constitution of England being an unwritten constitution admits of such Changes, more easily than any other; finally he must know that not one of these concessions, however long resisted, however strongly objected to at the time, but has turned out to be not less a boon to Protestantism than to Catholicism—not less a security for future concord and prosperity to England than it has been to Ireland. He had thus not disposed of, but touched on two of the principal points adverted to by his hon. Friend, there was one still remaining which he could not help noticing very briefly, before he sat down; he referred to the claim which Ireland made for a larger share in the management of her own domestic affairs. The House was aware not only of his opinions, but of the course he had adopted in maintenance of those opinions, on the question of Repeal, when it was first discussed in 1832. He had then men explicit with his constituents and the public, and had proved his sincerity by abiding by the consequences, which he was well convinced were sure to follow. He did not wish farther to advert to these events at present, or to argue the question on mere temporary or local circumstances. He would place it on broader grounds. He thought that these countries, so long as they continued under the same crown, and had to direct and discuss

695
the same imperial objects, would necessarily require for such purposes an imperial Legislature, the object of all legislation being to collect and combine as much as possible the scattered opinion of the community on matters common to them all, but it did not follow that for subjects purely domestic and local, this imperial or central Legislature was always the very best. Centralising too much and localising too much, were opposite but equal errors; it was not by suppressing either, but by balancing one with the other in fair proportion, that they could both be made of universal utility. He had heard the excessive centralization of despotic governments complained of, but he hardly knew of any instrument or institution legislative or administrative, of a more centralising, more monopolising, more absorbing character, from the very nature of its organization and functions than the Imperial Parliament itself. No object was too small for its eyes or arms. It saw everything, seized everything, wielded everything. It was an Argus and a Briareus. Writers not without reason had called it omnipotent. The course of imperial legislation was clogged and delayed Session after Session, by bills, committees, reports, returns referring to questions purely local and domestic. These local and domestic questions with great advantage, with great facility, might in his opinion have been confided to those best qualified and most interested to manage them judiciously and expeditiously at home, and the Imperial Parliament have thus been relieved from an immense mass of what he must term mere parish and vestry business. Arguing thus, he could not see why Ireland and Scotland also might not have their local bodies, for the management of their own local concerns, leaving to the Imperial Legislature the conducting of questions affecting the entire nation. He did not wish to repeal the Union, but to add to the Union, by giving in addition to the power they had in the Imperial Parliament, to every member of this mighty state, as far as it might be found consistent with the general harmony and safety of the whole, the management of their own particular affairs. Were this not practicable, there was at least an approximation to it which he thought quite so, and which he had more than once urged on the consideration of the Legislature, he referred to the extension of the Representative principle to the organization of bodies, employed in the fiscal
696
management of counties, under the name of County councils or County boards. If a representative organization were just, and advisable in towns, he could not s coin prehend by what course of reasoning, it could be shown to be unjust or unadvisable in the adjoining districts. It was a very important principle, and what had often been boasted of, as the essence of the British Constitution. He could not understand, why one portion of the community should in virtue of some arbitrary division of town wall or municipal boundary live under one constitution, and another under another. He would now conclude, but he implored them before he sat down, that if they really intended to act in a wise and just spirit towards Ireland, to act at once. It was true, the forces of the two countries were not equal, but neither was their position. The attention of England was directed to the multitudinous objects connected with an empire which stretched its arms over the entire globe. She had to rule in two hemispheres, and over many millions of men. The attention of Ireland was not fixed on Canada, the East Indies, or Turkey, or Spain, or France, it was fixed earnestly and unremittingly, and inevitably on England alone. Nor had Ireland allies only in her own ranks, she had others where they might least in the opinion of some be expected, in the very heart and conscience of England herself. Few even in that House, but in their cooler moments, when removed beyond the dust and glare of the party battle and momentary triumph, but admitted in their inward and better self that she was much wronged, was deeply suffering, and in the main was thoroughly right. Again, he implored them to let this better spirit speak out, and as it Ought to do prevail,—to give words as well as thoughts, and deeds better than either, and not to wait till the appeal, he would not say compulsion came from without. Ireland had always attracted the attention of the continent. The Spanish Armada was to have landed on her coast, Louis 14th had similar designs, which fortunately had not been fulfilled. Revolutionary France inheriting the same projects had also attempted a descent; even America was not insensible to the temptation which disorganization and discord must always naturally offer. He heartily hoped that his native shores might never be made the battle field for contending nations, and in that most earnest hope and desire be now appealed, not to men but to justice. The Irish people now asked no-

697
thing more than what they had been asking from the time of Henry 2nd to the present day, "Give us your own laws, govern us as you do yourselves." This is a reasonable demand, this demand they will not, they cannot, they ought not, for their character as a nation, and as long as there be an Union give up. It is for this House to say whether it shall be granted, and whether it shall be granted in time. Let not Ireland have still to say and to say with truth, that whenever concession had been made to her, it had been ever from a reluctant hand, and accompanied with restriction if not insult, that it was not until England had become apprehensive of a French fleet thundering on her shores, that she gave her her commercial rights; that it was not till she saw 100,000 volunteers with their eighty-three pieces of cannon, that England spoke of her as a free nation, that it was not until, as the Duke of Wellington said in the other House a civil war was irresistable, that Catholic Emancipation was conceded, "not to justice, but necessity." From 1776 to 1829, concession had followed concession. England had been forced onward from necessity to necessity. These necessities are not yet exhausted, other concessions remain yet behind. She must go on reluctantly or willingly. If justice be now done, it will be a pledge of future concord, if delayed it will be a triumph forced from her, though late at last by the moral sense more powerful than the sword of the whole civilized world.
Lord Eliotsaid, that the questions to which the hon. Member had called the attention of the House in his very able speech were so multifarious and so important, that it was impossible for him to do more than cursorily to deal with some of them. The questions of Church-rates, repeal, reform, municipal corporation reform, the Poor-law, and others, had been treated by the hon. Gentleman, any one of which would furnish subject-matter for a whole evening. He, therefore, felt the difficulty of replying to the hon. Member, but he did not like to pass them all wholly by without notice. The resolution contained four propositions; first, that there was discontent in Ireland—that he readily but sorrowfully admitted. The second was, that there were grievances in Ireland; that he was not indisposed to admit; though he thought they were of a social rather than a political character, and not of a kind that Parliament could
698
remedy. That seemed to be, in part, admitted by hon. Members opposite, for the noble Lord had spoken the other night of the relations of landlord and tenant, and said, he saw no means of remedying the evil. The third proposition was, that the House could remedy the grievances of Ireland. Now, he could not think with the hon. Gentleman, that a committee at that period of the Session could possibly afford any remedy; and he was sure that no committee which spoke the feeling of the House could agree on any one remedy. Another proposition was, that an impartial Government did not exist in Ireland. That he did not admit. The hon. Member had not shown either, that the law was so different in Ireland and in England, that the Irish had any cause to complain, or that the law was so administered as to give them any such cause. With respect to the appointments of the Government, he thought it had been admitted by one hon. Gentleman, at least, on the opposite side, that a Government could not appoint their political opponents, and as the Roman Catholics, it was generally admitted, were, for the most part opposed to the Government, it followed, that the larger portion of those appointed must be Protestants. With respect to the assistant-barristers, the only one that had been appointed since the Government came into office was a Roman Catholic. One stipendiary magistrate had been appointed since they came in and another re-appointed, both being Roman Catholics. He only mentioned this in order to show that Roman Catholics were not proscribed by the Government, and that there was every disposition to consider their claims when not actually opposed to the Government in politics. The hon. Gentleman had asked the House to what the agitation in Ireland was to be attributed? He thought that was sufficiently answered by considering, that the labouring class was in a distressed condition; and they were told that a domestic Legislature would be the panacea for all their evils; that poor-rates and taxes would be abolished, and that it would be the revival of their domestic manufactures; let this be considered, and it could be no matter of astonishment, that the poor population on being told such agreeable tidings should go in masses to hear them; but he called on the hon. Gentleman to specify what acts of the Government justified this agitation. The

699
law appointments which had been so much cavilled at of late had been carried into effect upwards of a year ago, and no demonstration of dissatisfaction with them had then been made; political partisanship had never been considered a ground for excluding from promotion at the bar; and whatever had been the conduct of such partisans in Parliament there never had been any partiality on the bench. He was sure that no man could say, that either of those two gentlemen who had been elevated by the Government, had been swayed by any political bias whatever in their decisions on the bench. He did not question the good temper and moderate tone of Dr. Kinsella's letter, though he differed from the rev. Gentleman as to the question of Repeal, which he considered nothing short of a dismemberment of the empire; but the Repeal agitation at present going on in Ireland was not at all analogous to such expression of opinion as that given by Dr. Kinsella. The manner in which opinion was expressed at the large meetings portended danger; and as the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate had referred to the letter of Dr. Kinsella, he would call the attention of the House to the pastoral address issued by the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland in 1830, after the passing of the Emancipation Bill:ߞ
" Our gracious and beloved Sovereign, it said, commiserated the state of Ireland, and resolved to confer upon her the inestimable blessing of religious peace. This great boon became the more acceptable to this country, because among the counsellors of his Majesty there appeared conspicuous the most distinguished of Ireland's own sons, a hero and a legislator, a man selected by the Almighty to break the rod which had scourged Europe, a man raised up by Providence to confirm thrones, to re-establish altars, to direct the councils of England at a crisis the most difficult, and to staunch the blood and heal the wounds of the country which gave him birth. The storm which almost wrecked the country has subsided, whilst social order, with peace and justice in her train, prepares to establish her sway in this long-distracted country. And is not the King, whom by the few of God we are bound to honour, entitled now to all the honour, and all the obedience, and all the gratitude you can bestow? And do not his Ministers merit from you a confidence commensurate with the labours and zeal expended by them on your behalf? Labour, therefore, in all things to promote the end which the Legislature contemplated in passing this bill for your relief, to wit, the pacification and improvement of Ireland. Let religious discord cease, let party feuds and
700
civil dissensions be no more heard of; let rash, and unjust, and illegal oaths be not even named amongst you; and if sowers of discord or sedition should attempt to trouble your repose, seek for a safeguard against them in the protection afforded by the law Give way to anger rather than contend with an adversary, so that nothing on your part may be wanting to promote peace and goodwill among all classes and descriptions of the Irish people. We united our efforts with those of the laity in seeking to attain their just rights, a duty imposed on us by a state of things which has passed, but a duty which we have gladly relinquished, in the fervent hope, that by us or by our successors it may not be resumed. Let no wild fanaticism, alike injurious to the Church and to the State, find access to your families, or be blended with the education of your children."
That was the language of the Roman Catholic bishops in 1830; but he regretted to say, that, a different spirit now prevailed amongst the majority of them. He regretted that, instead of affording that religious consolation to their flocks, which they were wont to do, they now employed themselves in furthering designs which he believed could only be accomplished through bloodshed. In four years after the publication of the pastoral letter, another address containing the following resolutions, was published by the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, and was as follows:ߞ
" That our chapels are not to be used in future for the purpose of holding therein any public meeting, except in cases connected with charity or religion; and that we do hereby pledge ourselves to carry this resolution into effect in our respective discusses." "That, while we do not intend to interfere with the civil rights of those intrusted to our care, yet, as guardians of religion, justly apprehending that its general interests as well as the honour of the priesthood would be compromised by a deviation from the line of conduct which we marked out for ourselves, and impressed upon the minds of our clergy in our pastoral address of the year 1830, we do hereby pledge ourselves, on our return to our respective dioceses, to remind our clergy of the instructions we then addressed to them, and to recommend to them most earnestly to avoid, in future, any allusions at their altars to political subjects, and carefully to refrain from connecting themselves with political clubs, acting as chairmen or secretaries at political meetings, or moving or seconding resolutions on such occasions, in order that we exhibit ourselves in all things in the character of our sacred calling, as ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God."
How different was that address in tone and spirit from the language of the Ro-

701
man Catholic Archbishop of Tuam at a repeal meeting held at Mullingar, where the rev. Gentleman declared that he had reason to believe, and that he knew, all the Roman Catholics of Ireland were in favour of Repeal, at the same time defying the British Ministry to pat down the agitation, and adding that if they were prevented from meeting in the open day, and in the open air, all the chapels in his diocese should be used for the purpose, and that all other instruction in them should be suspended for the purpose of forwarding the Repeal cause). He referred to such a document more in sorrow than in anger. The two first addresses were creditable to those who put them forth, as evincing an admirable temper, replete with feelings of Christian charity, and he deeply regretted that any political excitement should lead t he bishops of Ireland to depart from such sentiments. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the history of Ireland, and it was to be regretted that such references were frequently made as a means of stirring the passions of the people of that country. He respected the motives and the talents of the hon. Gentleman, and he therefore the more regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have found it necessary to refer to bygone times. History should be read in a more philosophical spirit, and when Considered as a study from which to derive lessons for our future guidance as to what should be pursued or what avoided, no study could be more useful for the statesman or politician; but it should never be resorted to for the purpose of resuscitating jealous feelings or reviving old animosities. When thus used, the introduction of history was indeed to be lamented. It was worse than idle to incite the feelings of Protestants and Roman Catholics by reference to the penal laws and the atrocities of Cromwell, or to recall a period when toleration was not even recognized, and when persons of various sects imagined it to be a duty to evince their zeal for their religion by a persecution of all others. It would now be utterly impossible to revive the spirit of religious persecution or the intolerance which prevailed at former periods. He must be excused for not following the hon. Gentleman opposite through all the calculations into which he had gone with respect to the present and a former state of Ireland, as he had not by him the documents necessary for doing so, but he would at the same time venture to
702
advert to one or two points connected with the trade of Ireland, to disprove the hon. Gentleman's deductions. The hon. Gentleman stated that Ireland was now in a worse position as regarded her finances than she was at the period of the passing of the Act of Union. The hon. Gentleman should, however remember that by the act of Union, Ireland was enabled to partake of all the advantages which accrued to England from the increased extension of her commerce and her enlarged system of colonization. The noble Lord read the following tables:—

1838-41, inclusive

1828-31. inclusive

1818-21. inclusive.

£

£

£

Imports(official value)

6,300,277

6,284,017

4,150,157

Exclusive of trade with Gt. Britain.

Exports

1,691,356

2,611,291

2,617,390

Tons.

Tons.

Tons.

Vessels entered in

7,456,524

5,607,915

3,819,778

From & to all parts

Vessels cleared out

5,255,898

4,174,896

3,696,852

Tons.

Tons.

Tons.

New vessels built

14,246

8,307

7,085

Vessels registered

698,478

409,837

277,153

Years ending January 5, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842.

TRADE.

Value of Imports into Ireland calculated at official rates.

Exports.

Total Exports calculated at official rate of value.

Value of Produce, &c. of United Kingdom, exported from Ireland, as computed at average current prices, exclusive of trade with Great Britain.

Produce of United Kingdom

Foreign and Colonial

£

£

£

£

£

1838

1,389,415

351,333

8,658

359,991

420,074

1839

1,657,934

4.55,604

16,933

472,537

532,071

1840

1,559,553,

441,860

8,688

430,548

609,874

1841

1,693,375

399,764

8,516

408,280

116,961

1842

1,615,649

349,089

7,158

356,247

368,372

Years ending January 5, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832.

