Sitting of 23 February 1846

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED, By Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Hume, from various places, for a Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By several hon. Members, from a number of places, against the proposed Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation.—By Mr. Duncan, from Shipowners of the Port of Dundee, for Reduction of Duty on Timber.—From Governors and Directors of the Poor of the Parish of St. James, Westminster, for inquiry into alleged Illegal Proceedings of the Board of Management of the North Western Metropolitan District Asylums.—By Mr. Ewart, from Inhabitants of Hawick, for Remission of Sentence upon William S. Ellis.—By Mr. Charles Buller, and Mr. John O'Connell, from various places, in favour of a Ten Hours' (Factory) Bill.—By Mr. Blewitt, and Mr. Ewart, from Monmouth and Hawick, for Remission of Sentence upon Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Sir Valentine Blake, from Members of the Galway Mechanics' Institute, alleging want of Funds to engage a Qualified Professor.—By several hon. Members, from various places, against Enrolment of the Militia.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Guardians of the Poor of the Midleton Union, for Relief from Payment of Loan.—By Mr. Vernon Smith, from Inhabitants of Northampton, against War.

JERSEY ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
CAPTAIN HARRISwished to know whether there was any truth in a communication he had received from the Isle of Jersey to the effect that one of the Jurats in the Royal Court of that island had publicly cast imputations upon certain officers in Her Majesty's army.
SIR J. GRAHAMreplied that an official representation had been made to him respecting a judgment which had been pronounced by one of the Jurats in that island in his judicial capacity, in consequence of which he (Sir J. Graham) had felt it to be his duty to require the Governor of that island to demand from the Jurat in question an explanation of the language attributed.

THE GREEK LOAN.
MR. B. COCHRANEwished to know whether the Government of Greece had paid the interest upon the loan; and whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to lay on the Table a copy of Lord
1390
Aberdeen's despatch upon the subject; also, whether he had received any official, confirmation of the report that one of the recent mails, in passing the Isthmus of Corinth, had been attacked by a banditti, the despatches seized, and the whole of them, with one exception, opened.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the Government of Greece had not made any payment on account of the loan; in consequence of which it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government, under the Convention, to make provision for that failure. He should not object to lay on the Table a copy of the despatch alluded to; but to the production of other Papers connected with that despatch he could not consent. With respect to the report that a mail had been stopped, and the despatches of Sir E. Lyons opened, the only information which he had received on the subject was contained in a letter from Sir E. Lyons, in which he stated that the mail of the 13th instant had been stopped about twenty miles from the capital; that every letter considered to contain money or despatches had been seized and opened; and that the only one which escaped was an official letter to Mr. Ralli, the Greek Consul in London.

THE WAR IN INDIA
SIR R. INGLIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet whether Her Majesty's Government have received the despatches in reference to the war now raging in India, which, according to an answer given last week by a Member of the Government, they were then expecting? If so, whether those despatches confirm generally the statements which are contained in the morning papers of this day? Whether they include returns of all the casualties that have taken place? And lastly, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to issue an Extraordinary Gazette to-night or to-morrow, which may relieve the intense anxiety which prevails upon the subject?
SIR R. PEEL: I am glad that the hon. Baronet has given me an opportunity of stating that despatches in reference to the event he alludes to were received at four o'clock, at the office of the Board of Control. I have not myself seen them; but I can state that they confirm generally the accounts which appear in the morning papers, viz., that through the consummate valour of the Indian troops and those of Her Majesty, a great victory had been gained against a great disparity in point of numbers,

1391
though accompanied by a great loss. The despatches are being copied, and, as they will appear in the next Gazette, I think, in the course of the night, I feel that I had better abstain from entering into any of the particulars which they contain.

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND.
MR. O'CONNELLput the following questions to the right hon. Baronet: 1st. Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill, during the present Session, to enable the same proportion, as nearly as can be, of the people of Ireland to enjoy the elective franchise with the comparative proportion of the population of England enjoying that franchise? 2nd. Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill, during the present Session, to enable the people of Ireland to return a just and an adequate number of representatives to this House? 3rd. Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill, during the present Session, to equalize the franchise and powers in the Municipal Reform Act for Ireland, with the same franchises and powers conceded by the Municipal Reform Act of England to the English corporations? 4th. Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill, duiing the present Session, to give to tenants in Ireland adequate and full compensation for improvements made upon their lands during the tenancy?
SIR R. PEEL: I propose to state generally, in answer to the questions of the hon. and learned Gentlemen, the course which the Government intend to pursue. It is not our intention to bring in any Government measure, unless of the most pressing necessity, until those affecting the commercial interests of the country shall have been disposed of. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we propose that, excepting the Mutiny Bill and some matters of finance, which are necessary for the conduct of the public business, the measures now pending for discussion shall have precedence before all others. I have, however, to state to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that we hope to be enabled, in the course of the present Session, to bring in a Bill for encouraging in Ireland the improvement of land, by providing, in certain cases, for compensation to tenants for improvements upon their holdings. We
1392
hope to be enabled to bring in a Bill, in the course of the present Session, amending the law with respect to the registration of county voters, and to the mode of holding elections generally in that country. That Bill will also propose alterations in the law as affecting the franchise of county voters. With regard to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government hope to be enabled to bring in a Bill, in the course of the present Session, the effect of which will be substantially, I will not say in every particular, to assimilate the municipal franchise in that country as nearly as possible to the municipal franchise in England. It is hardly fair to call for more explicit information. I should much prefer deferring any information respecting the details of those measures until the Secretary for Ireland shall have an opportunity of explaining them.

THE EXECUTION OF SEERY AT MULLINGAR.
MR. O'CONNELLput the following questions to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department:—1st. Will there be any objection to lay before the House the correspondence between the most rev. Dr. Cantwell, the Catholic bishop, and his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of Bryan Seery, who has been lately executed at Mullingar? 2nd. Whether a deputation, consisting of several persons, waited on His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, after the conviction and before the execution of Bryan Seery, to pray that the convict should not be respited, or his sentence transmuted, but that he should be executed? 3rd. To ask whether there be any instance in England, for the last century, of any person being tried for any capital felony by a second jury, after the first jury was discharged by the court, at the same session or assizes, and convicted and executed? and if so, state the time, place, and name of the individual.
SIR J. GRAHAM: With respect to the first question, I can say on the part of the Government, that there will be no difficulty whatever in laying on the Table of the House the correspondence to which that question refers. In answer to the second question, I have to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a deputation from the county of Westmeath did wait upon the Lord Lieutenant before the execution of Seery, and made, upon their own part, a request that the law should be allowed to

1393
take its course. I deeply regret the interference in this harsh and unusual manner. I must, however, be permitted to observe, that that interference had no effect whatever upon the decision of his Excellency, that decision having been come to exclusively upon the most careful consideration of the notes of the evidence, and of the opinion of the jury and the Judge who tried the case. With respect to the third question, the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me if I am not so versed or practised in the law as to be able to give him direct authorities on the subject; but I think I may say this, that it is an old principle of law, recognised throughout the United Kingdom, that a party accused of felony may be put upon his trial upon an indictment until he be acquitted or convicted by a jury of his country. That is undoubtedly the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what cases have occurred in England of persons being tried for a capital felony by a second jury, after the first jury was discharged. I will answer the question. In 1794, at the summer assizes of York, before Mr. Justice Lawrence, a person charged with murder was convicted and executed, the Judge having discharged the first jury, and ordered a second to be sworn, by which he was found guilty. I should not be dealing candidly with the House, if I did not state there is a distinction in this case—the judge had not summed up, and a juror was taken ill; and Mr. Justice Lawrence, having referred to the notes of Mr. Justice Buller, in a like case, decided that the first jury should be discharged, a second empannelled, and the trial should proceed. It may be said that, in the present case, the opinion of the jury was formed and expressed in open court. The House will allow me to state that, in a recent case, on the Midland Circuit, the identical point was decided. At the last spring assizes, a female, of the name of Hannah Jarvis, was indicted before Mr. Justice Coltman, the jury could come to no decision, and their difference of opinion continuing at the close of the assizes they were discharged by the learned Judge. In the summer assizes the prisoner was again brought up on the same indictment before Mr. Justice Maule, a second jury was empannelled, and they proceeded to trial, which ended in a verdict of acquittal; but the principle was the same. With regard to the law and practice in such matters, they were both ruled in this case by two of the ablest criminal Judges of Ireland—the Chief
1394
Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Before proceeding to the second trial, the points were solemnly argued, and the judgment was pronounced by the Chief Baron Brady, who also pronounced the sentence. The Lord Lieutenant acted upon the opinions of these learned Judges in directing that the prisoner should undergo the extreme penalty of the law.
MR. O'CONNELLalluded to a case in which he had been counsel, when Chief Justice Pennefather ruled that his argument was inconsistent with the practice, and the trial was proceeded with. The twelve Judges met on the subject, and though they gave no decision, it was understood they had formed an opinion adverse to that of Chief Justice Pennefather.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in answer to a question of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, stated that three measures would be brought forward by the Government with regard to Ireland—one upon the franchise, another upon the Municipal Corporations, and a third on the law of Landlord and Tenant; but that no such Bills would be introduced until the commercial measures now before the House have been disposed of. I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet if those Bills will be introduced before the Coercion Bill now before the other House is discussed in this House.
SIR P. PEEL: Perhaps the noble Lord will give me an opportunity of answering his question some other day.