TRADE.

Value of Imports into Ireland, calculated official at rates.

Exports.

Total Exports, calculated at official rate of value.

Value of Produce, &c. of United Kingdom, exported from Ireland, as computed average current prices, exclusive of trade with Great Britain.

Produce of United Kingdm.

Foreign and Colonial.

£

£

£

£

£

1828

1,632,278

768,904

17,890

786,192

661,377

1829

1,669,668

747,318

15,962

763,280

657,596

1831

1,429,843

648,227

14,651

662,878

580,200

1831

1,552,228

593,809

15,128

608,938

510,952

Years ending January 5, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822.

TRADE.

Value of Imports into Ireland, calculated at official rates.

Exports.

Total Exports, calculated at official rate of value.

Value of Produce, &c. of United Kingdom exported from, Ireland, as computed at average current prices, exclusive of trade with Great Britain.

Produce of United Kingdom.

Foreign and Colonial.

£

£

£

£

£

1818

1,033,660

736,325

24,057

760,333

1,423,099

1819

1,093,247

558,261

25,948

581,210

956,069

1820

954,542

577,519

30,886

608,406

835,983

1821

1,068,708

636,8.52

27,599

664,451

833,543

NAVIGATION.

Years.

New Vessels built.

Vessels registered.

Tonnage.

Tonnage.

1818

2,283

68,793

1819

1,606

69,233

1820

1,673

70,092

1821

2,323

69,035

Years.

Vessels entered in from all parts.

Vessels cleared out to all parts.

Tonnage,

Tonnage,

1819

907,782

893,370

1819

1,023,860

982,474

1820

926,601

902,648

1821

961,535

918,366

It was not to be denied, that during the last year there had been a falling-off when the influence of the general depression was felt by the empire at large, and, of course, it was not to be supposed, that Ireland should escape from its effects, more especially when the agricultural interests were, more than any other, subjected to the depression. The effects of that depression, however, were now beginning to pass away, and it was to be hoped, that society would soon present a new aspect. There was an indication of this in the savings-banks' returns, which were as follows:—

1832

1836

1842.

Number of Depositors

43,755

63,183

79,553

£

s.

£

£

s.

d.

Deposited to November 20

1,178,201

0

1,759,960

2,297,680

0

0

Average amount investedby each depositor

26

9

28

28

17

7¾

Deposits by charitable institutions

—

40,682

37,427

Deposits. by friendly societies

—

16,622

19,799

This showed, that a more provident disposition was exhibiting itself amongst the poorer classes in Ireland, and, that their means were increasing to a considerable extent. The hon, Gentleman entered into a discussion respecting the Irish Reform Bill; but it was to be remembered that that bill had been brought under the consideration of the House by those with whom the noble Lord opposite had acted; and it was to be presumed, that in bringing forward the measure, they had entered into all the necessary calculations. At all events, the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had challenged discussion as to the nature of the franchise conferred by that bill, and stated, that he was prepared to show that it was as favourable to the voters in Ireland, as to those in this country. It was, however, sufficient for him (Lord Eliot) to say, that that act had not been the act of the present Government, but the act of the Government to which the noble Lord opposite had belonged, and which had, of course, availed itself of all

705
the means to acquire the information upon which the measure should be adjusted. It was urged by the hon. Gentleman, that population ought to be the basis upon which to found the franchise. Now, this had never been admitted as a principle by any Government, although it was always acknowledged to be an element of which they should never lose sight. It bad been said, that it was unjust not to give Ireland a greater number of representatives in that House. Why, of the 105 representatives of Ireland, in the House of Commons, not more than from ten to twelve had attended on the opposite side during the Session. [Cheers.] He could not understand what that cheer meant. the was not aware of any measure which had been brought into that House relative to Ireland which was calculated to provoke, or had provoked, resistance. It was said, that nothing had been done for Ireland. No less than twenty-three measures had been introduced in the course of last Session, and upon neither of those had there been any division. On the contrary, they had been passed with the unanimous assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not take any credit to the Government for those measures, but when it was insisted that no measure relative to Ireland had been introduced, he must call the attention of the House to two measures of great importance which had been passed in the course of last Session. The Drainage and Fisheries Acts had been fully discussed; they bad now become law, and they promised to prove most beneficial in their results to that country. There was another Irish bill passed, which proved that the attention of the Government was directed to Ireland—he meant the measure assimilating the law respecting the punishment of death to the law as it existed in this country. The measure attracted little or no attention at the time; but it was still one of no small importance as regarded the assimilating of the criminal laws of the two countries, and as serving to show that there was no indisposition on the part of the present Government to obviate every evil which was capable of a practical remedy. Again, when a difficulty arose with respect to Presbyterian marriages, Government did all in its power to settle the question, and though they could not say, whether or not they had succeeded in their endeavour to
706
do so, they had done enough to evince the disposition. Again, with respect to the Municipal Corporation Bill, it was found so clumsy—he did not mean any imputation upon those by whom it was passed—but it was found so clumsy as to be, in some instances inoperative for its own purposes, that great practical inconveniences arose out of it and in Limerick the old Corporation with its old officers was restored. The present Government, however, wishing to give practical effect to what had been the declared intention of the Legislature, brought in a bill to remedy the defect. This was done by the present Government, though they objected to the bill when it was under discussion. The hon. Gentleman found fault even with the Irish Municipal bill, though he must, and all must admit, that it was a measure making a transfer of power to the popular party. He had subjected himself to some obloquy with respect to the Irish Municipal Bill, and he much regretted that there should be occasion for it. He had confidently hoped, that the power proposed to be granted by the bill would not have been used for political purposes. He conceived, that all who were subjected to taxation for local purposes should have some control over the funds to which they contributed, and he regretted, that his prediction that the powers proposed to be given for others would not be diverted to political purposes. He, however, found, that the contrary was the case, and that in some instances whole corporate bodies in Ireland advocated the Repeal of the Union. Though they had thus deviated from this peculiar province, he did not regard the vote which he had given, and, if it were to do again, he would vote so again, even though aware of the facts which had since occurred. He would not blame trial by jury because of the return of an erroneous verdict, nor deny the principle of representation because of an unwise statute. The question of the Irish Poor-law had been touched on, but into that he would not then enter. The appointments under that act by the late Government had been animadverted on, but the defence of those appointments must be undertaken by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), and not by him. He would not raise the subject on that occasion, but he would express it as his firm conviction that both the late Government and the House of

707
Commons in passing that act were influenced by a most sincere desire to alleviate the wants of the Irish people, and that the measure was promoted in the purest spirit of benevolence and humanity. Reference had been made to the Arms Bill; but there had been so many discussions on that measure that he did not wish to occupy the time of the house on the present occasion by adverting to it. He would only state his solemn assurance that nothing would have induced him to propose any restrictions on the rights of the people of Ireland if he had not been satisfied in his own conscience that such a measure was necessary for the protection of the lives and property of the people of that country. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to comment on the conduct of the Government in refusing to advance money for railways in Ireland. It was very well to say that all that was asked for was the credit of the country, and the Irish counties would have guaranteed the repayment of the money; but he would ask any Gentleman who had been in office whether it was not known that nothing was so difficult as to obtain the repayment of such advances? He believed, that a very great number of the railways in England did not pay; and he was given to understand that in Ireland one single railway alone—namely, that to Cork, would have cost to complete it, 5,000,000 l. [" No, no!"] Well, supposing it would have only cost 2,000,000 l. or 3,000,000 l., it would have been totally impossible for the counties, burthened with the county cess, to repay the money; and if this money had been advanced, the Government must either have taken harsh measures to force the counties to repay, or the money must have been lost to the public. He had reason to believe, that some of the lines of railway in Ireland might be executed with British capital, if the present state of excitement did not deter the English capitalists from embarking their money in Ireland; and he knew that several speculations settled and determined on had been put a stop to by the apprehensions arising from what he might call the present outbreak in Ireland. Another matter referred to in the course of the present discussion was the education system in Ireland; and, considering the feeling entertained on that subject by many hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and by many of the clergy
708
of the Established Church, the hon. Gentleman made but a bad return for the course pursued by his right hon. Friend, when he taunted him with having acted in a cold manner. There would be no encouragement to make such concessions if they were to be met in such a spirit. Allusions had been made to a point of minor importance—the formation of a law society in Dublin; and the failure of that project had been attributed to the interference of the Lord Chancellor, but it was his impression that that project was defeated by the benchers and Members of the Queen's Inn. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman advert to the Croal contract—the contract for the mails. Now, it happened that Mr. Purcell who had the mail-coach contract in Ireland before, was himself a bidder for the Scotch contract in a previous year; and out of nineteen competitors, he was the lowest but one. Supposing Mr. Purcell had been the successful competitor, would any Scotch gentleman have deemed his country insulted, because an Irish coach contractor had gained the contract for Scotland? It was quite clear, that these contracts must be open to the competition of the whole empire. The hon. Gentleman had furnished the House with a list of Englishmen who, he stated, held office in Ireland. He (Lord Eliot) believed that the present Government had not appointed, with the exception of the Irish Lord Chancellor, any Englishman to office in Ireland; and, therefore, if the reproach of the hon. Gentleman was merited, it should be directed against the noble Lord near him and his colleagues. But, he would ask, was there not a very fair proportion of Irishmen employed in the public departments in this country? The hon. Gentleman had adverted to some declaration made by him (Lord Eliot) on the hustings. He was not disposed to retract a single word of that declaration. The spirit of what he had said was, that the Government of Ireland would act t impartially and make no distinction in reference to the religious creed of any individuals; and he believed, that the Government had acted with impartiality. It had been said by an hon. and learned Gentleman on that (the Ministerial) side, that the Government in Ireland lied treated the Conservatives with coldness; and therefore he was entitled to say, that charges of such an opposite nature, proceeding from op-

709
posite parties, only proved, that the Government had endeavoured to steer a middle course, and no case of corruption or partiality had been established against the Government. The hon. Gentleman had called on the Government to say why they did not treat Ireland as they did Canada? Did the hon. Gentleman think, that any analogy could be established between Ireland, which was an integral part of the empire, and a distant country, having a separate legislature and which did not send representatives to the Imperial Parliament? Did the hon. Gentleman mean to assert that it was possible to have one set of Ministers for Ireland and another set for England? So long as there existed an Imperial Legislature, charged with the conduct of the affairs of the empire, the Ministers must be the representatives of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom, and not of the inhabitants of one portion of it merely. The hon. Gentleman had dismissed the subject of fixity of tenure in a few words—almost with contempt. The hon. Gentleman said, he had not heard of any plan on this point which he believed to be practical. It was not easy to understand what was meant by fixity of tenure; but the hon and learned Member for Cork had thus described it:
"No landlord to be able to recover rent unless he made a lease for twenty-one years to the tenant, proof to be given on oath as to what a solvent tenant ought to give as rent for land, the amount to be decided on trial by jury. The tenant to be allowed annually to register the improvements he makes on his holding, and at the expiration of the lease, unless the landlord should have paid the full value of the improvements, it should not be competent to him to eject the tenant, who would be entitled to a new lease."
Now, it appeared that these questions were to be decided by a jury, but whether the jury was to be composed of the friends and co-tenants of the tenant was a point on which the hon. and learned Member for Cork had not thought proper to give any information. With respect to fixity of tenure, he must state his opinion, that he had seen no plan of that kind which did not strike at the root of property. He fully admitted that property had its duties as well as its rights, but these were moral duties, difficult, if not impossible, to be defined by the Legislature, and the interest of the community at large would be best consulted by religiously respecting
710
the rights of property. He Could conceive no plan which interfered with those rights, which, however it might benefit particular individuals, could not carry with it a much larger amount of evil. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to the tithe commutation, but had altogether undervalued the benefit conferred on the tenantry of Ireland by that measure. Since that act came into operation the tithe war had ceased; and he was satisfied, that, if the rent-charge were abolished, the amount would go into the pockets of the landlords, and the tenants would be no gainers. The House must recollect, too, that the Church Ireland was the church of the majority of the empire. [Oh! oh!] It was the Church of the great mass of the proprietors of land in Ireland, from whom the revenues of the church were derived. Mr. O'Connell stated, in 1825, before a committee of the Lords, that the Roman Catholics did not hold one-tenth of the fee-simple of land in Ireland. It was, therefore, clear that nine-tenths of the land belonged to Protestant Protestant properties; and out of the land the tithe rent-charge was derived. In 1833 Lord Althorp stated he revenues of the Irish church to be as follows.—

£

Amount of the revenue of Bishops' sees

130,000

Revenue of Deans and Chapters, exclusive of the livings held by them as pre bends

2,200

Revenue of the other benefices in Ireland

600,000

732,200

Say in round numbers 750,000 l.

This, by conversion of tithes to rent-charge in 1837, would have been reduced to

560,000

By the Church Temporalities Act, about 65,000 l., the amount of parish cess, was taken way from the income of the church, which, after the substitution of rent-charge for tithe, might be laid at

495,

The number of the beneficed clergy in Ireland was stated by Lord Althorp to be 1,400. Excluding, therefore, the Bishop's revenues (i. e., 60,000 l.), the average income of the working clergy was 435,000 l ߞ1,400

310

From this, moreover, was to be deducted he salary paid to curates, whose number dr. Lefroy, in April, 1833, laid at 662.