COMMERCIAL POLICY—CUSTOMS—CORN LAWS—ADJOURNED DEBATE, (NINTH NIGHT).
MR. E. BULLERsaid, that though he rose under every disadvantage in following the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, yet confidence in the cause which he advocated, induced him to reply to some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He would at once dismiss all reference to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman with regard to party and Party connexions, and come at once to those arguments which bore on the question. The arguments of that hon. Gentleman, however, were not new: they consisted mainly of the old arguments which had been often brought forward, and as often refuted. The principal points adduced by the hon. Member were, firstly, that free importation without reciprocity drained the country of specie; secondly, that it involved the forfeiture

1395
of the independence of this country by an entire reliance upon the importation of foreign grain; and, thirdly, that the imports of foreign grain depreciated the value of labour, and lowered wages. These were the arguments of the hon. Member, and they were by no means novel, though brought forward by the hon. Member in a new and brilliant light; if he might be allowed to say so, the hon. Member had dressed his jackdaw in the splendid plumage of an Indian aviary. The hon. Member said, that as ours was a territorial Constitution, it was the duty of Government to maintain the preponderance of agriculture. The hon. Member asked if we were prepared to fight hostile tariffs with free trade; and what was to become of diplomacy and commercial treaties? He thought there was no inconsistency in not regretting the failure of this diplomacy. The hon. Member said that we trusted that other countries would follow our example; and he bid us look at America, where there was no party or any public man that would support free trade; in France, said the hon. Member, the conservative, revolutionist, and the philosophic parties, were protectionists; that Monsieur Arago, M. Thiers, and M. Guizot, were all protectionists; and yet the hon. Member recommended that this country should try diplomacy and treaties. He did not think much good would be gained by the attempt. He remembered a speech of the hon. Member, when the late Government was in office, when the hon. Member taunted the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton with his abortive efforts to obtain commercial treaties. Since then, there had been six years of a Conservative Government, in which the course of free trade had not been advanced by diplomacy? The only way to induce foreign nations to embrace free trade was by proving its advantages by our own experience. If a high fiscal protection were the true policy, at least it should be shown, that we who for so many years had successively reduced our duties, while other nations raised theirs, had suffered by our erroneous reductions. The imports of this country which in 1820 amounted to 32,510,000 l., in the year 1843 amounted to 70,000,000 l.; the exports, which were 38,000,000 l., in 1843 had increased to 117,000,000 l. The exports had greatly increased in proportion to the imports, for the former had been trebled, while the latter were only doubled. Frequent reference had been made, in the course of the debate, to our trade with France. Since
1396
1825 we had been gradually pursuing a system of reduction of duties on imports, while France had adhered to the high duties of her tariff. The result had been, that in the twelve years preceding 1825, when Mr. Huskisson first introduced his commercial reforms, the average exports to France were 326,858 l.; the imports 939,000 l.; whereas, from 1833 to 1844, the imports rose from 323,000 l. to 3,005,000 l.; the exports to 3,003,400 l. He wished to show by these figures the effect which the liberal views of this Government, though met with opposite ones in France, produced on our exports and imports. ["Hear."] He was obliged to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for that cheer, for until now he thought he was speaking only to the benches. Though France had not profited by our example, still our success had been triumphant. But the hon. Member for Shrewsbury asked what would be the consequence of a large importation from foreign countries, while our exports were met by hostile tariffs—of our importing five millions from Russia, which had a hostile tariff, while we must, as a consequence, exports more goods to New York and Brazil, in order to get bills upon Russia; but if we found no bills our goods must come back. The hon. Gentleman, by introducing bills into the question, had confused the subject. The transaction must be of import from Russia, to be met by a correspondingly large export of British goods to Brazil and New York. From those places there must be exports to Russia, for which bills would be given, and those bills would necessarily be paid over to the British merchant. It was, therefore, only a roundabout way of carrying on trade with Russia. Then, said the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, "having shown you that you cannot succeed in meeting a hostile tariff by free trade, I will now tell you the consequence of these large importations from Russia, without any corresponding amount of exports from this country to Russia; the consequence will be a great drain of gold from this country." Now he had always considered that a great difficulty was unnecessarily introduced into these commercial questions by viewing gold as something different from any other commercial commodity. Gold was merely an article of trade, having its price like other commercial articles. No country could retain more gold than was sufficient to carry on its commercial relations. If there was a superabundance of gold, it would necessarily

1397
be cheap, and of course it would be sent away to other countries where it was dear. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury next drew the attention of the House to Turkey. "That country," said the hon. Gentleman, "had had a perfect free trade for a long time, and the unchecked spirit of competition there had destroyed the whole of its manufactures." The hon. Gentleman boasted of having an extensive correspondence with all the eminent commercial men in Europe. Of no such extensive correspondence could he boast; but he believed there were certain practices in the Turkish empire, which were very likely to be peculiarly unpleasant to gentlemen engaging in trade in that country, and which might cheek the growth of commerce there, wholly irrespective of any system of free trade which that country might adopt. He would not quote the writings of gentlemen, who, after travelling in other countries, then returned and repaid the courtesies they had received with calumnies. The document he would refer to was a hatti sheriff, issued by the Minister of Turkey, and by which he proposed that the institutions of his country should be regenerated. The proclamation set forth the necessity of establishing three institutions essential to the well-being of the empire. The first was, to guarantee to the subjects of the sovereign, their life, honour, and fortunes; the second was, to fix the rate of taxes and the regulation of imports, and to rescue the people from the vexatious system of monopoly; and the third institution was with reference to the levying and maintenance of the army. This promulgation of new institutions, and this confession of old errors, were quite sufficient to make him believe, that if the trade and manufactures of Turkey had declined, it might be from other causes than from free trade. The next argument of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury was that which more peculiarly affected the Corn Laws. He said that it was dangerous to the independence of this country that its inhabitants should depend upon foreign countries for food, and that it would be especially dangerous in a time of war. But he denied that this country was at any time independent of foreign resources. In every year of deficiency the people of this country were for two months obliged to depend upon the supply of corn from abroad. Should that supply be cut off, what misery and destruction must ensue! But, supposing we were engaged in a foreign
1398
war, what material difference would that occasion? It was admitted by the hon. Gentleman himself, that if we could maintain the command of the ocean, we should then have the power of procuring a supply from every quarter of the world. But the time might come when this country might not be able to preserve that superiority; our resources then would only be in the wisdom of that commercial policy which in a time of peace, and in the height of our power, we might establish. Another argument, of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was, that the importation of foreign corn must lower wages. Suppose, said the hon. Gentleman, you import four millions of quarters, and then, suppose that the wages of labour should not be increased, why should there be any greater consumption in the country? And, if not, then the four millions of quarters of foreign corn must displace four millions of quarters of home-grown corn; and, as a consequence, displace the home labour which would have been employed in the growing of those four millions. This would increase the amount of labour in the market, and thereby render labour cheaper, and so reduce wages. He considered that argument of the hon. Gentleman to be totally destitute of foundation. He conceived it to be utterly impossible that such an importation could take place without causing a reduction in the price of corn, and necessarily increasing the consumption. Suppose four millions of quarters were imported at 30 s. a quarter, what would be the result? Why, the people would be able to purchase these four millions of quarters of foreign corn for six millions of money, instead of purchasing four millions of quarters of home-grown corn for ten millions of money. Thus they would retain to themselves four millions of money to be expended for other purposes. Such a transaction could not by possibility remove from British labour any portion of that capital. The six millions of money paid for the corn imported from abroad, must and would be supplied by the exportation of British goods to an equal amount. The remaining four millions of money would be available for the encouragement of manufactures and trade at home, and would to that extent advance the people in the social scale. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) next claimed protection, on the ground of exclusive burdens on the land. He (Mr. E. Buller) could not allow the claim on such narrow grounds. If

1399
the landed aristocracy really sustained peculiar burdens, they were amply compensated by the exclusive honours which the "territorial Constitution" of this country bestowed upon them. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury then proceeded to enunciate a new principle. He called upon the House to look up to him as the oracle from whom they were to hear this great principle, which was to govern the new generation, and shed light and happiness on the world. And what was this great principle? "Give preponderance to the agricultural interest!" The great principle which he told Parliament to adopt, was, "Give power to one class in the State, by sacrificing the pecuniary interests of the other classes." This might be all well enough for those belonging to the favoured class; but suppose those belonging to the labouring class were to be asked how they would like it, what did the hon. Gentleman think would be their answer? If distinct classes were to be supported in this country, then there must be jealousies, and heartburnings, and discontent; and a feeling of alienation would govern the destinies of a large portion of the people; and the Sovereign would become, not the Queen of a nation, but only the Sovereign of a faction. The real question, however, for the House to consider was this:—were they now to proceed in the course they had adopted, or were they to retrace their steps? The great difficulty in considering this question was that of finding any two Gentlemen who were opposed to the present system, agreeing what course they really wished to be pursued. He, at all events, entertained the strongest objection to the principle of conferring a benefit on one class at the expense of another class of the community. You cannot protect the export trade, and you cannot protect the money interest. He believed that to those two great interests the giving of protection to the landed interest was a great vexation. He knew there were many Gentlemen who thought the home industry and colonial policy ought to be supported by legislation; but when he looked at the working of the two systems—that of free trade, protection to domestic and colonial trade—and contrasted their operations and their consequences, he could not doubt which of the two the country ought to be governed by. This principle once adopted, foreign nations would become valuable Colonies to us, without imposing on us the responsibility
1400
of governing them; and we might then look without jealousy at the rising prosperity of other countries. He felt that he had very inadequately discharged the duty he had proposed to himself; but he would sit down by observing, that though there were points in the measure of the right hon. Baronet which he might cavil at, if so disposed, he felt that so great was the importance of passing it, that he should suggest no Amendment, but should give it his earnest and cordial support, while he tendered to the Government his humble, but earnest tribute of praise, for having, under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, acted in that manner which was, upon the whole, the most consistent with their own principles, with their duty to their Sovereign, and to the nation at large.
CAPTAIN BATESON: During this protracted debate only one Irish county Member has addressed the House. I therefore feel it my duty, as one of the Representatives of a great, influential, and agricultural county, to state my reasons for giving my decided opposition to the proposed measure of Her Majesty's Ministers. In the first place, Sir, I shall take this opportunity briefly to allude to a speech delivered in this House on a former evening, which was so replete with philanthropy and the milk of human kindness—I allude to the hon. Member for Durham. I hold in my hand an extract from the half-yearly Report of Mr. Leonard Horner, Inspector of Factories, dated 26th of November, 1845, in which, after stating that he found the average of accidents occurring in cotton mills to be forty-five weekly, that Gentleman went on to say—
"I saw that a great many arose from the cogwheels at the ends of certain spinning-machines called throstle-frames, causing severe lacerations of the hand, and making amputations of fingers necessary in many instances. I ascertained from the occupiers of some factories, where the machinery is carefully fenced, that it is both necessary and practicable to guard these cog-wheels; and their opinions were confirmed by that of an eminent machine-maker in Manchester. I therefore directed the warning notice to be left by the sub-inspectors at every factory where the cog-wheels of the throstle-frames are not boxed, and they are now leaving these notices in their present circuit of inspection. They inform me that, in general, they meet with the most ready compliance with the recommendation. Mr. Davies, the sub-inspector at Ashton, in his last Report, says, 'I have not had an objection made by any mill-occupier to fencing the throstle-frames.' The 43rd Clause provides, that the mill-occupier, on receiving such a notice, may call upon the inspector to have it submited to the arbitration of persons 'skilled in the construction of the kind of machinery to which

1401
the notice refers,' whether the machinery alleged to be dangerous is so or not. Only one instance has yet occurred of this. One firm required an arbitration; they named Mr. Mason, of Rochdale, on their side, and I prevailed on Mr. B. Fothergill, machine-maker of Manchester, to be the arbitrator on my side. I had the satisfaction of being told afterwards, by a very competent judge, that I could not have selected a better. I recently received the award, which states, that the two arbitrators, not being able to agree, had chosen a third arbitrator, as the Act directs, and had called in Mr. William Fairbairn, of Manchester, and that the decision come to was, that it was both necessary and practicable to fence the machinery alleged in the notice to be dangerous."
That firm was the Messrs. John Bright Brothers, of Rochdale! Now I leave it to this House and to the country to decide whether the humanity of the hem. Member for Durham is genuine? Whether the sympathy he expressed for the poor man was not feigned? Whether his liberality, whether his philanthropy, is not spurious? One word more with respect to the hon. Member, and I have done with him; he referred to the state of the agricultural labourer in Wiltshire. The hon. Member for Wilts replied to him, but omitted to state one fact, viz., the average length of life in Wiltshire as compared with Manchester. In Wiltshire the average length of life is thirty-three years; in Manchester, only seventeen years. Having made these observations, it is my intention to confine my remarks chiefly to my own unhappy country. No man more deeply laments the failure of the potato crop in Ireland than I do, and no man is more anxious than I am to assist in passing any measure calculated to alleviate the distress which will be caused by it; but is it not a mockery to come forward and tell us that Ireland will be benefited by a measure which must depreciate the price of her agricultural produce, upon the sale of which eleven-twelfths of her population depend for their maintenance and support. Bills have been introduced into this House for the improvement of waste lands and for drainage in Ireland. There are at present in that country nearly four millions of acres capable of being reclaimed, and which would have been gradually reclaimed and brought into cultivation under the fostering influence of protection. Landlords would willingly have laid out their capital, secure of a return for their money, and having, in addition, the supreme satisfaction of knowing that they had contributed in no small degree to the amelioration of the condition of their fellow countrymen; and I am happy
1402
to say, there are many bright examples of this growing spirit among Irish landlords. Employment has been acknowledged on all sides to be the most efficacious, perhaps the only, means of relieving the distress and misery which prevail in Ireland; and I had fondly looked forward to the improvement in Ireland as a means of increasing employment, and in the same proportion diminishing wretchedness, and thus elevating the position of the Irish peasant. But if this measure of the right hon. Baronet be carried, does anybody suppose or expect that landlords will lay out their capital with the certainty of loss staring them in the face? Can the tenant, then, unassisted, first reclaim the bog (even if he had it rent free), and then grow corn upon it, so as to compete successfully with the foreigner, who has the advantage of climate, and whose land is now in a high state of cultivation? No; the bog will still remain barren, the hill-side will grow nothing but heather, and one of the channels of employment for our teeming population will be permanently blocked up, and their moral and social improvement materially retarded. I feel strongly on this question, both for the Irish farmer and the Irish manufacturer. In the north of Ireland the handloom weaver is frequently also a farmer; and the farmer often devotes the time he can spare from agriculture to the loom. Why, under our present system of protection, in one small town in the north of Ireland, upwards of eighteen thousand pounds' worth of linen is sold at the weekly market! But what will be the case of Ireland, as compared with her present condition, should this measure be carried? Why, at one fell swoop, our export trade will be destroyed, our agricultural produce will be shut out of the English market by foreign competition, and our linen trade annihilated. As an advocate of protection to the farmer, as an advocate of protection to the manufacturer, I protest against so unnecessary, so hazardous, and so revolutionary a scheme; and I implore this House to pause ere it severs one of the two great bonds of union between these two countries, one of which is the Irish Church, the other the benefit Ireland derives from having a just advantage over the foreigner in the English market. And I cannot doubt but that this measure will have the effect of stimulating the advocates of the Repeal of the Union to increased exertions: they will say to the farmer, "England