711
If then there were to be clergymen at all in Ireland the average income could not be said to be too high. The noble Lord concluded by opposing the appointment of the proposed committee, which at that period of the Session could only be productive of inconvenience. The motion was calculated to convey a censure on the Government, and to produce an impression that the affairs of Ireland had not been conducted on just and impartial principles; and for this reason, also, he opposed the motion; and he trusted that the House, looking to the present circumstances of Ireland, would strengthen the hands of Government by rejecting the motion by a large majority.
Mr. C. Woodfelt all the difficulty under which an English Member must labour in the present discussion, from want of accurate acquaintance with the country; but, on the other hand, he thought it would be extremely unfortunate, if the Members for England and for Scotland should appear to take no interest in the affairs of Ireland; and the present state of Ireland was such, that there was not one person in the remotest part of the empire, who might not find the danger brought home to his own door. He had listened, with great disappointment, to the speech of his noble Friend; for after the hon. Member for Limerick had pointed out, with too much truth, that the state of Ireland was fraught with danger, and the grievances under which she laboured, the noble Lord admitted the danger and admitted the grievances, but sat down without suggesting the views of the Government, or stating that they bad considered a single remedy for any one of the grievances which the noble Lord admitted to exist. Ireland was to be left in the situation in which it was, when its alarming state was first brought to their notice; and the Government who were responsible for the peace of the empire, did not state how they would deal with the dangers which existed, or whether they would apply any remedy for any of the evils. He was as anxious as any one to avoid personal matters, but the question of persons was one, which in relation to Irish affairs, could not be overlooked. Nobody denied the difficulty of applying legislative remedies to many of the evils which at present existed in Ireland, and, therefore, it was of primary importance That the Government should possess the confidence of the,
712
people of that country. According to the admission of the noble Lord himself, the present state of Ireland was in no small degree to be attributed to the want of confidence in the present Administration. [Ministerial cheers.] Did the Gentlemen who cheered mean to deny that? Did they mean to assert that the great majority of the people of Ireland had confidence in their present Government. [Cheers.] Those who cheered his remarks in that sense, appeared to him to show the most complete ignorance of what was occurring in that country. He did not stand there to defend all the measures of the late Administration with regard to Ireland; but it could not be denied that under their rule Ireland became quiet, and that they left it so. The present state of Ireland had not existed many years, it had arisen under the present Government. They might say what they pleased of the late Administration, they might say that it placed itself at the feet of Mr. O'Connell, that it truckled to agitation—but they could not deny the fact that Ireland was tranquil, and that she is disturbed. Even if it were as they supposed, but which he denied, the peace of Ireland would have been cheaply purchased; and unless measures were taken to restore peace in Ireland, the present system might be dearly paid for by the people of this country. It might be an answer to him in that House, though it would be so nowhere else, that at some meeting Mr. O'Connell had declared that Lord-Lieutenant Fortescue was as bad as Lord Chancellor Sugden but could anybody suppose this to be the real expression of the opinion of the people of Ireland. It was impossible to remember all the questions in which the people of Ireland had taken an interest, without knowing that one side of the House had been for them, and the other side against them. Catholic Emancipation was generally opposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and generally supported by those on that (the Opposition) side. The same with the Irish Reform Bill, and the Municipal Reform. Even with respect to the distribution of patronage, it had been by one party bestowed upon those who sympathised with the majority of the people of Ireland, whilst it was admitted in the other case to be given to the minority. It was impossible for any Irishman who had paid any attention to past events in Ireland, to

713
entertain the same feeling for those who had opposed all their wishes, and for those by whom they had been always supported. The feeling did not arise from any disinclination to a particular individual, because he was not absurd enough to believe that the right hon. Baronet did not desire to pursue a conciliatory course, or that the noble Lord would not endeavour to act up to the declarations he had made on the hustings, and to his conduct in that House, where he had more than once separated himself from his party on Irish affairs: but for centuries Ireland had been governed upon a system, which, however, calculated it might be for former times, was not fit for the present; and the misfortune of the Government was, that they were identified to a considerable extent in the minds of the body of the people with the system under which they had so long suffered. As a modern historian had said, there had been in Ireland two people, one old, the other recent, one Catholic, the other Protestant, and the Protestant minority, by the aid of this country, had ruled the Catholic majority. The settlers in Ireland had frequently been called the Protestant garrison of that country. He must do them justice; they had gallantly performed their duty, but the times for such a course were gone. He did not believe it was the wish to revive them, but even if there were this wish it was impossible. If Ireland now were to be governed at all, she must be governed upon just principles the difficulty was, to know how the transition was to be accomplished from the former system to one in unison with the opinions and feelings of the present time. It was difficult enough for any Government, and more difficult for the present, from circumstances and conduct of their own, which has connected them with the former system of exclusive domination. The declaration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that "conciliation had been carried to the utmost in Ireland," was entirely in that spirit. "Concession after concession had been made," said the right hon. Baronet, "and there was no gratitude." He (Mr. Wood) very much regretted the use of such language. It was not calculated to allay excitement, or encourage hope amongst the Irish people. In the first place, he protested against the word "concession." If the exclusive possession of power by
714
the Protestants was their right, then everything they gave up to the other party must be regarded as concession; but if the fact was, that the majority of the people of Ireland had similar rights, which were withheld from them for a time, on account of their allegiance to an expelled race, then when the time came, that there was no longer a necessity for withholding them, it was not concession to give, it was injustice to withhold those rights, Nor, in fact, was there much gratitude due from the people in Ireland, considering the mode in which Catholic Emancipation was carried. It must be recollected, that at the time the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) declared that his opinions on the question were unchanged, but that he adopted the less of two dangers. If he (Mr. Wood) were asked to point out the main cause of the agitation in Ireland, he said fearlessly that he should attribute it to the manner in which Catholic Emancipation was carried, which taught the people of Ireland, and a large portion of the people of this country, that they might extort from the fears of the Government, that which they could not obtain from their justice. And now it was not so much the justice of what they required—that they had been taught not to regard—which urged the people on; but the Clare election had carried Catholic emancipation without reference to the justice of the question, and now, regardless of the justice of their demand, the people believed that a similar demonstration in favour of Repeal, would be equally attended with success. The right hon. Baronet called on them to declare, that they were prepared to resist the Repeal of the Union. He (Mr. C. Wood) would be willing to answer any call of that kind, and to agree to any declaration that the right hon. Baronet might think it prudent to propose on that subject. He admitted, that many good men had opposed the Union at the time it was passed, and that it had been carried by discreditable means, but he believed that a Repeal of the Union would be the destruction of the prosperity of this empire, and that it ought, by every possible means, to be resisted. But whilst they entertained this determination, he thought there was a great deal of force in such appeals as had been made that night by the hon. Member for Limerick, and on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Kildare,

715
who called on the Government to give them the means of telling the Repeaters, that everything that was possible would be done to remedy the evils of Ireland. He thought the appeal of the hon. Member for Limerick, calmly and temperately made as it had been, was irresistible, and how had it been met by his noble Friend? Why, not by one single sentence. He thought that the Government were bound to state that they were prepared to bring forward some measures to remedy the evils that existed in Ireland. The noble Secretary for Ireland had enumerated various minor measures passed by the Government, and said that their conduct had given no cause for the violent spirit of opposition; but they were, in truth, suffering the natural retribution for their former conduct in respect to Irish matters. The noble Lord had referred to the electoral franchise in Ireland, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had told them, on a former night, that in the Registration Bill which he had introduced, three years ago, he had no intention of restricting the franchise. He (Mr. Wood) implicitly believed the noble Lord; he had voted with him at the time, believing that he was only anxious to apply a remedy to an admitted evil with which the late Government had declined to deal. But the noble Lord has truly said that his bill had been perverted into an instrument of party spirit. No doubt it was; and it was on that account that he (Mr. Wood) at the time, had proposed a course, the wisdom of which the Government would not now deny, for they had pursued it both in the last and present Session, of giving precedence to the English Registration Bill. The noble Lord then opposed it; his Friends, the hon. Gentlemen opposite, Careless of the evil and its remedy, sought only a party triumph, and forgot that in doing so, they were trifling with the feelings of the Irish people. But the Secretary for the Home Department now admitted that the noble Lord's bill would have reduced the numbers of the Irish Constituencies, already far too restricted. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord assert again, that the franchise in Ireland was on a popular and liberal basis. It might be so in words, but how was it in fact? The whole number of registered county electors in Ireland was about 63,000, whilst in the West "Riding of Yorkshire there were more than
716
33,000 registered electors, being more than hall of the entire number of electors registered in all Ireland. Should he be again told, then, that the Irish franchise was liberal and popular? It was a mockery to say so. Now, that was a grievance which the Government might remedy, and in remedying it, they would show, that they had the interest of Ireland at heart. The municipal franchise was not extended there as it was in England, upon the single ground that it would admit Roman Catholics. Was not this similar to a revival of the old penal laws against the Catholics? Did it not exclude persons from the possession of the franchise, which they would otherwise possess, merely on account of their religion? These evils were undisputed; the remedies were clear, and ought to be applied; but there were others of greater magnitude with which it was infinitely more difficult to deal. Amongst the first was the state of the Church. They had been told, that the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment in its undiminished proportions was essential to the union of the two kingdoms. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had declared that the Protestants only sought to maintain the Union to preserve the Church, and that if the Church were gone, the Union would no longer be of any value. They had also been told that the Roman Catholics would not be satisfied unless they obtained the supremacy of their own Church. He did not advocate Roman Catholic supremacy, but if he placed himself in the situation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he should find little difficulty in coming to conclusions similar to those which the people of that country had arrived at. The Roman Catholics of that country might look through all the countries of Europe, but they would find that in none of them was such an Establishment maintained for the benefit of a small minority of the population. So strongly had this been felt that various attempts had been made, at least to palliate the anomaly. Mr. Pitt proposed to pay the Roman Catholic clergy; but the project failed. Another attempt, with the same object, was made in 1825, which also failed. He believed the time for any such purpose was now gone by. In 1835, an attempt was made to appropriate a portion of the revenues of the Church to purposes of religious education,

717
that the whole population might benefit, but that was rejected. The only practical result had been, that whilst the Church had been deprived of one-fourth of her revenues, the produce had been put into the pockets of parties who had no claim at all to it, that is, the Protestant landlords. He did not think that the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), that the tithes were paid by the Protestant landlords, was an answer to the objections against that Establishment. The Establishment was for the living people, and not for the land. He had always been a friend to the Established Church; but he trembled for the permanent prosperity or existence of a Church like that in Ireland, which was built upon a foundation of sand, in which the great majority of the people had no interest. He would not presume even to give an opinion on some suggestions which had been made on this subject. It was not for hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House to propose a remedy. It was the duty of the Government, as the responsible parties, to originate a remedy for the evils which had been complained of. The question of fixity of tenure had been referred to. It certainly was a substantial grievance, that 200 or 300 persons might be turned out to starve at the will of a particular landed proprietor. Such a system was well calculated to produce a revolution in ally country, and if the ejectment had not been effected by piecemeal in Ireland, such consequences must have ensued. He thought that a measure might be proposed which would have the effect of putting a stop to that indiscriminate dismissal of tenantry which was at present unfortunately practised in Ireland. The misery produced by this grievance, and the existence of the grievance itself, he believed, afforded plain evidence of another evil in the social condition of Ireland; it proved the fact that the ejected tenants clung to the land not so much from any feelings of profit by their holding, as from the necessity which compelled them to depend upon it for their very existence. He believed it to be of the greatest importance to improve the material, and with it the social condition of the people of Ireland. With that view the late Government proposed a scheme of railroads throughout the country, which had been rejected by the opposite side of the House. One great object, of course, was to find employment for the
718
masses of unemployed people. The noble. Lord had referred with praise to the celebrated declaration of the late Irish Government, that "property had its duties as well as its rights;" but he remembered with what indignation that declaration bad been received, as a violation of the inherent claims of proprietors. He would not weary the House at that late hour, but he thought measures had been in progress, which were interrupted by the present state of that country, for creating in Ireland those classes, by which in England the country was almost self-governed, ߞmagistrates in whom the people had confidence;—landlords and tenants sympathising with each other; and persons of those independent classes who formed the local machinery of government in this country. Measures of this description he considered absolutely necessary, even if they could not grapple with the greater evils. He repeated, therefore, that he hoped her Majesty's Government would make some declaration of measures which they bad in contemplation. [An hon. Member: Suggest some.] No, it was not for him to point out the course they should pursue, the responsibility rested not with him, but with the advisers of the Crown. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had laid down the sound principle, that it was for Ministers, and not for Members on the Opposition, to propose measures. The Government admitted the evil, mid they were bound to find a remedy for it. They were not to come down to that House with the Arms Bill alone. It might be necessary if there was an outbreak in Ireland to repress it by some coercive measures stronger even than an Arms Bill, but he was a bad physician who would treat outward symptoms without considering the inward disease, and if we were to be left with Ireland a source of weakness by our side, he knew not whether the state of things would be much worse in the event of that absolute dismemberment which they all deprecated. He could not see how they could separate without hearing the Government make some statement. He knew the strength of that Government—he knew how powerfully they were supported—and he did hope, that relying upon that support, they would abandon their present policy, and adopt such measures as would conciliate to them those great masses of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland who were

719
now led by their prelates, formerly men of peace, and whose affection and attachment it ought to be the duty of the Government to secure.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. — Earl of Abergavenny.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
Reported. —Wheat, etc., Canada; Salmon Fisheries.
3a, and passed:—Chelsea Hospital.
Received the Royal Assent.—Sugar Duties; Roman Catholic Oath (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Lagan Navigation.
Reported.—Milne's Free School; Maryport and Carlisle Railway; Lough Foyle Drainage; Tay Ferries; Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Eglwys-rhos Inclosure; Burry Navigation.
3a. and passed:—Morris's Estate; Aberdeen Harbour.
Received the Royal Assent.—Drumpeller Railway (No. 2); Northampton and Peterborough Railway; South Eastern and London and Croydon Railway (Bricklayers Arms Extension); Borrowstownness Harbour; Southampton Docks; Southampton Cemetery; Topsham Improvement; Mildenhall Drainage; Leighton Bussard Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Radnor, from Kent for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Chichester, from the Clergy of Chichester, for an Alteration of the Law relative to Tithes.—From a number of places, against the Canada Corn Bill.—From the Clergy of Warwick and Worcester, for Altering the Law relating to the Burial Service.—From Hollingbourn Union, against the Beer Act, and for altering the Law regulating the rating of Small Tenements.—From a number of Clergymen, for an improved Church Government.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
The Archbishop of Dublinrose to present a petition, signed by upwards of 200 members of the Established Church in Ireland, on the subject of Church government. The prayer of the petitioners was, that the House would take measures to remedy the evils which were occasioned from the want of a Church government for the United Church of England and Ireland. The petition was particularly directed to the subject of the anomalous position of the Church in relation to the civil legislature. It had been felt that there was a want of a legislature for the whole Church, and if it were said what need could there be for
566
this, he replied that, although the Bishops were governors of the Church, yet they had not the power of altering or abrogating its laws. Some years ago he brought this subject under the consideration of the House, and at that time he was listened to with great attention. He then urged that these questions should be settled, but nothing had been done; and were they now in a more peaceable state than they were then? He did not wish that any alteration should be made in the Litany and the formularies of the Church, but he wished that some legislative body should be appointed which could settle those things which now needed to be settled. It was of the utmost importance that all those points which ought to be left at large should be fully left at large; but some points needed to be decided either one way or the other, for there were points on which members of the same Church entertained different opinions, and the persons entertaining those opinions, denounced as unsound members of the Church those who entertained contrary ones. They were told that they must have controversies—that truth was elicited by them. There were parties in both Houses of Parliament, and was it to be endured that a Member of this or the other House should denounce another Member for high treason, merely because he differed from him? And was it not high treason to denounce a member of the Church—especially one holding office in it—as au unsound one, merely on account of a difference of opinion? This, he said, had been going on lately, to an extent which was disgraceful, dangerous, and ruinous to the Church. If men could not agree, they might say that such a course of instruction was improper, or injudicious, but to say that it was heterodox, that it was contrary to the Articles of the Church, was a charge strictly analogous to that of treason in a civil community. Their Lordships must bear in mind that not only laymen and clergymen, but Bishops were denounced in this manner, and were declared unsound members of the church by persons entertaining the highest zeal for the Church. In stating this, he begged to be understood not to give any opinion as to who were right, and who were wrong; but he had seen it stated, not only in magazines and newspapers, but in pamphlets, bearing the authors' names, that such a bishop, or such a cler-