1403
has deprived you of the benefit her markets have hitherto afforded you for the sale of your corn, your butter, your beef, your pork;" to the handloom weaver they will say, "Your occupation is gone, your linen trade is ruined, you are in no better position than the foreigner—none of you can now refuse to join us in the cry of "hurrah for the repeal!" Again, let me implore this House to pause before it places such a powerful weapon in the hands of artful and designing agitators; and I confess it is not without apprehension and alarm that I look forward to the probability of this measure passing into a law, the consequences of which it is impossible to foresee, and which may be but the foreshadowing of other revolutions, even of more vital interests, which would lead to the destruction of our once much-prized Constitution, and the dismemberment of this great Empire. I will not take up the time of the House by alluding at any length to the miscalled compensation which has been offered to Ireland—I refer to the proposed transfer of the charge for the police force to the Consolidated Fund. I shall merely state that in the county Londonderry, the charge to the county for this force has averaged for the last three years 2,278 l. 10 s. 5d. per annum, which is but a fraction over 1d. per acre. Had the Government proposed to relieve Ireland from the repayment of the loan for the erection of the workhouses, no doubt it would have been considered a boon; but now, the only persons relieved by the proposed measure will be the midnight legislators of the disturbed districts, who are necessarily saddled with a large police force. Is not this a premium to agitation? And now, with regard to certain speeches which we have heard delivered during this debate: I trust it will not be considered presumption in me, if I ask this House whether it will sanction the sentiments they inculcate? Whether this House, by its deliberate decision, will ratify those opinions? Whether this House of Commons will solemnly declare that there is to be a new faith in politics, a new Parliamentary creed? Whether its Members are to become mere weathercocks, veering about with the breath of every popular outcry, and serving only to point out the quarter from whence the blast of agitation is strongest? I confess, for my part, I am still sufficiently old-fashioned to admire consistency, and I still retain the ancient motto of my county—"No Surrender."
1404
And let me here give this warning to those advocates of free trade who say that—"you must go with the times"—"that now-a-days there is no standing still"—"that in this railroad age we must move onward"—I would have them take care lest while the movement be onward, it be not at the same time downward. And now, Sir, in conclusion, permit me to ask the right hon. Baronet—supposing this great scheme, this comprehensive measure, shall have been proved by bitter and dear-bought experience to have failed—supposing, I say (for the right hon. Baronet is bound to provide against every contingency) there should be days of adversity in store for this country—if, when thousands of acres which now grow corn, have been thrown out of cultivation, want of employment and consequent distress prevail in the manufacturing districts, and to this should be superadded all the horrors of war—let me ask the right hon. Baronet, how will he then answer the cry of those despairing multitudes? Let me ask how are we to retrace our steps—how are we to regain the footing we have lost? How will he restore to this country the vantage ground he is now so tamely giving up?
"Facilis descensus Averni
Sed revocare gradum—
Hoc opus, hic labor est."
MR. MONTAGUE GOREsaid, the opinions he was about to express, and the vote he intended to give, were opinions, and would be a vote, at variance with those of a large body within that House, for whom he entertained the highest esteem and the sincerest regard; it would also be a vote at variance with the sentiments of many without the House, for whom also, as for the others, he felt the highest regard; moreover, the opinions he then entertained on this subject were at variance with the opinions he formerly held; and, in justice to himself and the public, he felt bound to come forward manfully and openly, and state the reasons that influenced him on the present occasion. In so doing he agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken, that the consistency which scorned to yield to popular agitation, or be lured from the path of duty, was indeed to be prized; but the consistency which, when convinced that its course was erroneous, still adhered to it—that did so in despite of the evils that would be caused by so doing—that was a consistency which he could neither admire nor follow. What subject or question could be named on which there had not been change, both in

1405
that House and the country? Take the Catholic question—the slavery question—take the present question of the Corn Laws—and what great discrepancies of opinion would not be found to have existed upon them? In 1814 or 1815 the advocates of the Corn Laws thought 80 s. or 90 s. a quarter only a fair price for corn; yet the same Gentlemen afterwards allowed that they had been in error on this subject, and that between 50 s. and 60 s. was a fair price. Mr. Huskisson himself, one of the greatest names of that House, was, both in 1815, and afterwards, a strong advocate of the protection measures of that day; yet, it was well known, that before his death he was of opinion that the Corn Laws could not be maintained. If it was an error, therefore, though he could not allow it to be an error to bend to the force of reasoning, it was one of which that House, and men on both sides of it, had been repeatedly guilty. He declared, for his own part, that he should think himself unworthy of a seat in that House—unworthy to take part in any public debate or public discussion, if when convinced of an error, he did not come forward and manfully and firmly avow it. And, in allusion to the debates of 1814 and 1815, perhaps he might be excused, at those debates, remarking that, in looking, he found that there was one venerable Member of the House (Colonel Gore Langton), on whom, at least, the charge of inconsistency could not be thrown; for in 1814 or 1815, the hon. Member had opposed the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair in order to go into Committee, when that was moved by Mr. Robinson (now Earl of Ripon). To those opinions the hon. Member had always adhered; and notwithstanding his advanced age and infirmities, he would come down and give his vote in favour of the Government. He (Mr. Gore), on his own part, would at once say, that he would rather have seen this measure brought forward by the noble Lord opposite; and had it been brought forward by him, he should have had his cordial, strenuous, and decided suppport. He did not think that the mere desire for a settlement of the question relative to the Corn Laws, would alone justify him in giving his vote; but he was of opinion, that there existed an absolute and pressing necessity for such a settlement; and that, taking into consideration the effect which a distraction in the councils of the nation would have upon the many great interests involved in
1406
the security of our vast colonial possessions and Indian Empire, they were called upon to set aside all slighter differences; and if they feared no evil result, to give their fullest support to the Government. He considered it of the highest importance that the Minister of this country, whatever be his party, should be enabled to carry on the Government with firmness and energy; and in addition to the reasons, furnished by that belief, guiding him in the course he was pursuing, it was his most decided conviction that the repeal of the Corn Laws, in the manner proposed, would be attended with no detriment to the public. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, in the remarks which, on a previous night he had made, had said that the agriculturists were labouring under a delusion. Gentlemen might quarrel with a term: it might, perhaps, have been said, that those Gentlemen were mistaken; and certainly he coincided in that opinion; and he did think that in the opposition offered by hon. Gentlemen to the measure, they had been led away by a very mistaken view of the facts. He considered that it was altogether impossible, as some had supposed, that the proposed changes could ever expose England to a deluge of foreign corn; and, on examination, such would be found to be the inevitable inference. He had made inquiries, extensively, among merchants and others engaged in the American and European corn trade, and the results he would as briefly as possible lay before the House. One highly respectable authority in the City had assured him, quite in accordance with the statement of Mr. Jacob, that at Dantzic the ordinary price of wheat, free on board, was 40 s. the quarter, to which were to be added, for freightage, 4s. 8d., insurance, 1s. 4d., and loading and landing, 6s. 9d.—together 12 s. 6d.; thus making the price of the quarter of wheat in this country 52 s. 8d. Another respectable gentleman put the charges at importation at 10 s. in which he included a small sum for damage to cargo. With regard to Odessa, he had ascertained that for the three years ending in 1840, the price of wheat there, on the spot, was 34 s. 6d. the quarter. The freight from Odessa to London amounted to 8s. 6d., insurance to 1s. 4d., and the other charges to 5s. together 14 s. 10 d.; making the price in this country 49 s. 4d. the quarter. This statement had been confirmed by highly respectable parties; one gentleman assured him that the freight and charges