567
gyman was an unsound member of the Church. The public had lately been looking with great interest to the charges of the Bishops, as giving such and such opinions. Their Lordships must be aware that the Bishops had no more authority to decide these points than any writer of any anonymous pamphlet. The Bishop could not do more than give his own opinion. Then it had been said, both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, that the great body of the clergy and laity entertained a zealous attachment to the Church; but taking all those who made that profession they would find one party condemning their opponents who professed the same zealous attachment to the Church as unsound members of the Church. This was a state of things which was disgraceful, dangerous, and ruinous to the Church, and which would be so to any community whatever. He stated, some years ago, in that House that such a state of things would not right itself, but, on the contrary, that the evil would increase and get worse; and this prediction had been most lamentably confirmed by the present state of things, for the evil had increased and was daily increasing. They were often told to adhere to the wisdom of their ancestors. He could understand and tolerate that doctrine when a similar state of circumstances existed, but they must know that in the time of their ancestors the Church was governed by members of the Church, which had not been the case for the last century. Their Lordships must remember that rights carried duties with them. The two Houses of Parliament, in conjunction with the Crown, alone had the power of legislating for the Church, and if the three branches of the Legislature did not conceive it to be a suitable office for them to put an end to all this discord and uncertainty, it clearly was the duty of Parliament to entrust the task to the hands of those who could be legally constituted to do so, and who would have the will to do so. If he were a permanent Member of the House, or, although only an occasional Member of the House, if he were even a permanent resident in England, he would endeavour to bring the matter before the House by a substantive motion for an address to her Majesty, praying for the appointment of a commission to make inquiries with a view of Establishing a Church Government in spiritual matters alone, or of
568
causing the adoption of such other measures as might be deemed fit and expedient. As it was, he submitted the matter to his right rev. Brethren the English Bishops, for if they did not agree with him, it would be impossible for him to carry anything in opposition to their wishes, or, in fact, to do anything at all without the assistance. The most rev. Prelate concluded by moving, that the petition should he on the Table.
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, on a matter of such deep moment to the Church,' and therefore to the nation, he could not omit saying a few words, though he should not enter much into the subject in the absence of many of his right rev. Friends; some of whom had expressed opinions concurring with those just advocated by the most rev. Prelate. The position of the Church was most objectionable as a body, without any power of self-legislation, or authority, by internal arrangements to settle matters in which might be required adaptation, alteration, or abrogation. The inconveniences resulting from this state of things, were most weighty and painful, pressing every day on the consideration of those who were exposed to them by their position; and now, so notorious were they, that they could no longer be disregarded. If the reasons were required for the discontinuance of the ancient self-government of the Church they would hardly be satisfactorily supplied either in objections to the nature of the system, or to the altered circumstances of the times. The convocation might not theoretically be the most excellent and perfect form of church legislature; but he could not deem it so impracticable or useless as it had been represented. The upper House, composed of the Prelates, could not, surely be open to the charge of too great tendency to popular influencies; and the other House consisted of only l44 Members, a number of which certainly if popularly elected might be susceptible of excited influencies, but which was made up, of first, the deans, dignitaries next in rank to the bishops, and probably about the same age, not at all likely to consider matters in other than a calm and temperate manner; nor less likely to deal with church matters in such a spirit were the archdeacons—the very élite of the clergy—to whom, assuredly such subjects might safely be intrusted.

569
So that more than half the Members of the lower House were persons not popularly elected, but sitting by virtue of their stations and offices in the church. The excitement common now-a-days in church matters might be ascribed in no slight degree to the absence of any recognized form of government—of any mode by which opinions could be brought to the test of calm consideration. Something analogous to this evil in the Church might be noticed in the excitement accustomed to pervade the country during the temporary cessations of Parliamentary deliberations, when public questions were discussed at dinners and meetings, and exciting language bandied to and fro in speeches and papers — an excitement dying away in a great degree when matters were brought again before regularly authorized assemblies; and even the wild excitement—the fierce language echoed so loudly on the other side of the Irish channel, was apt to die away to something more approaching rational discussion and argumentative consideration when it was brought into the Houses of Parliament. Nor was this wholly dissimilar to what must occur in a church where there was no authorized body to consider conflicting opinions calmly; and, therefore, they were left to the excited and exciting controversies of those least able and least willing to treat them in so befitting and beneficial a spirit. There would be no safety or security to the Church, if she were not permitted to accommodate herself in a due degree to the altered circumstances of the age, and with recognized authority to meet the necessities which, in the course of time, must inevitably occur.
The Bishop of Ossoryexpressed his dissent from the prayer of the petition.
Petition laid on the Table.

ARMY IN CHINA-THANKS OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Chancellorinformed the House, that he had received a letter from Sir H. Gough in answer to the vote of Thanks passed by that House to him, and the army under him, for their gallant services in China. It was as follows:—
" Mereaca, Coorg, 10 th May 1843.
" My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordships' letter of the 25th February, forwarding the resolution of the House of Lords, expressing the sense of the House on my conduct, and, on that of the general, and other officers, non-commissioned
570
officers and privates, as well native as European, of the force under my command in China.
"I have not failed to communicate to the officers and persons therein referred to, the honourable testimonial of their conduct: and I have no doubt that it will be as highly estimated by them, as the favourable view which the House of Lords has taken of my conduct has impressed upon me.
"I beg your Lordship will do me the honour to convey to the House of Lords my grateful acknowledgments upon my part, as well as upon that of the force lately under my command, for the high honour they have conferred on us by their approbation.
"Requesting your Lordship will accept my best thanks for the communication of the approval of the House of Lords,
" I have the honour to be,
" My Lord,
"Your most obedient servant,
(signed) "H. GOUGH. General,"
Letter to be entered on the Journals.

SCINDE.
The Marquess of Clanricardeon withdrawing the motion which stood in his name for that night relative to Scinde, in consequence of the illness of the Earl of Ripon, said, he believed it was wholly unparalleled in the affairs of this Country, that such occurrences should have taken place without any communication being made until so long a time after. All the information the House was possessed of was, that all which had been done, and all that was now doing, were the acts of the Indian government, and without instructions from home.
Motion withdrawn.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Mintowished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. A report had been pretty generally circulated, and apparently upon good authority, that one of the plans which the Government proposed to take towards the conciliation of Scotland, was to apply the free tiends towards the extension of the Church of Scotland. The report had been received in that country with very considerable alarm—perhaps the noble Earl could allay it.
The Earl of Aberdeenneed not inform the noble Earl that the subject did not belong to his department; therefore he was unable to give any answer to the question. He would only say, that he was not aware that any decision had yet been come to on the subject.
Lord Broughamwould tell his noble Friend, that the point could be easily settled. Her Majesty's Government had only to introduce a clause in the bill before the House, declaring—declaratory clauses were now the fashion—declaring, that all such property belonging to his noble Friend or any other person was to be the property of the church.

CANADA CORN-LAW.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, that he rose to move, that their Lordships should go into committee on the Canada Wheat Bill. In doing that, he should not think it necessary to enter into any long statement, but should content himself with stating as briefly as possible the general objects of the measure. The bill was to reduce the duties on wheat and wheat flour imported from Canada. The effect of the bill would be that Canada wheat, which lately paid a duty varying from 5s. to 1s. per quarter, would be introduced at a nominal duty of 1s., and that United States wheat, brought to Canada, and ground there, would pay a fixed duty of 4s. on importation into this country. This was the sole change effected by the bill now before their Lordships. American wheat and flour imported from America, could only be introduced under the bill, at the foreign duty, as they were now. He was not going to hold up the measure as one of paramount importance. It never had been so represented by those who originated it, and, probably, but for accidental circumstances, it never would have attracted so much attention. Their Lordships were aware, that from the first introduction of the measure, very great doubts and apprehensions had been felt respecting it in various quarters. He felt confident, that the discussion which the measure had undergone in the other House, and the investigation which had been made by the country into its real nature and effects, had done much to remove the misapprehensions which existed; but as they were not entirely;removed, it would be his duty to advert shortly to a few of the objections brought against it. It was said, in the first place, that this was an entirely new measure. This was not so; for the corn introduced under this measure would be simply that introduced under the former act, by which wheat grown in the United States, and ground in Canada, was imported as Canadian produce. This had been so since the law of 1828, and was done under the direct sanction of official authority.
572
American wheat ground in Canada, according to the general rule, that manufactures were to be considered as the produce of the country where they were made, without paying any regard to the country from which their raw material was obtained, had invariably been treated as if it were the produce of Canada. It was said that even if this were so, the reduction of duty from 5s. to 4s. was one which, in the present depressed state of the agricultural interest, ought not to be agreed to. He trusted he should be able to show their Lordships, that the duty imposed by the present measure, was fully equivalent to that hitherto levied. He held in his hand, a return made by order of the House of Commons, showing the rates of duty levied on Canadian wheat during the last five years, from which it appeared that the average of that period was no more than 2s. 1d. It was said, that the measure now before their Lordships would produce a vast inundation of cheap corn. He thought he could undertake to show their Lordships that there would not be an inundation of corn, and that the corn introduced under it would not be cheaper than that which was imported from Canada under the law as it now stood. He had a return from the Custom-house, showing the total amount of wheat imported from Canada, under the operation of the law of 1828. During thirteen years, from 1830 to 1843 there were introduced 1,153,968 quarters, making the average importation of each year, less than 90,000 quarters, little more than one day's consumption. There appeared no reason to suppose that an importation, which remained so steady during the last thirteen years, would receive a sudden and great increase. Of the quantity he had mentioned, 950,000 quarters were introduced when the price was at upwards of 55 s., not 200,000 quarters of the whole having entered this country when the price was under that. It was clear, then, that there was no reason to apprehend any considerable importation, when the price was under 55 s. Now, at Montreal, the price usually varied from 45 s. to 50 s., and never fell below 40 s. From 1815 to 1842, he found there were but two years in which the price of wheat in Canada stood as low as 40 s., and the average price during twenty-seven years was 49 s. 9d. Assuming the average price at Montreal to be 45 s., he should be able to show their Lordships, that no corn could be introduced under the price he had named. The freight and charges from Montreal to this

573
country were, according to the various returns, 12 s. 6d., 13 s. 6d., 14 s. 6d., and 16 s. per quarter. He would take the price at Montreal, at the lowest rate of 40 s., and the freight at the lowest amount 12 s. 6d., which would make the price when introduced into this country, adding the duty, 53 s. 6d. It might be said, that corn would be brought direct from the great western states of America, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. The average price of corn at Cleveland, the great port of Ohio, in the last year, for which a return could be made out, was 39 s. 6d., for which the freight and Charges to Montreal, would be 15 s., according to the Parliamentary papers. But take the price at Cleveland at 30 s., and add the freight and charges to Montreal, 15 s., and thence to this country, 12 s. 6d., it would be impossible that corn from Ohio, coming by way of Montreal, paying 3s. duty on the Canadian frontier, and 1s. duty on reaching England, could be brought into this country under 61 s. or 62 s. In Michigan, the price was 20 s., and the freight and charges to Montreal would be 17 s., so that Michigan corn, with the 3s. duty, could not be brought to England under 53 s. 6d. From Illinois, corn could not be imported under the price of 55 s. 6d.; and from the state of New York, by way of Oswego, it could not be landed here under 56 s. On the whole, their Lordships would see that not one single quarter of corn could be introduced into this country under 55 s. or 56 s. No one who was at all acquainted with the subject, or had made the slightest inquiry into it, could for an instant suppose that smuggling could be carried on to such an extent as to interfere with the operation of this bill, should it become law. With the exception of about seventy or eighty miles, the frontier consisted of the great lakes of Ontario and Erie. From the port of shipment in the western states to the nearest port in the British provinces the distance across would not be less than seventy or eighty miles. The corn could not be conveyed in boats, and must be brought in large vessels, chiefly schooners, which were all well known, and could be watched. The custom-houses were now very efficient establishments, and would be able to counteract the attempts of smugglers, if such should be made. The temptation to smuggling was great in proportion as the bulk of the article was small, and the duty high; but in the case of wheat the bulk was enormous, and the duty very
574
low, and it could not be supposed worth any man's while to smuggle a small quantity of corn to save a trifling duty, while it would be impossible to smuggle a very large quantity. During the period from 1825 to 1831 there was a duty of 8s. on United States wheat and flour imported into Canada, which offered a temptation nearly three times as great to the smuggler to attempt to bring it into Canada, with the same advantages when brought to this country, as the present bill would give. Yet no one had ever heard of an attempt at smuggling wheat from the United States into Canada. He did not mean to say, that a small quantity might not be smuggled here and there; but to suppose that smuggling could be carried on to such an extent as to prejudice the interests of the grower, was ridiculous. It had been objected elsewhere that this measure had taken the agricultural interests by surprise, and during the present Session a noble Lord on the cross benches had remarked that no intimation of any intention to introduce such a measure as the present had been given by her Majesty's Government, during the last Session. He could show from the recorded proceedings of Parliament, that such an intimation was clearly, explicitly, and in a manner which no one could mistake, conveyed by the language of the Government. On the 8th February, last year, the right hon. Gentleman then Vice-President of the Board of Trade, brought in the Colonial Possessions Act, by which it was proposed to levy on the United States wheat imported into Canada, a duty of 3s. a quarter. On the following day, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, introduced the Corn-law, by which it was proposed to levy on Canada wheat a duty varying from 5s. to 1s. a quarter. On subsequent days, questions were asked as to whether it was the intention of Government to levy both the duties; and on the 25th of February, the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, stated that that was not intended. The words of the right hon. Gentleman clearly expressed the intention of Government to be, that if a nominal duty were levied on Canadian wheat imported here, the duty of 3s., which stood in the resolutions, on the importation of wheat into Canada, should be adopted. Of all the objections which could be made, that of having introduced a measure in any other way than that which frankness, fairness, and manliness pointed

575
out, was most unpalatable to him. He was quite sure, that this feeling was shared by his noble Friends near him, and by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in another place. But he thought he had now satisfied their Lordships that this imputation was groundless, and that the clearest intimation of the intention of Government had been given in another place. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in the discussion on Mr. Smith O'Brien's motion to reduce the duty on wheat coming into Canada to 1s., said that he could not agree to it, because the American wheat would be let in at a merely nominal duty; but if a proper duty on American corn were imposed by the colonial Assembly, then the Canadians would be entitled to greater relief. This clearly indicated that under certain circumstances, if the Canadians would protect the home grower against an inundation of American corn coming as Canadian produce, then a nominal duty would be imposed on Canadian corn. The noble Lord also observed on that occasion, that he did not believe that, in that case, the agricultural interest would feel the slightest jealousy of the free importation of Canadian corn. He submitted to their Lordships, then, that there had been no concealment of the intentions and motives of the Government with respect to this measure. It was the understanding of the colonial Legislature of Canada, and that Legislature acted on that understanding. They had passed an act, imposing a duty of 3s. on American wheat, in a confident expectation, that having secured the interests of the home growers, their Lordships would relieve them (the Canadians) from the disadvantages under which they had so long laboured. He trusted their Lordships would not disappoint the expectations formed by the Colonial Legislature. In Canada a vast field presented itself for an extensive emigration, calculated to relieve this country of much of the pressure of population, that was weighing upon it, and a great navigable river and chain of lakes were opened there to receive for that province, and the mighty power which was growing up at its side, almost any amount of commerce which this country could pour into them. The circumstances of the province, at the present moment, were such as justified the carrying out of the proposed plan. But a few years ago, that colony was the scene of an alarming rebellion, on which occasion the colo-
576
nists of English descent, quelled that rebellion, though there was not a single soldier in the province. He did not mean to say, that the measure now submitted to their Lordships was of such importance as to produce a very great effect; but it would show on the part of this country a desire, at least, to foster the interest of that colony: and a general impression that such a desire existed would be certain to lead to the best effects in a country which at no very remote time was likely to become a wide market to the commerce, and a vast bulwark to the strength of England. At the same time, while the measure was calculated to give great satisfaction to the colony, it would not diminish one tittle of that protection which British agriculture now possessed, and ought to possess.
Lord Broughamseconded the motion. He did not approve of the bill on the ground of its being a step in the right direction towards the abolition of the Corn-laws, but because he looked upon it as calculated to remove an anomaly in the system that now prevailed, an anomaly to which he could not shut his eyes while the system was retained.
Earl Stanhopesaid, it might have been expected that a motion like the present, which had been introduced by the noble Earl with much ability, would not have been presented to Parliament till the probable consequences had been made the subject of a careful investigation before a committee of inquiry. Such an inquiry was indispensable, but an inquiry had taken place, and their friends were even without satisfactory information as to the price at which wheat could be raised in Canada. But surely, without having ascertained this point in the most distinct manner, Ministers ought not to come forward to propose a reduction in the duty to 1s. a quarter, nor ought Parliament to accede to it. The papers on their Lordships' tables came from parties directly interested in the question: thus were they called on to legislate completely in the dark. But even from the papers on the Table he could show that it was the duty of Parliament to reject this bill. They were told, that smuggling could not be carried on to a great extent; but he had it on the authority of a person of great experience and the most unimpeachable character, that smuggling could be carried on, and actually had been largely carried on, without the possibility of detection. A

577
British ship left a port in Canada, and met an American ship at sea. The cargo of the latter ship was transferred to the former. In such a case, if another ship did not happen to be in view, how would it be possible to obtain proof of the transaction? The vessel that had sailed from Canada had her bill of clearance from a British port, and evidence to show that she had touched at no other port on her voyage. What security could they have against a system of smuggling like this? Already, in many years, the importation of colonial had been larger than that of foreign wheat —and would no doubt have been still greater if the duty on colonial wheat had been 1s., instead of 5s. They were told, they had no inundation of American wheat to apprehend; but that, it must be borne in mind, would depend very much upon the extent to which cultivation was carried,' and cultivation must depend on the encouragement held out by a large market. [The noble Earl read extracts from Canadian papers, and from petitions to the Legislature, expressive of a belief that Canada would be capable of furnishing any quantity of wheat that the British market could receive.] The noble Secretary for the Colonies, too, had described the measure as one of inestimable advantage to Canada. It was true, he said, at the same time, that the measure. would not diminish the protection to British agriculture. The argument, however, was certainly an extraordinary one, it emulated the present administration, and, like that, attempted to sit upon two stools at once. How could the measure be of importance to Canada, except by enabling that colony to send to England enormous supplies of grain? Endeavours had been made to prove that, before wheat could be imported with advantage, the price in this country must be 61 s. The disadvantage, of that argument was that, if it proved any thing, it proved too much, for it would prove that no wheat could be imported at all. But was not Canadian wheat imported even now, when the price was under 50 s.? In the preamble to the Canadian Act, it was distinctly stated, that this measure would make England a market at all times certain and available for Canadian grain, yet the Legislature of Canada could not but have been aware that the price in England had often, and for a considerable time been below 50 s. He could not consider it otherwise than as an ab-
578
surdity to say that Canada ought to be considered an integral part of the empire, in the same way as any British county. If Canada were subject to the same engagements as England, he should not be opposed to such a view; but as long as it was necessary for the maintenance of her honour that this country should be highly - taxed, while Canada was hardly taxed at all, their Lordships were in duty bound to protect the industry of the highly-taxed country. He looked on this bill only as one of a series of stepping, stones, which had been placed at small distances from one another, to enable the Government to advance, as conveniently as circumstances allowed, towards the realization of those principles of free-trade which, to do them justice, they had never attempted to conceal. The Secretary of State for the Home Department declared that the principles of free-trade were the principles of common sense, and the head of the Cabinet had declared that Ministers were agreed in their views. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control had indeed said that protection could not be abandoned at once; but he must I say, if it were to be abandoned at all, let there be no suspense, but let it be done boldly and manfully, and he would dare them to the attempt. It had been said this measure was brought forward in consequence of a pledge given by this country. But if there was a really efficient House of Commons no such pledge would be given by Ministers without the sanction of Parliament. But that House was really astounded — as an assembly of much greater sense might well be—by the announcement of a Government, calling itself Conservative, proposing that Canadian corn should be introduced at a duty of 1s., and American corn admitted under the pretext that it was ground in Canada. It was his impression that immense quantities of corn would be imported front Canada and America; but if a single quarter were not imported he should oppose this bill. Agricultural produce had been already deteriorated 25 per cent. Assuming that it was a sudden panic which occasioned this, that panic arose from the tariff; and if any vestige of confidence yet remained in Government—if any delusion anywhere existed as to their real intentions—if any hope was entertained that Government meant to stop in their insane

579
career towards free-trade, it would be utterly annihilated by the present measure. They were next told to pass this measure because a confident belief was entertained in Canada that it would be granted. Confident belief, indeed ! As if there was not a confident belief reposed in the representatives of this country that they would be faithful to their trust—that they would not so soon forget their promises and professions—that they would not disgrace themselves by such base and intolerable servility, as would always be remembered, and would in due season be properly requited. How were the present Ministers placed in power, but on the understanding that they would bring forward measures the very reverse of those which they proposed. To his judgment this bill was proposed for other motives than those announced. To his mind it was meant as some compensation to that patient beast, the agricultural interest of Canada, for the evils inflicted by the new tariff. He did not speak without authority, for he found by a paper issued under the sanction of the President and Council of the Board of Trade, that the produce of the colony was greatly diminished in value by foreign goods being allowed to enter into competition with those in the home country. So that because they inflicted an intolerable evil on the agricultural community of Canada, they were, in order to recompense them, to heap ruin on the heads of the agriculturists of this country. There was only one other motive which he could suppose prompted this measure. That was, it was a step towards carrying into full execution the principles of free-trade. If it was really intended to give way to the clamours of the Anti-Corn-law League, it might be a useful clap-trap argument to say, "Surely you cannot object to extend the system of free-trade, for you see how inoffensive is the Canada Bill which you have already passed." He should conclude by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Duke of Richmond: My Lords, even if I were of opinion that this bill would not materially affect the interests of the growers of the home country, I should still oppose it, because I frankly admit I should not give my assent to any proposal which could by possibility, in the slightest degreet reduce that amount of protection, which in my conscience I believe has been reduced to too great an
580
extent already. I also object to this measure on the ground that I do not think it wise or expedient to propose a change for the sake of change; and I submit to your Lordships that neither my noble Friend, in the most able address in which he has introduced the measure to night, nor any one who has spoken in another place, has brought forward a single argument which can convince your Lordships that this measure will in its results be any great advantage to any one. Now I object to such a change, on account of the uncertainty which it will produce. I object to it because it is unsafe to make alterations year after year affecting the great interest of agriculture, in which millions of money are invested. I object to it, because whatever cripples the energies of the agriculturist ultimately entails on them an actual loss; and ultimately I object to it, because I think it inexpedient to start such a question as that raised by this bill unless under the pressure of an inevitable national necessity. You are well aware, my Lords, of the uncertainty and exceeding irritation which such a measure is calculated to engender throughout the country, ruining, by the very panic to which it gives rise, hundreds of farmers. The farmers, my Lords, ask to be let alone. They ask the Ministry to speak out as decidedly on the subject of protection to agriculture, as they have done with respect to the repeal of the union? They say they are entitled to know whether Ministers intend to go further, or to stand where they now are. I ask at the present moment whether a man can get a fair value for his estate, if he be disposed to sell it? I ask if it is possible for landlord and tenant to come to an equitable and I just arrangement as to their respective inabilities? I ask, too, whether it Can be expected that they should lay out their capital in draining and other improvements which must increase fertility immensely, whilst they would employ that industrious and meritorious class of men, the agricultural labourers, who for want of such employment, are now too many of them obliged to seek relief at the workhouse, when they formerly were able to maintain themselves and family in that comfort which I and every one of your Lordships rejoice to see. Before the debate closes I strongly suspect we shall hear sonic of my noble Friends approving of this bill because it admits the principle

581
of a fixed duty. My noble Friend (Earl Dalhousie), like an old stager, though a young debater in this House, said not a syllable on this point. Now I object to any such principle. I do not say that this bill goes in accordance with that principle the length some apprehend; but it certainly does admit the principle. I have always considered a fixed duty the greatest possible delusion. I never knew one of its advocates that was not in private ready to admit that if a considerable rise should take place in corn (and it was impossible to say that such a time might not arise) an order in council must be issued, the effect of which would be to admit corn from all parts of the world free of all duty. My noble Friend stated it was impossible that smuggling should be carried on, and that, whatever practices formerly prevailed, the Canadian customs were now under the best possible regulations. If this were so, it is a monstrous pity our own Custom-house is not as wisely administered; for, if I am not greatly mistaken, considerable frauds have of late been discovered there. As to preventing smuggling, I do not believe it will have any such effect. I do not think it is possible to prevent fraud when the least temptation is held out to commit it. How may deafeat the penny postage by sending their letters by carriers, and such means of conveyance? I should like to hear some Member of the Government tell us how much flour it is calculated will come in under this bill; and I should be particularly delighted to hear the name of the gentleman who gave it as his opinion that corn ground in Canada must be considered as the produce of the country. I should like to see the case submitted and the person who signed that opinion. I can only say if that is the law of England it is a very odd law. Whilst on this point I may say that there was an act passed last year, commonly Called the Grinding Act. I did not approve of it, but I was told that frauds under it would be impossible. If I am not wrong, convictions have already taken place under that act; and I have no doubt that other frauds have been committed which have not yet been discovered. I agree with my noble Friend, that papers emanating from the Board of Trade are to be looked on with suspicion. I do not say that those who issue papers do not believe their contents; but they are often
582
mistaken in their information. Last year the announcement of the tariff as to salmon caused a panic amongst the Scotch. A deputation waited upon the Board of Trade, and they were assured that no importation could possibly take place that would affect the price. I do not think the deputation were convinced, but they were not strong enough to get a line altered. Now what has been the effect of the tariff? Why, that the price has been reduced 20 to 30 per cent, in consequence of foreign competition. I must say that I agree with the advice given the other clay by a practical tenant farmer in the county of Bedford, a farmer with whom I have the pleasure of being acquainted, and whom I know to be a sensible man. He said to the tenants "Don't quarrel with, but join the landlords." My Lords, I give the same opinion to the agriculturists. I say if you stand firm and united you will be able to repel the assaults of the Anti-Corn-law League and your other enemies: but if one section of you declares in favour of a fixed duty, and another in favour of some other crotchet, your task will be much increased in difficulty. I agree with my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) in strongly recommending that the agriculturists should let it be well known by those whom it may concern that they are decidedly resolved and firmly determined, by every constitutional means, to prevent any further breach in the laws affording them protection; that they will care not for party or any such motive, but that they will one and ail, and shoulder to shoulder, resist any attempt to reduce protection—a protection, let me be permitted to say, not given, as falsely asserted, for the benefit of one class, but for the promotion or the welfare and prosperity of every individual in the country. My Lords, I would humbly and earnestly entreat you to vote against this measure, although it is proposed by those with whom you may have been long politically connected. If you do so, I feel certain that ere long you will be accounted, even by those whom you now oppose, their best and sincerest friends, by checking them in the career of free trade mania, by preventing the uncertainty which must produce the greatest evils throughout the country, shake the confidence between man and man, cripple the energies of the agriculturist, and certainly endanger the best interests of the empire. If, however,

583
you do vote for it, I ask whether, in your consciences, you are not persuaded that the agricultural interest has a right to ask if this is meant to be a stepping stone, or a final measure. My Lords, I need not say that I shall vote with the greatest cordiality in favour of my noble Friend's amendment, and I am much obliged to him for his opposition to a measure which must produce alarm, and may seriously affect the interests of the home grower.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he should vote against the bill, but for reasons very different from those assigned by either of the noble peers who had last spoken. If he thought, with the noble Earl, that this was a step towards free trade, he should certainly have supported the bill; but instead of that, he considered the measure a step in the other direction. If he thought either, with the noble Duke, that the bill would do away with what was called, or rather miscalled, "protection," in that case he would vote for it; but, on the contrary, he considered that the bill would create a protection which had never before existed, and, therefore, he should decidedly vote against it. Or, if he thought with another noble Lord, that the bill would remedy some grievance, some anomaly, or some absurdity, then he would support it; but he had heard nothing from the noble mover which at all gave him that idea, and, indeed, so far from that being its effect, he thought he should be able, before he concluded, to point out several absurdities which this measure perpetrated. Before going to this part of the subject, however, he desired to throw out a suggestion as to the propriety or advisability of proceeding with the bill at all. This measure had for its object to alter certain duties on the importation of Canadian wheat and wheat flour ground in Canada, in the event of her Majesty giving her Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Canadian Legislature, imposing a certain duty on American corn imported across the Canadian frontier. Now, that Royal assent had not yet been given. It was understood that it would not be given until this bill passed, and it was evident that without that assent being given this act could be of no effect. The bill of the Canadian Legislature, however, enacted, that the new duties it imposed were to come into operation on the "5th day of July next." If this bill, therefore, were not passed, and the
584
Royal assent were not given before tomorrow, it was clear that the act of the Canadian Legislature would not come into force until 1844, and, in that case, they were only giving themselves unnecessary trouble in passing the bill now. He would now proceed to make a few observations on the bill itself. How would the bill affect this country? That was a question to which no very distinct answer was given by the other side. Among the supporters of this bill there seemed to be very different views as to its probable effect upon ourselves. One party thought it would increase protection; another that it would cause a great importation of corn. A noble Lord, a Member of the Government, had declared in another place that the bill would afford additional protection by raising the duty on imported wheat and wheat-flour from an average of 2s. 1d. to 4s. There was a great fallacy, however, in that argument. The duty which averaged 2s. 1d. would, no doubt, be raised to 4s. as it affected American wheat, but with respect to Canadian wheat it would be diminished to 1s. When, therefore, it was argued that the protection to our own agriculture was increased by the bill, it was a gross fallacy to say that it was increased with respect to all Transatlantic corn. It was, no doubt, raised with respect to American-grown corn, but it was clearly lowered with respect to corn the produce of the Canadas. By the other section of those who supported the bill, it was said that the measure would have a beneficial effect, because it would lead to a great deal of corn being admitted. He was inclined to differ from that opinion; but even admitting that corn would be brought in, it was quite clear that the bill would effect its admission in a very roundabout way. If they wanted to admit corn why not do it directly? if they were to have it, surely it would be better to have it cheap, and direct from the United States, than to have it by this dear and roundabout mode of transmission consequent upon its passing through Canada? But by another party it was said—indeed the noble Lord who proposed the bill appeared himself to be of opinion, that the measure would have no effect at all; that it would not diminish protection on the one hand, or lead to any great importation of corn upon the other. Why then, he asked, have the bill at all? The bill occasioned great irri-