1407
would be 15 s. a quarter; and another, who was largely connected with Odessa, and that part of Europe, had informed him that, taking an average of years, the corn from thence was sold here at a price varying between 48 s. and 50 s. the quarter. If this were correct, he saw nothing to apprehend from the passing of the measure before the House. It might be said, that an inducement being held out, the agriculture of these countries would undergo, and was capable of undergoing, great improvements; but it was forgotten that, to effect that end, there must be the necessary capital, labour, and facilities of conveyance, all of which were wanting. The estates on which the corn was grown were so embarrassed, that there were great impediments, even if there was the inclination, to any material increase of capital to be employed in the cultivation of land. The existence of feudal tenures, too, was an effectual bar to the concentration of labour; the labourers were serfs; and, in the great majority of instances could not be removed from one estate to another. And then, with respect to the modes of conveyance; it was known that corn was conveyed to Dantzic by water carriage, and on arriving there the boats were broken up, and sold for a mere trifle when compared with the original cost. To Odessa the corn was brought overland 400 or 500 miles, by means of carts, drawn by bullocks. Would not the knowledge of these circumstances fully justify this conclusion, that, as far as the Continent of Europe was concerned, no great increase for a number of years could be anticipated in the quantity of provisions to be imported into Great Britain. The hon. Member for Somersetshire had alluded to America, and had contended that it was out of the question for the English agriculturists to expect any successful, any but a ruinous, competition with the corn growers on the other side of the Atlantic. It should, however, be borne in mind that in America capital was wanting, labour was excessively high, and that the yield per acre was very small in comparison with what was found to be the case in England and other countries in Europe. It was quite true, as had been said by the hon. Member, that the extent of land under cultivation was considerable; but was that a circumstance favourable to the hon. Member's argument? What did they deduce from the reports of the agricultural societies in America? Why, they would see that the great subject of complaint
1408
with those desirous of promoting improvements was, that the very extent of land under tillage, caused a careless and unscientific cultivation. At an agricultural meeting in Albany, in the winter of 1844, Mr. O'Reilly said—
"Such has been the depreciation of the wheat crops, owing to the exhaustion of the soil, consequent on ill-judged farming, that the product of the wheat lands, between the Seneca lake and Virginia river, has not, for the last three or four years, exceeded the low average of eleven or twelve bushels per acre. Indeed, I have authority for declaring that, in reference to a single county (Seneca), the average yield is now not over ten bushels per acre."
Dr. Buckman, addressing the Dutchess County Agricultural Society, said—
"Where is the farm that will now upon the average yield forty bushels of wheat to the acre? If in this assemblage there is an individual who owns that farm, and realizes that result, I will stop: no one speaks. If not forty, then thirty; if not thirty, then twenty."
Mr. Van Ranselaer, president of the Agricultural Society of Ranselaer county, said—
"One reason why our land has not advanced more rapidly, grows out of the wide circle in which it is expanded—new lands yield with but comparative little labour; and to produce a certain amount, many acres are put into cultivation: when these fail to make a profitable return, the farmer, instead of repairing the exhaustion of the soil, often adopts, as he supposes, an easier method of obtaining his purpose, by moving to one of the new States, where a rich harvest may be reaped with little trouble of sowing. To cultivate less land, and in a superior manner, is the point to be ascertained."
Mr. Kirby, president of the Jefferson County Society, speaking of the repeal of our Com Laws, said—
"It appears by an official report made to the British Parliament, in 1841, that the average price of wheat for the seven previous years, at the principal ports of the Baltic and the Black Sea was 77 cents per bushel; while, during the same years, the average price at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, was 1 dollar 40 cents. The cost of freight to England, from the European ports referred to, was 13 cents per bushel. The freight from our ports to England was 17 to 18 cents per bushel. Thus it is apparent that our most favoured wheat region cannot compote even-handed with the continent of Europe for the wheat trade with England, unless we consent to a general reduction of wages to the European standard—a thing quite out of the question."
Tooke says—
"Barring any extraordinary difference in the seasons, I should expect that the price here, with the ports always open, would, in a series of years of some length, average about 45 s. This country, but more especially the port of London, will be the emporium of the trade in corn between Europe and America. Thus, there will be a great increase

1409
of trade, and we shall be sure of supply if our crops are deficient."
Allusions had been made in the course of the debate to what would be the remunerating price to the English farmer; and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had been asked to say what he thought a fair price. But he must say, that of all the difficult questions to be solved, this seemed to him the most difficult. It was a subject on which a great diversity of opinions had prevailed, and still did prevail; and it was also a subject concerning which an agreement would perhaps never be come to. In 1814 and 1815, men of great experience and of high authority had endeavoured to show, and very generally convinced the public, that the agriculturist could never cultivate with profit, if he failed in obtaining the price of 80 s. a quarter. In 1818 similar statements had been made by individuals, whose opinions were entitled to the same respect and yet prices had declined; and what had been the consequence in which the nation had rejoiced—a great increase in agricultural improvement. On this point Mr. Tooke said—
"The averages of the six years following, when there was no foreign wheat, or no proportion worth mentioning in the market, were, 1882, 58 s. 8d.; 1833, 52 s. 11 d.; 1834, 46 s. 2d.; 1835, 39 s. 4d.; 1836, 48 s. 6d.; 1837, 55 s. 10 d.; average, 50 s. 3d. But if it be considered that by far the largest quantities sold were in the three years of the lowest prices; viz., 1834, 46 s. 2d.; 1835, 39 s. 4d.; 1836, 48 s. 6d.; average, 44 s. 8d.; and that, during that period, although, as usual, on the occurrence of low prices, there were loud complaints of agricultural distress, the country never exhibited a greater extent nor a higher degree of cultivation; it is perfectly fair to presume, that, at a price of 45 s., there would be no reason to apprehend that much, if any, land would be thrown out of cultivation. The general fact is, in proof, by results beyond controversy, that the agricultural productions of the kingdom were never, as far as the seasons permitted, on a larger scale than in 1836 and 1837, notwithstanding the alleged discouragement of the low prices of 1834 and 1835."
For his part, he was inclined to believe that the principal aids to a rapid progress in agricultural science, and to an increase in the profits of those engaged in agriculture, were to be found in the development of our manufacturing interest. If they looked to the periods when the greatest improvements had taken place in agriculture, they would discover that those improvements were coincident with an extension of the capital and an addition to the amount of labour engaged in manufactures. If they took the history of this country at
1410
the period immediately previous to the accession of George III. to the Throne, and when manufactures in Great Britain were in their infancy, that they would perceive that agriculture at that time was stationary, and had undergone, for a considerable number of years, scarcely any improvement. When, in 1760, manufactures improved, agriculture, it would be remarked, had made a corresponding advance, and since then the progress of the two interests, fostered by capital and skill, had been in conjunction. And judging, therefore, from the past, he felt perfectly assured that the measure, the adoption of which was now recommended, would, if carried, make the further progress, both of agriculture and in manufactures, more certain and more rapid. He had said before that he was not advocating the proposition merely because he concurred in thinking it was necessary the Government should be kept in office; if he considered that that end would be obtained, at any material sacrifice of the agricultural interests, he would give his most strenuous opposition to the scheme of the right hon. Baronet; but from an increase in population there must result great increase in demand for agricultural produce. All experience and all reason went to prove that a benefit to the manufacturing would be a benefit to the agricultural interest; and among the many authorities who had dealt with the subject, none had spoken more plainly or more convincingly on that point than Hume:—
"When manufactures and mechanical arts are not cultivated, the bulk of the people must apply themselves to agriculture; and if their skill and industry increase, there must arise a great superfluity from their labour, beyond what suffices to maintain them. They have no temptation, therefore, to increase their skill and industry, since they cannot exchange that superfluity for any commodities which may serve either to their pleasure or vanity. A habit of indolence naturally prevails. The greater part of the land lies uncultivated. What is cultivated yields not its utmost for want of skill and assiduity in the farmers. Were our narrow and malignant politics to meet with success, we should reduce all our neighbouring nations to the same state of sloth and ignorance that prevails in Morocco and the coast of Barbary. But what would be the consequence? They could send us no commodities; they could take none from us; our domestic commerce itself would languish for want of emulation, example, and instruction; and we, ourselves, should soon fall into the same abject condition to which we had reduced them. I shall, therefore, venture to acknowledge, that not only as a man, but as a British subject, I pray for the flourishing commerce of Germany, Spain, Italy, and even France itself. I am, at least, certain that Great Britain and all those nations would