585
tation and alarm, and if it was to do no good, why create all that confusion? If that were the case, it was the most preposterous and ridiculous bill he ever remembered to have heard of. Well, then, having gone through this first branch of his subject, he now came to consider the bill as it affected Canada. Its first result upon Canada was to raise the price of every quarter of corn consumed in that country. If, indeed, the season was very propitious, and a very great superabundance of corn was grown in Canada, then the Canadians might probably export their own corn without any great rise in their prices; but if their season was only an average season, and they were nevertheless induced, by the hope of profit, to send some of their corn to England, then, having to make up their own deficiency from America, of course the price of their corn must be raised by so much as the duty was raised; that was to say, by 3s. a quarter. Well, was that desirable? He knew that there were some who seemed to think that nothing was so good as to raise prices. He had met with landlords who said, "Oh ! if the country is to go on, if the high taxes of the nation are to he paid, we must have high prices.' Now, that might be very good argument for producers, but he could not conceive that it was good argument for consumers. Surely it was not desirable that they should have more to pay for corn because they had more to pay in taxes? It was people who argued thus, he supposed, who thought that it was good for Canada that she should have her corn 3s. a quarter dearer. It was clear, however, that the people of Canada did not agree with that opinion; for by their petitions, now on the Table of the House, they proved that they thought it a very bad bill. But there was a still more serious objection to the bill in his mind, which was, that it established a new protection. He held all protections, and especially protections to agriculture, to be great misfortunes, and great grievances. Nobody, in fact, approved of protection as a thing good in itself—it was only defended on the ground of its necessity, in consequence of previous legislation. A noble Lord, whom he did not now see in his place, had once declared that if protection had never been created by acts of legislation, protection would never have been required. A right hon. Gentleman in another place had also said,
586
and that not long since, that the principle hostile to protection—the principle, namely, of free-trade—was "the principle of common sense;" and yet here they were gratuitously and wantonly establishing a protection for Canada, where it never before existed—creating a protection which, but for the act of the Legislature, never would have been required anywhere—raising up a barrier to the principle which, on the authority of the Cabinet, was now declared to be the "principle of common sense." The bill, therefore, was doubly mischievous to Canada; it was mischievous, first, by raising the price of food, and secondly, by creating a protection which never before existed. 'Whether that protection were required or not, he could not say; but it certainly appeared to him that it was not, for in the petition from the merchants of Montreal, as well as in other petitions, the great grievance complained of was the want of a market for the produce of the Canadian soil. That apparently was what was wanted—a good market. But, then, it was said, that this bill was much desired by the Canadians, and that they had pledged themselves to meet it. How did the Canadians pledge themselves? What they wanted, and what they asked for was, that on their imposing a certain duty on American corn imported into Canada, we should admit all the corn from Canada at a merely nominal duty. We were to admit not only Canadian wheat and wheat ground in Canada, but likewise American wheat brought through Canada, the premium for the Canadians being the increased traffic consequent upon the purchase of American wheat for exportation. That was what they wanted, but that was not what we gave. We limited our importation to wheat absolutely grown or manufactured in Canada, and the Canadians thus got only a part of what they had a right to expect at our hands. If this measure was a boon, why not extend it to other of our northern possessions? Why should not the Nova Scotians have the privilege of grinding American flour, if it was such an advantage? But he understood that they would rather not have it, seeing that they could grind wheat now without paving a duty of 3s., and were able to send it to England under the old duty of 2s. 1d., instead of having to pay 4s. Independent, however, of the practical effect of the bill, he objected to

587
its principle. Was it a principle of free-trade or not? His noble and learned Friend had said, he did not support the bill because it was not a step towards free trade; but there was a step towards free-trade in one part of the bill, and in another part a step another way. It was difficult to know what the view of Government was. The other day, nothing but a sliding-scale would do. That was the principle of his noble Friend who spoke just now. A sliding-scale was continued with respect to all foreign countries; it did not exist with respect to the colonies; though there might have been a jumping scale, a scale going from 5s. to 10 s. in some things, and from 6s. to 6d. in others. With respect to Canada, there was no sliding-scale for wheat, but there was for other commodities. The sliding-scale appeared to him to be contrary to all sense and reason, notwithstanding all that his noble Friend had said —it looked very ingenious at first, but experience had shown that it was of no advantage. Upon these grounds, it appeared to him that this bill ought to be rejected. If the measure would do nothing—for those who recommended it stated that it would produce no effect one way or the other—where was the use of it? The measure, certainly, would have no good effect in this country, and must produce a very bad one in Canada. His noble Friend objected to continual changes. He thought the tendency of the measure was to produce changes, and such changes as he desired to see. The people thought the Government a changing Government, because they did not act upon the principles they laid down; their measures did not come up to their principles, and, as the people supposed, that they must ultimately act upon those principles, they thought the Government changeable. A noble Lord who was absent (Lord Ripon) had professed that he was an advocate of free-trade, but that it was altogether a question of time. That was the very point; if we were to have free-trade, when was it to be? That was really saying, that there must be a time for the change; and the only question was how soon the change should be made? Upon the general grounds he had stated, he should vote for the amendment of the noble Earl.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that if he could look upon this measure as an isolated ques-
588
tion, independent of any general principle of policy, he should, (after the speeches of his two noble Friends, the noble Earl at the Table and the noble Duke on the cross-benches) be content to give a silent vote upon the subject of this evening's debate; but as on the contrary he looked upon this bill as a further indication of the new system of policy adopted by her Majesty's Government, and could only consider it as one more step towards the total abandonment of the principle of protection, he felt bound to trouble their Lordships with a few observations, while he protested now, as he had protested last year, on debating the Grinding Act in the latter instance, and the Canada Corn Bill in the present instance, against any further progress (however minute) towards the admission of free-trade doctrines. Her Majesty's Govern-men had on various occasions declared that the principle of their Corn-laws and the rule by which they should be guided was a moderate duty based upon a sliding-scale, which would give protection to the farmer in times of low prices, and relief to the consumer when corn was dear; and yet, in the face of this distinct avowal, they did not now hesitate to come forward and declare that there was nothing inconsistent with that principle or contrary to that rule, in imposing a fixed duty upon Canadian corn. He must say, that their arguments on the present occasion reminded him of their conduct on a very recent one, when after passing a solemn judgment on a solemn subject, they introduced a declaratory bill of a totally contrary purport, and supported that bill by the assertion that it was no ways inconsistent with their former decision. Such abandonment of all fixed principle and ordinary consistency as these proceedings demonstrated, deprived her Majesty's Ministers of all title to the confidence of the country, and it convinced him, for one, that if they wished in good faith to resist the tide of public opinion which they themselves had caused to flow in the direction of free-trade, they would not be able either to stem or to turn it back, but must eventually be borne down by the current and obliged in spite of themselves to go forward in the fulfilment of those principles which the noble Lord who had spoken last had so long and so ably advocated. In consequence of these convictions on his mind, he would now, as on all former occasions of the like kind, raise his voice, feeble though that voice may be, to protest against conduct so inconsistent on

589
the part of her Majesty's Government, and warn them, albeit he feared without much avail, of the dangerous consequences both to themselves and the country of the course they were now about to pursue. A panic, it will be remembered, had existed throughout the country last year in consequence of the alterations which had been then made in the Corn-laws and the tariff; that panic after a long duration had begun partially to subside; there had been a good seed time, there was a prospect of a good harvest time—heaven seemed to favour the measures of the Government and everything combined to revive the hopes of the agriculturists. But when this pleasing prospect began to open on our view—when these agreeable expectations began in some measure to be realised—when our ports were beginning to be again crowded with reviving commerce—when an increase in our exports of manufactured goods was becoming daily more evident in our large towns and (as is always the case) an increased demand for agricultural produce began to follow the reviving industry of our manufacturing population, her Majesty's Government came forward to dash to the ground the cup which industrious men began after a long waiting, to raise to their lips, and upset all their schemes and calculations by proposing a measure which left them again in uncertainty as to the future, and which must prove another lever in the hands of the free-traders to shake those principles of protection on which the farmer had been led to expect he might in future rely. On this occasion, moreover, Ministers had acted as they had done in the case of the Grinding Act and the repeal of the former Corn-law, and introduced an important measure without giving due warning of their intention so to do. And here he wished to set himself right with the noble Earl who had introduced this bill as well as with the House as to the charge which the noble Earl had brought against him of misrepresenting the Government on this score. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that on a former occasion before this bill was brought into the other House of Parliament he, after giving due notice of his intention, had put a question to the noble Duke opposite, whether in the case of a certain act passed by the Legislative Assembly receiving the assent of the Crown, foreign corn, coming through Canada would be admitted into our ports at the nominal duty of is. To this question the noble Duke answered in the af-
590
firmative. He then remarked, that there was not a single passage in the speeches delivered by any Member of her Majesty's Government in either House of Parliament which could have led any one to suppose that such a proposition would have been adopted. He could make this assertion good by reading all those passages from the speeches of Members of her Majesty's Government, which in any ways touched on this subject., but he was spared the trouble of so doing by the noble Earl himself who had read this evening to the House the very passages alluded to, and in none of which was there any word from which it appeared that last year it was the intention of Government to permit this year the importation of America corn through Canada at 1s. duty. It was not for him to say whether this restriction to flour was an after thought of the Government, or whether the noble Duke himself was in error when he answered the question, but he was certainly misled by the noble Duke and believed in common with the noble Earl who spoke last and the Canadian people that wheat as well as wheat-flour was to be included in the bill. But supposing that the noble Duke who had actually said flour and not wheat, was this the way that the intentions of Government with respect to a measure of such vast importance were to be announced to the public? Was it by a random word dropped on one occasion, and another word dropped on another occasion—was it by a-half sentence falling from a Minister in the course of a debate on a different subject, or the possible construction of an imperfectly expressed opinion of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade—was it by these means that Government were to make known the changes in their views, and announce to Parliament their intentions on some great and important measure. [The noble Baron referred to several other occasions when questions had been put to Members of her Majesty's Government on this subject, and commented on the unsatisfactory nature of their replies.] This was not the way all former Governments had announced their intentions upon important matters of this nature. He had always understood it to be the practice of Parliament for the Minister of the Crown to come down to the House and there in his place distinctly and unequivocally state the intentions of his Government as to any change in the laws that regulate the trade between this country and the colonies, and

591
to take the opinion of Parliament on the question, before he took upon himself to propose terms to a third party and strike a bargain, from which he could not withdraw, with a Colonial Assembly on a matter of fiscal policy. It appeared, however, that in the present instance, the noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies in order to heal the wound which had been inflicted on the Canadians by the new timber duties; and in order to be able to announce to the world how happily be had induced them to submit to the late tariff, and how successfully he had restored terms of friendship between the colony and the mother country—in order, in short, to boast in Parliament that he had silenced all complaint in Canada—sat down in the seclusion of his own study at the Colonial-office, and there wrote a dispatch in which he bargained and bartered away a vote of the House of Commons, and a principle which had been adopted by a solemn vote of the Parliament of this country. Lord Stanley, without taking the sense of the House of Commons, or consulting Parliament at all on the subject, wrote to the Colonial Legislature, telling them to pass a bill, imposing a 3s. duty on American corn imported into Canada; and that he would thereupon induce the British Parliament to pass an Act admitting Canadian corn and flour ground in Canada at 1s. duty. He did not think that this was the way in which the Government of this country ought to conduct its business with the colonies, or shake the confidence of a great, and at present, suffering interest at home. Under these circumstances, he had, on the introduction of this measure confessed, that he had been taken completely by surprise, and he firmly believed, that Parliament and the country were also taken by surprise, as well as himself. He repeated, that Ministers had not announced their intentions last year; and after the explanation he had made, be did not think the noble Earl would now gainsay him. To come, however, to the merits of the bill itself, and to see whether for such a trifling good, Ministers were justified in spreading so great an alarm—the whole lay within a narrow compass, and amounted in a few words to this: the loss of 4s. protection to the British farmer against the introduction of Canadian wheat and American flour, when prices fall below 55 s.; or when the home producer stands most in need of it; and to give a bonus to the Canadas, to establish a great milling interest, in opposition to that
592
of the mother country. It was bad to relax the principle of protection, either as regarded grain or flour; but if he were asked in which he would rather have it relaxed, he would say in wheat rather than in flour. If wheat were imported at a time when the markets were in a depressed state, and prices continuing to fall, it could be withheld from sale, and kept in a warehouse till the revival of the market made it available, and the prices became remunerating; but at whatever time flour is imported, it must be brought to sale, and cannot be held back from the market; and thus, however low prices may be, and however overstocked the market, it must tend to reduce those prices still lower, and increase to a still greater amount the surplus already in the market. Such were the evils which must immediately result from this measure. On the other hand, what benefits were expected which might in any degree compensate for these inevitable evils? Would it benefit the revenue?—the great advantage looked for in all fixed duties, and the best argument used in their support. It would not; for the 3s. were to be paid into the Colonial Treasury, not to the Customs at home—thus neglecting the good, and inflicting all the evil attendant on fixed duties in corn. Would it create a great commerce on the St. Laurence? The very proposers of the measure were urgent on its utter insignificance. It had no enlarged views in it: it neither promised to cover the lakes Erie and Ontario with ships, nor to make the St. Laurence the great highway for our manufactures. As to increase of trade, or further demand for our staple articles, neither the noble Earl, nor the supporters of the bill in the other House, held out the slightest hope. Its benefits in Canada were confined to the mere prospect of creating a great milling interest there, and thus compensating the Canadians in some degree for the loss lately sustained in consequence of change of duties on their chief staple, timber. While this was the only advantage obtained in the colony by the bill, the mischief clone at home by it was both extensive and of a permanent nature. No great question was more attended to by small farmers and agricultural labourers than that of emigration; and not a small village existed that had not its oracle, who descanted on the rich alluvial plains of America, the unbroken extent of virgin soil, the luxuriant valleys of the Mississippi and other rivers; nor were the rural population of this country inclined to look

593
upon any premium awarded (as in this bill) to the increased cultivation of American soils, in any other light than as a heavy blow to their own industry at home, and an attempt to make the Canadas and States the granary of Europe. It was in this light they viewed the present measure, and with such a conviction on their minds, it was not surprising, if they regarded this reduction of colonial duties as a more severe blow to British agriculture than even the great sweeping bill of last year. Was it not wanton cruelty on the part of Ministers, to revive so great a panic, for the sake of so trifling a measure as they considered this bill? But this is not all; it would give to that formidable body the Anti Corn-law League an argument, which would be used by them as a lever, to shake the remaining protection, and which would be difficult to answer on the part of the friends of protection. It would be asked why should they refuse to other colonies the boon they had granted to Canada? Malta, the Ionian Islands, Gibraltar, all might say, admit wheat flour duty free, and we will impose a 3s. fixed duty on foreign wheat in grain; and thus you will have a 4s. fixed duty as the only protection against corn from Odessa, Smyrna, Egypt and Tripoli. If you grant this boon to the teeming soils of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, how can you deny it to the lands where nature has been more niggard of her favours? This, the Anti Corn-law League may say, is your own principle and system, and not ours; you cannot say it was wrung as a concession to the free-traders from an unwilling Ministry, but it was the deliberate, uncalled for act of those who call themselves the friends of the farmer; and as it is theirs, we call upon them to carry it out to its full extent. He had, although alone and unsupported, opposed the Grinding Act last year, because he considered it as the precursor of other similar small but repeated concessions; and he now opposed the present bill, because he feared it too might only prove the precursor of other and equally dangerous measures; nor could he refrain from telling noble Lords opposite, that it was the same thing whether the interests he advocated were struck down by the blows of their open enemies, or sapped and mined by their professing friends; nay, it was perhaps better to fall at once beneath a great measure like that advocated by the noble Earl near him, than to be tortured and worried, "stung to death by pismires," as they now
594
were by these little but recurring attacks. He would, however, never flinch from doing his duty; and he therefore was prepared to vote with the noble Earl who had moved the amendment.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, so far from there being any wish on the part of the Government to take away protection from the agricultural interest, their whole object had been to support that interest; and he believed that the measures of the present Government would be the salvation of the agricultural interest. He believed that to persist in the extreme measures which the noble Lord advocated, would be to ruin the agricultural interest. He stated distinctly, that the object of the Government was to protect the agricultural interest, and they had taken no step whatever but with that view. It was true that they had reduced the scale of protection, but not more than the well-wishers of agriculture desired. He believed, in his conscience, that the great majority of the agriculturists felt, that the price at which corn was distributed to the people of this country under the former law was too high, and required reduction, and he believed the country generally was satisfied with the change. But he again repeated that protection was the object of the Government, and the principle on which they wished to act with regard to agriculture. The noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) taunted them with becoming free-traders, because they had taken certain measures last year to reduce the price of certain articles, which was notoriously too high. They had taken measures by the new tariff to lessen this price, because they thought such a measure due to the country when they were obliged to impose taxes. He wanted to know if, in point of fact, there was any trade in this country which was not protected? The interests of agriculture had grown up under a system of protection, and it would be madness in the Government to take away protection from it. But they were pressed and asked, "Why don't you say manfully you will go a step further in lessening that protection?" Why, they could not do that; they must depend upon circumstances. It might be asked, why did they not treat this question firmly, as they did the question of the Repeal of the Irish Union? Because the Repeal of the Union was a vital question to this country, which they must re-

595
sist at all hazards; not so, the Corn-laws, and the Government would be unworthy of the position which it held if for one moment it treated the two questions in the same manner. Another argument brought against the Government was that of constant change, and this bill was spoken of as an instance of it. His noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) said, "Here you have a fixed duty; you have gone from your principle of a sliding-scale and have gone to a fixed duty." He could not see the adoption of a principle of a fixed duty here. He confessed that he could see a fixed duty which would be better than a sliding-scale, provided they would insure it to him; but his objection to a fixed duty was this, that it was impossible to impose it tinder certain circumstances. They were deluded when they talked of a fixed duty as a protection, when, in point of fact, they could not maintain it when most necessary. So far from this bill being an instance of continual change, he contended that a fair warning had been given of it; the Canadian people had been appealed to, that if they would impose a proper duty on the importation of American corn, the Government of this country would reduce the duty on wheat flour coming from Canada, and the object of this had been to do good to the people of Canada. It was not for the purpose of doing anything very serviceable to the people of this country, but in order to show Canada that we were disposed to treat her as a favorite child, and to give her every advantage we could, without doing an injury to the agricultural interest of this country. Five-sixths of the wheat that came from Canada came in a manufactured state, and the proposed mode was the best way of imposing a duty on American produce. It was true that this duty did not come into the Exchequer of this country, but it came into that of our colony, and we were willing to give her this advantage. Before the present bill the duty was 5s. at the highest, and 1s. at the lowest, and by this bill the Government put on a duty on the importation of American manufactured corn through Canada equal to four-fifths of the highest duty that could be laid on it under the existing law. It was true that this duty might be called a fixed duty, but it was not like a fixed duty imposed on corn coming from the Baltic, which they knew well they could not obtain under certain
596
circumstances. This duty was imposed under circumstances against which the agricultural interest of this country could always contend. He believed the Canadians were perfectly willing to pay this 3s. duty, especially as they had no corn of their own. They were told that this bill would introduce smuggling into Canada, and that though they imposed a 3s. duty there would be a great deal of smuggling, and in point of fact they would only realize 1s. It surprised him that any people should imagine the smuggling of corn in any country. He should just as soon imagine the smuggling of coals, a similar bulky article. He should say that it was almost impossible to smuggle corn. It was quite true, that make laws as stringent as they would, they could not prevent the smuggling of some articles easily conveyed; but it was impossible to smuggle corn across the lakes of Canada. It was said, that there was a part of the St. Lawrence, near Montreal, where the river was narrow, where it was possible to smuggle corn; but, in point of fact, they were here a long way from the corn districts of Illinois and Michigan, and other corn-growing states; and the corn could not be conveyed to this part of the St. Lawrence, except at an expense to put smuggling out of the question. He would again repeat that the agricultural interest having grown up under protection, the Government deemed that it ought to be protected, and the Government had no intention of taking protection away.
Lord Monteagleconfessed, that he felt some degree of difficulty on this question; not on account of the vote he intended to give in favour of the bill, but in consequence of the opinions that had been expressed in its favour by some noble Lords. If he could agree with them, in their facts, or in the inferences they drew from these facts —then, so far from supporting the bill, he should concur with them. in opposing it. He admitted that in acquiring this case, the Government was placed in a very great difficulty, for they were exposed to a cross fire, and could not advance anything which was likely to conciliate one class, without subjecting themselves to hostility from another. This difficulty had betrayed them into the most extraordinary fallacies. First, the noble Lord, the President of the Council, had said, that this was a measure intended altogether for the benefit of Canada. But

597
in what way did the noble Lord make out his proposition? So far as the Canadians were consumers of foreign American wheat, they evidently were placed in a worse situation than before, because they would have to pay hereafter a duty on all the foreign American corn they consumed. But then it was said, that the concession of trading with this country would be such a benefit to them, as to counterbalance the disadvantage of paying a higher price for American corn. If, then, the increased intercourse with England was a benefit, that benefit must he in proportion to the reduction of British duty conceded by this bill, yet the House were gravely assured, that whereas the Canadian could heretofore have imported his produce into England at 2s. 11 d. duty, he was under this bill called upon to pay 4s. [Lord Wharncliffe: It was to be 1s. duty on Canada.] That was on the produce of Canada only. It was clear that the benefit to the colonial manufacturer of flour must depend upon the amount of the consumption, and that must depend, more or less, upon the amount of the duty imposed. So far, then, from this measure being a benefit to the Canadian, upon the hypothesis of the Government, it would be none whatever. He did not, however, admit that hypothesis, practically a fallacy, ran through the whole of the speech of the noble Lord; and he would tell the noble Lord, if there were not that fallacy in it, his argument would carry him much further than he intended. The noble Lord had said, that this was not a new measure. He thought that it was a new measure, and on that very account he supported it. Since 1815, there had been no new measure proposed in Parliament that in his opinion so boldly or so wisely recognised the principle of a fixed duty. This was its leading feature—this seemed to be its main object—and, therefore, it was, that he should be found heartily voting in its favour. The noble Lord had stated that this bill would not encourage the import of much corn. Now, he would take the liberty of showing, that hereafter, and perhaps at no distant time, it must lead to the import of a large quantity of corn, and he gave his support to it on that expectation. In dealing with the interests of nations, the Legislature was bound, and had a right to look beyond the present time. They were not alone to look to Canada in 1843, but to Canada such as it might become hereafter. They had also to look forward to
598
what must be the certain progress of other great provinces of North America. They were also as Legislators bound to look to what must be the ultimate and indirect consequences of this measure hereafter. The noble Lord had said that this bill would not lead to a great importation of corn, and he had denied that it would give corn at a cheaper rate. No doubt, if it did not give them an increased supply of corn, it would not give corn cheaper. He thought he could show, that corn must hereafter come in in considerable quantities, and with a great increase in cheapness. But, if this was denied, and that bill was only to be that which it was represented to be by its framers, he asked on what ground, or from what necessity, was it to be passed at all? The only ground stated for it was, to conciliate the good feeling of the Canadians. He attached importance to those feelings. If the bill were a matter of indifference, or even if he felt some slight repugnance to it, still on grounds of Canadian feeling he would hesitate, before he refused to assent to it. It was impossible to consider this bill without also considering the state of Canada at the present time. Canada had just recovered from a rebellion. The Legislature of Canada had passed an act which was on the Table of that House, They did so upon the inducement of the Secretary of State. It was on the faith of Lord Stanley's dispatch that this was done. It was on the intention expressed by that Secretary that they relied. He could not imagine, that the attachment of a colony to the mother country, more especially a colony, subsiding from the danger of a revolution, could be put to so severe a trial, as if after acting, in good faith, relying on the inducements held out to them, the promised good should be withheld by Parliament, after everything short of a Parliamentary pledge had been given to them. He could not imagine anything more fatal to our character and interests than to refuse assent to the present bill. But was it wise, he would ask, on the part of the Government to put Parliament in so novel a position? With all the respect and regard which he entertained for the Secretary of State, he did not think Parliament was quite fairly treated by having this engagement made by a Minister without a more direct authority from Parliament itself for the realization of the engagement. On a former occasion, he had stated that Parliament and the public had a perfect

599
knowledge that some measure on the subject of Canada Corn was intended to be introduced, and he did not concur with any one who had in this respect attributed bad faith to the Government. It would, however, have been better if some more specific intimation of the intended measure had been given, and had been strengthened by a Parliamentary sanction. But were they now carrying into effect the promise made to the colonies? Undoubtedly not. He was free to admit, that the absence of any remonstrance from Canada went far towards negativing the supposition of any injustice inflicted, or of any discontent on the part of the colonists; and he also admitted, although there was a difference between the engagement entered into, and that to which they were about to give effect by their legislation, yet that difference was not so great as at first appeared. It was, however, perfectly clear that the Canadian legislature had expected the same concession to be granted to American wheat, and to flour. This he thought he could demonstrate, and it was important that the fact should not be overlooked, because he thought the Legislature and the Government would do wrong, if they did not give the most liberal construction to the engagement that had been entered into. Now, though he was convinced that the effect of the present bill would be more advantageous to the public interests than some noble Lords expected, he still objected to the principle of contingent and conditional legislation. The Imperial Act would endure only for the duration of the colonial act; if the latter were repealed the old law would be thereby revived. He objected to that. He objected also to the transference of the duty received on American corn to the Treasury of the colony instead of being received by the British Exchequer. He thought that principle unsound. But those objections were overcome—first, by the fact that he got by the bill a Parliamentary and solemn recognition of the principle of a fixed duty; and, secondly, by his belief that the country was certain to obtain hereafter a greater abundance of corn, and that increased supply furnished at a cheaper rate. There was an objection which might fairly be urged against the bill on agricultural grounds, it unwisely feared the introduction of flour in preference to wheat, if flour were thus introduced, it would operate in substitution for flour made in this country, whereas if wheat were introduced,
600
it acted not as in substitution of British wheat, but in aid of British wheat. In a cold bad harvest, foreign wheat was important to the miller to assist in grinding up with the soft qualities of wheat in England, and it was important to the consumer increasing the quantity of food, as well as bettering the quality. In this way, the introduction of foreign wheat is productive of good to all parties concerned. In order to prove the ultimate effects of the present bill, he would next refer to passages subjoined to Lord Durham's report on Canada, in which that noble Lord described the mass of rich and fertile land which lay north of the Lakes. Lord Durham, after drawing a comparison between the United States and Canada, said, and alluding to the supposed superiority of the former states—
"It might be supposed by persons unacquainted with the frontier country, that the soil on the American side is of very superior fertility. I am positively assured that this is by no means the case, but that upon the whole superior natural fertility belongs to the British territory. In Upper Canada the whole of the great peninsula between Lakes Erie and Huron, comprising nearly half the available land of the province, consists of gently undulating alluvial soil, and with a smaller proportion of inferior land than probably any other tract of similar extent in that part of North America, is generally considered the best grain country on that continent."
Now, there were 17,000,000 acres of land already disposed of by the Government. [A noble Lord: Yes, but not cultivated.] No, not cultivated, and so much the better for the argument, because, if those lands were already in a state of cultivation, there would not be so much reason to anticipate a great future increase in the agricultural produce. It is because these rich alluvial soils were not cultivated, yet capable of profitable cultivation, it was on that very account that there might and must be anticipated a great increased production hereafter. Now 17,000,000 of acres contained in this single district of North America, was a district nearly equal to the whole amount of the cultivable land of Ireland, but the population of the district was under 400,000. Well, but the Government were encouraging emigration, and most wisely encouraging it; every emigrant landed upon the shores of that country must, it was true, in the first instance be a consumer, but ultimately he would become a producer also; and the production of grain upon land of such fertility as that described