1411
flourish more, did their Sovereigns and Ministers adopt such enlarged and benevolent sentiments towards each other."
A great change like that proposed would naturally create great apprehension; and in the remarks he (Mr. Gore) had to make, he would carefully guard against saying one word that would convey anything but his respect for those Gentlemen with whom it was his misfortune he differed. Similar changes in the history of every country had been attended with similar expressions of doubt, dismay, and dissatisfaction. A remarkable instance of that nature occurred at the time when Spain, in 1765, having at last been convinced of the ill effects of her past policy, proposed a total alteration in the fiscal laws relating to the intercourse between the mother country and her Colonies. All cried out against it, and loudly predicted ruin and disaster. In a short time the new system was found to work advantageously; and in the end the merchants of Cadiz, who had been the most strenuous in their previous opposition, were the most prominent in their exultations on the new state of affairs. A train of events, identical in their character, marked the extension of turnpike roads from London to remoter counties; the possessors of property round London declared they would be ruined; but when their entreaties were neglected and the roads were made, the benefits of the alteration were experienced, and since had been fully acknowledged. It was, none would deny, most important to consider the way in which the new Bill would affect the poor; and the proportion likely to exist between prices and wages.—In reference to that portion of the inquiry the hon. Gentleman read the following documents:—
"Harvest of 1795 very deficient, price of wheat six guineas per quarter. Season of 1796 favourable, price fell to 56 s. at end of year. In 1797 quality was bad, quantity deficient. Harvest of 1798 only moderately abundant, consequently no store of grain to bring in in aid of deficient harvest of 1797; immediately after which the price rose to 92 s. 7d. per quarter. In 1800 the quality was injured by excessive rains, and the quantity was so short that the average price of wheat, on the 1st of January, 1801, had advanced to 139 s. per quarter. Before the harvest of 1801 was secured, the price of wheat in the London market reached 180 s. per quarter, and the quartern loaf was, for four weeks, as high as 1s. 10½d."
It was curious (continued Mr. Gore) to observe how intimate a relation existed between the prices of food and the number of marriages.
"The falling-off in the number of marriages observable
1412
in 1795, 1800, and 1801, was in each year very marked in its character. The harvest of 1801 was moderately abundant, and as, in addition to the home produce, the importation of wheat, under the stimulus of a bounty, had been very large, the price fell, in the latter part of this year, to less than half what it had been before the harvest. In 1802 the crops, although not very abundant, yielded enough, with a small importation, for our wants, and prices became still more moderate. The number of marriages in these two years, according to the registers, was 90,396 in 1802, and 94,379 in 1803. In March, 1804, the average price of wheat was as low as 49 s. 6d. per quarter; but the harvest in that year was far from being good, and towards Christmas the price was double what it had been nine months before. The price continued high until the result of the harvest of 1805 could be known. This proving more favourable, and a considerable quantity of foreign grain having been imported, prices again receded, but not extensively. The number of marriages in 1804 and 1805 again showed the restraining effect in this respect of high prices, having been 85,738 and 79,586 respectively."
All these facts and statistics went to show that the country flourished in the greatest degree when there was the greatest abundance, combined with cheapness of food. He had supported the Corn Law as it then existed, because he had looked upon it as the law best suited to the circumstances; but he had since seen reason to doubt the correctness of that opinion. It had been said of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), that he was responsible for the labouring population of South Wilts. He (Mr. Gore) was bound to say that he did not believe the agricultural interest or the agricultural labourers had a better friend than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War; and he spoke from a knowledge of the kind feeling shown by him to all on his property. With regard to the assertion that the Corn Law had worked well, it was for the advocates of the law to reconcile this assertion with the fact, that under its operation the farmer had to sustain a progressive fall in the price throughout not less than five successive years, from 75 s. in 1831, till it got down to 36 s. On the occurrence of the first season following, of marked deficiency, in 1838, the public obtained no relief till the aggregate averages of the six weeks had attained in September 73 s. 2d., when suddenly, in a single week, 1,513,113 quarters of wheat and wheat meal were liberated, at the low duty of 1s. per quarter. The price, in consequence, declined in four weeks from 77 s. to 61 s. 10 d., so that whereas the previous rise was for

1413
the benefit of the wealthier farmers who had been enabled to hold their stocks of the crop of 1837 to the last, the subsequent fall was to the detriment of the numerous class of small farmers, who, having by that time got in their crops in all the divisions of the island south of the Humber, were threshing out, and, as usual, bringing the earliest supplies to market. Therefore, he thought it was an error to suppose that the Corn Law had worked to the advantage of the small farmers. What had been the effect of the Corn Law upon other interests? In years of scarcity, there was a sudden demand for ships; freights rose; shipowners got large profits: but when the prices of corn fell, down went the profits of the shipowner. The effect of the law, and of a sudden demand for corn, was mischievous upon capital, as well as upon the interests of shipowners. He was inclined to agree with a remark of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that the hopes on one side and the fears on the other were equally exaggerated. He had the authority in favour of free trade, not only of Bishop Watson, Mr. Horner, Lord Wallace, and Lord Wellesley, but of a statesman, second to none in experience, knowledge, and attachment to the Constitution; he alluded to Lord Grenville, who, in the debate upon the East India Charter, in 1813, said—
"Those who understand, as your Lordships do, the real nature of commerce, and the true principles of its wise administration, well know that all its interests are interwoven; all its branches inseparably connected. It is the union, not of commerce with Government, but of commerce with commerce, that a provident legislation will respect. Numerous are the commercial enterprises Which would be of small benefit if limited to the direct intercourse of one country with another, but which, by intermediate or subsequent transactions, in other markets and in distant regions, become highly advantageous both to private and to national interests. For the encouragement of such hopes no moment was ever yet more favourable. The barrier of prejudices is shaken, the spirit of monopoly is rapidly giving way to juster principles of commercial legislation, and the change of public opinion in this country is seconded by the great revolutions of the world."*
These were the sentiments of Lord Grenville, than whom no man was more sincerely attached to the Constitution of this land; so that, if this question was to be decided by authority, there could be none of greater weight. For the reasons he had stated he should give his decided and cordial support to the measure of Her Majesty's Government. He believed that the
* Hansard, vol. xxv, p. 744.
1414
measure was framed upon sound principles; he thought it calculated to promote all the great interests of this great Empire. It was not by swelling any one interest into unnatural proportions, but by fostering the general welfare of the State, that the life-blood was best distributed to every member, and the symmetry and vigour of the whole preserved. The welfare of agriculture depended not on their protective laws, but on the enterprize breathed into all interests by the spirit of freedom, and protected by equal laws; and if, looking beyond the narrow segment of their immediate age and country, he contemplated the distant regions to which British commerce, when free from restrictions was destined to extend—
"The shores watered by her wealthy tides;"—
when he viewed her, over this extensive space, shedding far and wide the beams of civilization, liberty, and pure religion, as a man and as a Christian he rejoiced at the prospect; as an Englishman he exulted that this country was likely to be the instrument of dispensing such blessings to the human race. He repeated, that he would not yield this measure to intimidation; and he thought it would be unbecoming loyal English gentlemen to be swayed by such a motive. But he hoped that they would come to a decision "having their hearts," in the beautiful and simple language of that prayer with which they auspicated their daily proceedings in that House, "free from partial interests, prejudice, and party affections;" and that, whatever vote they gave might be such as would most conduce to the permanent and durable welfare of Great Britain, and to the happiness of the countless millions who were subject to her sway, or dependent on her destinies.
MR. FITZGERALDwished to impress upon Her Majesty's Ministers the urgent necessity of relieving his unfortunate country from the horrors of famine. He was happy to say, that it was with no small gratification and pleasure that he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the other night; and he (Mr. Fitzgerald) could corroborate the accounts read by the right hon. Baronet and the statements he had made. He could not but express his satisfaction likewise at the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, in introducing measures for promoting public works in Ireland, so as to give the poor the means of buying what

1415
they wanted. He was not going to answer the statements of the hon. Member opposite (Captain Bateson) respecting the manufactures of Ireland. He acknowledged he knew more about land than manufactures; nor would he notice what he had stated about the firm of Bright and Co.; he had no doubt if the hon. Member for Durham had been in his place he would have been able to answer him. With regard to the measure of Her Majesty's Government, he confessed that until he entered the House his idea was for perfect free trade; and although he had not altered his opinions, still he thought that the measure of Her Majesty's Government was the best that could be brought forward at the present moment. He thought that any sudden change to free trade (though he was in favour of free trade) would do rather injury than good, and that it showed the wisdom and good sense of the right hon. Baronet not to bring forward a measure of sudden free trade, but to afford such a time for the measure to take effect as was usual in agricultural operations and changes of crops. He acknowledged that when the measure was first brought forward by the Government great alarm was felt in Ireland; and as a Member of one of the largest counties in Ireland, and almost entirely agricultural, he had felt it to be his duty to hear the opinions of his constituents, and to see how far they accorded with his own. The result was, that though alarmed at first, coupled with the compensations—which he, however, considered no compensations whatever—they were disposed decidedly to support the measure of Her Majesty's Government. Considering all the other changes for the last few years, a change in the commercial policy of this country must be made. We must go according to the times, and go onward, not, he hoped, as the hon. Member (Captain Bateson) expected, downwards. He was glad to hear the kind expressions which had been used towards Ireland by hon. Gentlemen in that House; but he could not help saying, that the conduct of that which was now the Ministerial party did not practically carry out the kindness which persons in that House were so anxious to profess. As to the vote which he intended to give, he did believe that the prevailing sentiments in the place which he represented would secure to him the gratitude of his constituents. He should support the measure of the right hon. Baronet, for this amongst other reasons, that he admired
1416
the moral courage with which he brought forward and sustained the policy which he thought it his duty to pursue. There could be no doubt that a Government, with the noble Lord the Member for London at its head, could do much for Ireland, because the people of that country regarded the present Ministerial party as their enemies, and the Liberal party as their friends; but no man could doubt that the measure now under their consideration was one calculated not to promote the interest of a few, but to advance the prosperity of the nation at large.
MR. LOCKHARTwas at all times reluctant to obtrude himself on the House, but could not submit to give a silent vote on that occasion. He had a deep sense of the services which Her Majesty's Ministers had rendered to their country. He had not forgotten the distress and the despondency which existed in it at the time of their coming into office, or the many difficulties from which they had extricated it; he, therefore, most sincerely regretted to find himself placed in opposition to them on this question. His regret was great in proportion to the respect in which he held them. When the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government proposed an alteration in the Corn Laws in 1842, he had given him his humble and willing support; he had reason to know that the vote he then gave met with the approbation of his constituents; and since the present scheme was announced he had received a communication from a very influential body of them expressing the same moderate views. They contented themselves by saying, that as long as protection was given to manufactures of any description it was most unjust to deprive agriculture of it; and he believed they would be satisfied were the three years of promised protection, like the three years of the right hon. Baronet's Income Tax, prolonged to an indefinite period. For his own part, he desired to see all their interests protected moderately, and on equitable principles. He had no wish, he never had any wish, for exclusive advantages to agriculture; but he must say, that the cry of class legislation came with a bad grace from those who raised it. Few interests had been more largely favoured than that of cotton manufactures. Up to 1819, if he mistook not, foreign goods of that description were subject to a duty of 85½ per cent., and till a more recent period to a duty of 50 per cent. There was also, at

1417
one time, a bounty on the exportation of printed calicoes of our own manufacture. He had said, he desired no exclusive advantages to agriculture. Accordingly, had the proposal of the right hon. Baronet been a diminution of the protection it now enjoyed, he should not have hesitated to have voted with him; but for the total abandonment of protection he was not prepared. He remembered the often-quoted caution of Montesquieu—"Beware of following the example of the savage, who, to get at the bread fruit, cuts down the tree on which it grows." He hesitated to give his assent to a measure long earnestly desired by all who sought the overthrow of our Constitution, and the dismemberment of the Empire. He was returned, and that unanimously, to that House by a numerous constituency on protective principles, and to these principles he was bound in honour to adhere; for no new circumstances had arisen, no new reasons had been assigned, to induce him to change his opinions. He could not think we were justified in sweeping away all protection, in order to remedy a casual calamity or a defect in the existing system, which could be readily removed by a simple alteration. The misfortunes which now threatened Ireland, and which the right hon. Baronet feared would be seriously felt in less than three months, had nothing to do with this question. They must be met by other means, and not by a measure which would not come into operation till the end of three years. With regard to other interests affected by the Resolutions, the experience of the Tariff of 1842, instead of being a reason for abandoning protection to them, was rather a reason why they should adhere to it. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liverpool had shown that free trade would injure our Colonies, and lead, probably, to their separation from us. He felt the force of his observations. He saw, also, as respected ourselves, serious obstacles in the circumstances of this country and of Europe. One of the obstacles was the unwillingness of Foreign Powers to enter into reciprocal engagements. The orators of the League admitted this, by invariably assuming that the whole world must follow the example of Great Britain; but though the right hon. Baronet seemed disposed to countenance their prophecies, he adduced no facts that could lend them any distinct and convincing authority, except as to one or two very insignificant States. Another, and
1418
even more serious objection, arose out of the enormous debt with which we were loaded, and from which other nations were, in a great measure, exempted. In whatever manner our taxes might be raised, it was obvious they must press on all classes, even on the very poorest; and therefore this country ought to be one of the last to abandon protection to its native industry. There was another disadvantage, certainly not of the same important character, yet not altogether unworthy of consideration—that this measure would tend to perpetuate the Income Tax, from which his constituents were anxious to be relieved, or prevent a reduction of the duty on tea, which would be a great boon to all classes, and a great benefit to our commerce. It would also prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from dealing with taxes which affected the industry of our people. Some of the assessed taxes, for example, interfered directly with their employment; and he was at a loss to know on what ground this could be justified, when we were about to allow untaxed foreigners to enter into competition with them in so many respects. He could not help fearing that the great difference between the value of labour here and on the Continent, must be attended by serious consequences. On account of the comparatively high rate of wages in this country, our exports must be confined to goods manufactured by means of machinery, and to articles on which little labour had been expended; while we should receive in return manufactures, the chief value of which consisted in their workmanship. Little attention had been paid to this subject in the course of that debate. He hoped the House would not be led away by vague assertions, which had been made by several hon. Members, about increased employment and better wages; but look seriously into the means of employment which this description of traffic must withdraw from our rapidly increasing population. In regard to agriculture, he apprehended a similar displacement of employment; and for this reason, that the amount of labour required for the production of corn, was greater than that which was required for the manufacture of those articles which it was proposed to exchange for the corn of the Continent. It was well known, that in every operation of husbandry the labour of man was largely employed; whereas in steam-woven cotton goods, everything from first to last was performed by machinery with comparatively

1419
little assistance from the operative; and the raw material was chiefly imported from a foreign and not very friendly land. We thus displaced our own industry, and transferred it not only to the country from which we imported our corn, but also to America, from whence we imported our cotton. He held it to be utterly impossible that the farmers of this country could go on paying the wages they had been accustomed to pay, and compete with the farmers in more favourable climates, who paid their labourers from 3s to 4s. a week. No one would seriously pretend that they could. The hon. Member for Stroud said, we already competed with the cheap labour of Ireland; but the supply from that part of the kingdom was limited; it did not materially affect prices, and could not, therefore, affect wages. The hon. Member who had just addressed the House, stated that the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, had at first caused great alarm in the county he represented. He (Mr. Lockhart) thought that the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark was still more calculated to excite uneasiness. He (Sir W. Molesworth) admitted that the class of small farmers must be swept away. Now he would ask—was Ireland prepared for that measure? He knew that in the county he had the honour to represent, the effect would be strongly felt. There were upwards of two thousand small farmers in it, not, generally speaking, possessed of much capital, but deficient neither in skill nor industry. Their most experienced and best-informed farmers, were of opinion that their inferior lands must go to ruin. He had seen the greatest part of them brought into cultivation; and if this measure passed, he was destined, probably, to see their return into the state from which they were reclaimed; for these lands, when left in grass, rapidly deteriorated, and in a few years became valueless. As this was a subject in regard to which great misapprehension existed, he would take the liberty to read a single sentence from a letter he had received from a neighbour of his, a practical farmer, and a great admirer of the right hon. Baronet. It was as follows:—
"If Sir R. Peel carries his intended Corn Bill, it will ruin this part of the country. A great part of our inferior land must go out of cultivation; and if allowed to remain in grass, it will get into a wild state in a very few years."
In short, the right hon. Baronet was putting
1420
the science and industry of our farmers to too severe a test, and many of them must sink under it. "Agriculture," said the right Baronet, "even here is in its infancy." Be it so. Would not, then, any improvements that might be introduced, tell with double effect in countries that were immeasurably behind us? And if our liberality did not stimulate foreign farmers to greater exertions, were there not among themselves those who would take advantage of the lower rate of wages abroad, and set them an example? for they had no want of speculators. Were the price of labour equal, or nearly equal, they need fear nothing from competition; and in the course of time it must become so: when the principle of buying in the cheapest market had come fully into operation, as the price of every thing else fell, the price of labour must sink also. This was a melancholy prospect for the industrious classes; but it was, he feared, the inevitable consequence of a measure of this kind. It was indeed a hazardous experiment; but he sincerely hoped he might be mistaken, and that the policy which brought ruin to ancient Rome, might bring prosperity to the British Empire. Such he most devotedly believed were the anticipations of the Government. Might it prove that they were wiser than the majority of their friends!
SIR G. CLERKsaid, that he very unwillingly obtruded himself upon the attention of the House; but he could not allow this question, considering the situation which he had the honour to hold, to be disposed of without saying a few words; at the same time he did not presume to think he could add much to what had been already said. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had told the House that the objections to the measures were two fold—one founded upon the non-existence of an emergency, the other upon the construction of a new system of policy. As to the existence of the emergency, he believed that that was a position which could not be successfully contested, and which it was really unnecessary to debate at any length. In discussing the other ground of objection, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury told them that the present measure went to the construction of a new system of commercial policy. Now he denied that altogether. The present proposition was nothing more than a following out of that system which was introduced by his right hon. Friend in 1842, and a development of