601
in the reports of Lord Durham and Mr. Buller, ought to be estimated not in reference to the state of the country at present, when it was so under-populated, but in reference to the time when it should become fully inhabited. If, therefore, they dealt with Upper Canada alone, they must look to a greatly increased future production, and it must be remembered also that the whole of the produce of those soils would come in at the lowest amount of duty. There was no question, here, of a 3s. protection. The 17,000,000 of fertile acres in Upper Canada might all he cultivated with wheat, which might be introduced at a 1s. duty. He was perfectly consistent, then, in voting for this bill, for he obtained a reasonable certainty of an increased supply of corn at no very distant time. But how would the matter stand in relation to the grain of the United States? South of the Lakes we had to deal with the great wheat-growing states of the Union, Now the production of articles of food in the United States was brought before them as part of the statistical results of the last census. He had the papers before him, and they led to wonderful inferences. For the sake of brevity he should exclude the general question, as it applied to the whole of the Union, and apply himself simply to those parts of the Union which would more immediately profit by the new law, namely, the states lying to the southward of the Lakes. The produce of the United States was, of course, subject to vicissitudes, as well as that of all other countries, and these vicissitudes, he might add in passing were increased by injudicious Corn-laws. There were bounties on the growth of corn in some states, and duties on importation, and such laws could not fail to be most injurious. The only states to which he now felt it necessary to refer, were Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan; he would ask how had population increased in those states? One of these states was greatly in advance of the others, which enabled him by showing the effect of an increased population in one instance, and comparing it with the increased produce, to apply a test by which the House might calculate what an increased population would effect in other states of equal fertility. The most densely inhabited of the four states was Ohio; and taking its population at four decennial periods, it appeared, that the increase had been from 230,000 in 1810, to 1,515,000 in 1840. In Indiana the population had started at
602
24,520, and augmented to 638,000 during the same period. In Illinois, the increase from 1810 to 1840, had been from 12,283 to 486,000; and in Michigan from 4,762 to 211,705. Now, the produce in wheat was justly represented by the progress of population in those four states; and it should be remembered, that when they dealt with the produce of wheat in those states, they dealt with states that produced enormous quantities of Indian corn, the consumption of which at home must set free a proportionate quantity of wheat for the consumption of other countries. The number of bushels of wheat produced in Ohio, in 1839, was 16,292,000; in Indiana, 4,154,000 bushels; in Illinois, 2,740,000 bushels; and in Michigan, 1,899,000 bushels; and the area of these four wheat growing states was 178,816,000 acres. In comparison with that enormous territory it should be remembered, that the area of the British isles was only 77,394,000 acres, and let it also be remembered, that in the states he had mentioned, the land though fertile was as yet scarcely populated. In Illinois there were only eight inhabitants to the square mile; in Michigan, four; in Indiana, eighteen; and in Ohio, thirty-nine. When, therefore, he mentioned that the produce of these states would be enabled under the present bill to profit by the water carriage extending through Canada, and to claim admission into British markets at a low fixed duty, he had made out his case, and had proved that it was absurd—that it was the greatest of all fallacies—a fallacy advanced in entire forgetfulness of the enduring principles upon which all sound legislation should rest, if the House were solely to look at the produce of the past as a guide or test to decide the probable produce of the future. But he would not rely exclusively on the statistical facts he had recapitulated. He would refer the House also to the evidence of a gentleman perfectly well qualified to give testimony on the point. In 1833, a committee was appointed by the other House of Parliament, to consider the state of manufactures and commerce, and before that committee, men of the highest authority, knowledge, and commercial eminence were examined. It was the more important to consider the evidence taken by that committee, because it was given before the sliding-scale and fixed duty had unfortunately become party questions, and before the present struggle of opinion on the subject of the Corn-laws had com-

603
menced. The following evidence was given on the occasion referred to:—
"With a change in the Corn-laws here, I do not think that American manufactures would make much progress.
" Are the committee to understand, that the consumption of our manufactures by the United States is only limited by the power they have of purchasing them; and that if we were to permit a more free ingress of American produce into this country, we should then be able to induce them to take a much larger supply of our manufactures?—No doubt of it; the people of New England having nothing of their own produce which this country will take from them, and finding no market for agricultural produce, of necessity must do something else.
" Supposing there was a change of the law in this country by which corn were admitted more regularly than at present, and the trade were no longer subject to the fluctuations incident to a graduated fluctuating scale of duty —do you conceive, that the United States would send continually a considerable supply of corn to this country?"
Now, a more direct question could not possibly be put. The answer was—
" There is no doubt that she would send a very large quantity, depending, however, upon what the fixed duty might be.
"Have you any data as to the price at which a considerable quantity of corn could be afforded under such circumstances? — The price at which it could be afforded from the Western country, if there was a great market continually open for it here, would be very low indeed.
"Coming out through the St. Lawrence?— Coming out through the St. Lawrence.
"Can you state anything more precise on the subject?—The price of wheat in the western country is stated to be very low—2s. a bushel a high price, or 16 s. a quarter. Thus it might be delivered at New Orleans, at 22 s. per quarter for very fine wheat, and in Liverpool or London at about 30 s. a quarter. The uncertainty with regard to the duty would prevent any one from speculating in it, and it would not be till some time after the establishment of a fixed duty that the low price would be arrived at."
Thus the witness admitted, that a great supply of corn might be obtained from the western country upon a fixed duty. He supposed he should now be asked the name of the gentleman whose evidence he had quoted. That gentleman was asked the question—" You are a partner in the House of Baring and Co.?" and the answer given was—" I am." The name of the witness was Joshua Bates, and a more intelligent person could not be examined; he was an
604
American by birth, and an Englishman by residence, and it was important to recollect that his were not sentiments delivered in opposition to the bill now before the House though bearing so immediately upon it —but was the enunciation of the simple truth as it appeared to the witness. Now, he hoped that as a free-trader he had fully justified his intended vote. He had also shown that the results he anticipated in 1843, had been foretold in 1833. But were there no other considerations to be taken into the account also? The House had passed a bill for the encouragement of public works in Canada, and a million and a half was pledged by the country for the improvement of the water navigation in the colony. He would ask, must not every increase and every improvement they gave to the internal communications of that province, increase by so much, the facility of producing, and with the facility of conveying, increase also the cheapness at which corn could be sent to market. He was anxious to represent to the House, the facility of water carriage in Canada as strongly bearing upon the question of smuggling. The more they smuggled, the better for his argument, for he wanted to get increased quantities of grain into consumption; if Parliament made a bad law, they must pay the penalty in having it defeated by smuggling; and he thought that the increase or diminution of smuggling, furnished the best test, whether a revenue law was good or bad. In regard to the intercourse between the United States and Canada, he believed he was right in stating, that the exports of farinaceous food exceeded in value 4,000,000 annually, and that it occupied a tonnage equal to one-third of the whole of the shipping of the United States. America, too, as well as Canada, was improving her water communication; they bad spent 2,000,000 of dollars in improving one inland harbour. Thus increased cultivation would improve navigation, and improved navigation give a new stimulus to agriculture. He had shown, upon high American commercial authority, that the abolition of the sliding-scale would be an enormous encouragement to the production of corn in the States. It would place American commerce on a better and juster footing than formerly, for a graduated scale operated most injuriously upon those states which were at the greatest distance from our markets. He hoped, that the beneficial effects of the change would be felt in

605
America, and that it would be appreciated not only by our own provinces, but by the people, the legislature, and the government of the United States. He believed, that the bill would do good in its assertion of a good principle, as also by securing to this country a larger supply of grain than noble Lords on the other side contemplated, or perhaps than they considered it quite politic to avow. He believed, that it would do good by giving a more healthy commercial action to our exchanges with America; he believed it would do good to the province of Canada, and on these grounds he gave his entire and hearty assent to the principle of the bill.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that whether or not the bill deserved the praise bestowed upon it by his noble Friend. His noble Friend, by the exercise of his great Parliamentary tact, had taken care, while he approved of it, to throw out also a great deal to alarm the country gentlemen. He looked upon the bill with a totally different view; he regarded it as one of favour and conciliation to the Canadian colonies, and as one likely to do no injury to any interest in this country;—none whatever to the agricultural interest. He thought, that it would even do good to the agricultural interests, so far from being injurious to them. Looking at the subject with a view to the landed interest, and as a protector of that interest, he should say pass this bill as one likely to benefit them. What his noble Friend opposite had said with respect to the western states was perfectly correct, and no part of the habitable globe was more rich and fertile. A noble Lord said, that corn would come from New Orleans at 22 s.; but this he very much doubted. The question was, what amount was likely to come from the northern ports of the lakes down the St. Lawrence, whence the noble Lord who opened the debate had shown that it could not come into England at less than 55 s. The noble Lord opposite had merely endeavoured to frighten the House a little with the immense products of the valley of the Mississippi, and with the corn which was likely to come to New Orleans in the course of the next generation; but he had not touched on the material point, the price at which the corn was likely to come by Canada. It was to be borne in mind, that the population of the new states increased at a most rapid rate; when he first knew Ohio, it had a popula-
606
tion of 10,000, and it now contained 1,000,000. Very few newly settled countries had much food to spare for exportation. A country which imported 150,000 or 200,000 fresh mouths every year had much to do in providing for them; the increase of population prevented its having any very large surplus production. Settlers in a country for the first two years did not feed themselves, and required three or four years before they were enabled to contribute to the general stock of produce. If he thought this bill was likely to endanger the landed interest, or to trench on the protection which he believed to be the soundest policy of this country, and to which those who had invested their capital and industry in agriculture were entitled in every respect, both as a continuation of the system which had been suffered to grow up, and in respect of the burthens which had been imposed on them, he could assure their Lordships he would be the last man to vote for it. It was for them to consider whether an importation of 90,000 quarters annually at a duty of 1s. less than was now levied would justify the apprehensions which his noble Friend had laboured so artfully to excite. Upon the question of protection he had never entertained the slightest doubt. He maintained, and he had always believed, that the present system of protection by the sliding-scale was the one best adapted to the circumstances of the country; but with reference to the existing aspect of things, he confessed he looked at it with some doubt and suspicion. If it could be made out satisfactorily to his mind, that the country, on an average of crops, was not capable of feeding its population, then he should hold that the sliding-scale was riot suited to its wants. If there were every year a deficiency of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 quarters in the supply that was required, it was quite clear that the corn-dealer and importer had only to wait their time. He did not however, believe that to be the state of things in this country; it was undoubtedly true, that during the last four or five years there had been a large importation; but it was also true, that in the preceding four or five years there had been a completely adequate supply. Again, at the period of the year when the harvest was closed, a mass of corn was often thrown on the market, by the operation of the sliding-scale, at the

607
time most inconvenient to the farmer. This, however, could not permanently happen, unless on the certainty of an insufficiency of home supply. Suppose, what he believed to be the more probable case, that the country produced nearly sufficient for its own supply, and that the improvement of our agriculture would keep pace with the increase of population—suppose 100,000 or 200,000 quarters would make the difference, if you let in Canada corn you would keep out foreign produce. Taking merely the narrowest view, and looking only to protection, he would say, let in the corn of Canada as a protection against that which would otherwise swamp your markets. The noble Lord opposite thought he had gained a great triumph by the little bit of fixed duty which was inserted in the present bill. He was not one of those who saw any great advantage in uniformity of system. People were much given to think that either a sliding-scale or a fixed duty had some great principle in it, and that either one or the other ought to be universally adopted; but he saw no strong objection against a mixed system, varied in different places according to circumstances. He admitted the extreme importance of not too frequently changing laws of this description; but he would not refuse to do so if good cause be shown. It had been stated with all possible distinctness by the noble Lord near him, and he rejoiced to hear it, that it was the intention of Government to support those who cultivated the land. It was impossible to over-rate the greatness of this subject, which, besides its importance to the industrial interests of the country, migh be said to he a great social and constitutional question, lying at the very foundation of English society. They must give protection to agriculture proportioned to the competition it had to sustain, and the charges which were laid on it; if they did not do that they would become dependent on foreign countries, which might some day lead to the most fatal consequences. This had been universally admitted until the prevalence of the new philosophical doctrines. It was acknowledged by the wisest men of all countries, and he trusted that Parliament and the country would still uphold this maxim.
Lord Teynhammust oppose the bill, notwithstanding the pain he should have invoting against his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle) believing that it was
608
founded on a bad principle. They were about, by this bill, to establish a Corn-law in Canada, to do that which they were gradually undoing in this country. He could not vote for a measure containing so small a modicum of good, with so much that was evil. The country had been told, on the highest authority, that this was not a free-trade measure, and therefore he opposed it. In Canada the bill would set the various classes of the people against each other, in the same manner as unfortunately; prevailed in this country.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, had he entertained the slightest doubt as to the course he should take on this bill, the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) would have confirmed him in the opinion he was inclined to form. He objected to the bill not only because extensive smuggling would take place under it, but because it afforded a precedent for a fixed duty, against which he had always voted, and which he believed would be extremely detrimental to the agricultural interests. He did not think his noble Friends near him would fly from their words, which they had repeated over and over again, that it was not their intention to make any further alteration in the Corn-law but they had set a precedent for a fixed duty, which he thought would hereafter be brought against them by noble Lords opposite, and which might eventually lead to another change into a fixed duty instead of a sliding-scale, most injurious to the interests of the country.
The House then divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Contents 57; Not Contents 25: Majority 32.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Galloway

DUKES.

Dalhousie

Buccleuch

Aberdeen

Wellington

Dunmore

MARQUESES.

Dartmouth

Salisbury

Warwick

Bute

Delawarr

Ely

Bathurst

Londonderry

Liverpool

EARLS.

Courtown

Devon

Longford

Shaftesbury

Lucan

Jersey

Bandon

Morton

Rosslyn

Eglintoun

Powis

Haddington

Harewood

609

Verulam

Sondes

Brownlow

Bolton

Cawdor

Dunsany

VISCOUNTS.

Dunalley

Melbourne

Redesdale

Hawarden

Prudhoe

Combermere

Colchester

Canning

Ravensworth

Lowther

Delamere

BISHOPS.

Wharncliffe

Bangor

Tenterden

Chichester

Heytesbury

Gloucester

Abinger

LORDS.

Ashburton

De Ross

Monteagle

Byron

List of the Not-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Ducie

Richmond

Yarborough

Buckingham

VISCOUNT.

Cleveland

Gage

MARQUESS.

LORDS.

Clanricarde

Willoughhy d'Eresby

EARLS.

Camoys

Essex

Beaumont

Tankerville

Teynham

Stanhope

Kenyon

Radnor

Northwick

Malmesbury

Blayney

Egmont

Castlemain

Morley

Feversham

Stradbroke

Campbell

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Marquess of Huntly

Lord Lilford

Earl of Digby

Earl of Zetland

Earl of Belfast

Lord de Lisle.

Lord Lyttleton

Lord de Mauley

Lord Forester

Lord Portman

Bill went through committee without amendments, was reported, and ordered to be read a third time.
The House adjourned.
The following Protest was entered.
DISSENTIENT—
" 1. Because a fixed duty of only 1s. per quarter would, under the proposed measure, be payable on the importation into the United Kingdom of wheat which is grown in Canada, and which might hereafter be sent to the British market in such large quantities as would be very injurious to the home growers.
" 2. Because the duty of 5s. per quarter, which at the present price of wheat and by the existing law, is now payable on Canadian wheat, would thus be reduced to one-fifth of its amount, although under the payment of that duty, and during a considerable number of successive weeks, a much larger quantity of colonial than of foreign wheat was lately entered for borne consumption.
" 3. Because the duties that are now payable on wheat, under an act passed in the last
610
Session of Parliament are, and have been found by experience to be, utterly insufficient for the protection of the home-growers, and cannot be still further reduced without additional injustice, and without inflicting greater injuries on them and on the other industrious classes of the community.
"4. Because a still further reduction of that remnant of protection which is yet felt to the agricultural classes of the United Kingdom would increase the general mistrust which now prevails amongst those who have invested their capital in the cultivation of land, and might still more depress the price of wheat.
"5. Because no Parliamentary inquiry has been instituted, and no satisfactory evidence has been obtained, with respect to the prices at which wheat can be grown in Canada, and imported from thence into the United Kingdom and without such inquiry and information Government ought not to have recommended the proposed measure, and Parliament ought not to proceed with it.
"6. Because Canada, which, like all other British colonies and possessions, ought to be treated with more favour than any foreign country, is placed under very different circumstances from those of the United Kingdom, is much less burthened with taxes, and ought not to be allowed to injure the mother country by depressing the prices of its produce in the home market.
"7. Because the proposed measure is not required for the prosperity of Canada, which would be best promoted by restoring it to those advantages with respect to its trade in timber of which it was most unjustly deprived by the new tariff.
STANHOPE.
KENYON, for all the reasons except the second.
BEAUMONT.
RICHMOND, for all the reasons except the second.