1421
those measures supported by him in 1824, when they were brought forward by Mr. Huskisson and Lord Ripon, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had been told then that the Government and the Parliament had run wild upon the subject of free trade. The propositions of that day were so described, but they were carried out; and if hon. Members would only view calmly the measures now proposed, they would see that they went very little beyond the principles which had been acted upon for the last twenty years, and that there was really no intention of introducing a new system of commercial policy. With regard to the emergency, he wished he could consider it, as some hon. Gentlemen did, temporary. In this debate they had looked too exclusively to the misery in Ireland which would prevail during the present summer; but they must look further—they must look what the crop of potatoes, which he was sorry to say was the sole food of 4,000,000 of the people there, would be in the subsequent years of 1847 and 1848, because they must bear in mind not only that the crop of the present year was destroyed, but that there would be the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient seed for future culture. ["Hear, hear!"] Did the hon. Member doubt that statement? If he did, perhaps he was not in the House when a question was put by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) to the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir R. Peel). He Sir G. Clerk) had himself made some inquiries among his own neighbours, and he had been told by men of great intelligence, though the disease did not exist to the same extent last spring, yet that there had been symptoms of it, and, as they had not been sufficiently careful as to the potatoes they had used for seed, there was reason to believe that the seed sown did contain the germ of the disease last year. He thought that, after what Professor Lindley had communicated to the right hon. Baronet, and what had been by him stated to the House, there was reason to apprehend that the disease would not be confined to the present season; and that even supposing they could procure seed to be sown for next year, the disease would prevail. But it was not only to Ireland they were to look in considering the means of obtaining a sufficient supply of food for the present year: although the potato was not the exclusive food, it did form a great part of the food of the people of Scotland and
1422
of England. Now, the disease had been found to prevail to a great extent in every part of the United Kingdom. He knew that different parties did not agree on the precise extent of the injury. It varied in different districts, and on one farm from another, so that, according to the place where the question was asked, very different ideas might be entertained of the extent to which the disease prevailed; but there was one test by which they might approximate to the truth. In England the potato formed a great portion of the food of the lower orders: it did so especially in the metropolis. What did hon. Members suppose the supply of potatoes for London was this year compared with the last? From the 1st of October, 1844, to the 14th of February, 1845, being a period of four months and a-half, the supply of potatoes to London was 770,000 sacks; whilst the supply of London for the same period from the 1st of October, 1845, to the 14th of February instant, was only 540,000 sacks, showing a falling-off of nearly one-third in the supply of the metropolis. He believed he might take this as a fair index of the failure throughout England generally; and if they contemplated the deficiency of supply of potatoes in Manchester and Liverpool and a great many other towns, where a large portion of the population was Irish, they might imagine the distress that would exist. What effect had this defective supply of London on the prices? At the end of January, 1845, the price of potatoes in Covent-garden market, by the ton, was from 50 s. to 80 s.; and if they looked at the price at the end of January, 1846, they would find it ran from 80 s. up to 160 s, a ton; so that the lowest price now was equal to the highest price in the former year, and the highest price now was double what it wat last year. He knew if they took the water-side price it might be found somewhat lower, for many cargoes of diseased potatoes were brought to market, and of course sold at a low rate; indeed, at the present moment, it depended on the state of the wind, and a prosperous passage from the Humber or the Tay, whether the cargo would arrive in a sound state or not. Potatoes by this price had been placed beyend the reach of the lower classes, who had consequently been obliged to purchase bread to a greater extent than they were used to do in former years. Those bakers who supplied the poorer districts, who used to bake ten

1423
sacks a week, were now baking eleven, so that there was an increased consumption of bread of 10 per cent. When, therefore, we had been importing corn during the last six years to a great extent—when they found that the food of 4,000,000 of the people in Ireland would be cut off at the end of the next two months, and that the consumption of bread had been increased 10 per cent. already, even in the metropolis—and when it was highly probable that this diminished supply of potatoes that came to the metropolis could not hold out till the end of May, it was the duty of the Government to look out and see that there were no impediments to a sufficient supply of food. He must now advert to another remarkable feature of this case. It was well known that although the harvest of last year had not been deficient in bulk upon an average, it had been deficient in weight; and an additional quantity of wheat was now required to produce a given quantity of flour. Now, at the same time that the potato disease had not been confined to Great Britain and Ireland, but had extended itself to the whole of the Continent, it was also known the harvest in Germany and other parts of Europe had failed to a great extent likewise. Holland and Belgium had at once removed all impediments to the admission of food in their ports. At that time, when corn was so admitted into the ports of those countries free, it had been found that though the price of corn in the London markets was exceedingly high—though the best wheat was remaining stationary, or rather rising—the averages were moving in the opposite direction. That was in the month of November. The attention of the Government had been most anxiously directed to this difficulty. From week to week the accounts of the quantity of corn coming in were compared with the accounts of the quantities which from week to week were re-exported. The amount so re-exported continued trifling; but had it increased, it would have been the bounden duty of Government to open the ports, as a means of preventing the corn from being taken away from this country to those which had removed all impediments upon its importation. Under such circumstances he thought he might assume that there would have been but one feeling in the House—that the Government would have been justified in taking upon itself the heavy and delicate responsibility of opening the ports and admitting corn. But if this point was admitted,
1424
and if such was the opinion of the agricultural Members, that admission took away from him the main and chief argument upon which he had ever been prepared to defend the sliding-scale, because the great argument in favour of that scale had been that it contained within itself a self-adjusting principle—that the duty should fall with a rise in price, until it vanished altogether. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the arguments used in favour of the sliding-scale in 1827, and having regard to the circumstances of the autumn of 1826, they would find we had been nearly in a similar position in the autumn of 1845. The Government of Lord Liverpool had been obliged to open the ports and suspend the law. They had come to Parliament, and had asked for a Bill of Indemnity; and having made out a sufficient case the Parliament had passed their Bill. Lord Liverpool had then remarked that this power of opening the ports was of so delicate a nature that it required to be exercised with the greatest caution and care; that it might occasion loss and ruin to many unoffending and innocent persons; that it was a power which ought not to remain with the Government; and that some alteration should be made to render it unnecessary. Mr. Canning had also shown most forcibly that under the Corn Law then in force, there was no security against a recurrence of similar circumstances which might make it imperative on the Government to assume the power of dispensing with the law; and that this objection was not only applicable to the law of 1815, but to a fixed duty, however small. That had been the great argument in favour of a sliding-scale, for in a commercial point of view it was liable to many palpable objections; but now, here was a case in 1845, when the sliding-scale had failed in this respect of adjusting the duty in proportion to the price. The law not answering its purpose in this respect, it would have been the duty of Government, had they opened the ports, to do as Lord Liverpool had done in 1827, when he asked for indemnity, namely, to have been prepared to show how the existing law might be modified and altered so as to prevent the recurrence of this evil. An hon. Member had said that all that was required was an alteration in the mode of taking the averages; but upon this point he would rather take the opinion of a representative of the agricultural interest, the hon. Member for Somersetshire, who had said that there was no middle course, and

1425
that he would rather have that proposed by the Government, if the Corn Laws were to be touched ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for Somersetshire was not now in his place, and it was possible he might be mistaken; but he had a distinct recollection of the hon. Member saying that there was no middle course. The hon. Member had followed shortly after the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who thought there was a middle course open, but received so little encouragement from Gentlemen who had cheered other parts of his speech, that he had not been induced to state to the House what that middle term was. But the hon. Member for Somerset had stated his opinion that there was no middle course, but that if the existing Corn Law was to be disturbed, it was far better that the measure of the Government should be adopted. Very few of the agricultural Members had entered into details to show the nature and extent of the injury they apprehended; but the hon. Member for Somersetshire had been an exception, for he had quoted some statistics, and had expressed his alarm at the quantity of corn likely to be brought from various parts of the world, and he particularized Russia; but it was well known that in reality a very small portion of the crops in the southern provinces of that empire consisted of wheat: they were principally rye, hemp, and tobacco. During ten years of deficient supply of corn at home, we had been obliged to ransack the whole world; and even then wheat could only be had at a great price. If hon. Members would look at the accounts on the Table, they would see that 120,000 quarters only was the average importation from Russia during the last ten years; and even in 1840, 317,000 quarters were all that could be had from that country. The Government availed themselves of the best information on this subject from our consular agents abroad. Returns had been obtained from different individuals and at several different periods of time; and it was a very remarkable fact, that nearly all of them concurred in the general result. From that information it appeared that the utmost quantity of wheat to be expected from Russia was 670,000 quarters, which was supposing that Great Britain obtained the whole surplus of that country; for some Gentlemen argued as if Great Britain was the only country wanting wheat; whereas they would find that in reality a very small portion of the surplus of these corn-growing countries came into England,
1426
and that if we went into the market, other countries would compete with us, the consequence of which would be, that the price would be raised to the English level by such competition, instead of the English price being reduced to the continental level. With respect to America, there was no greater mistake than to suppose that we were likely to receive very large supplies of corn from that country. By a reference to the Papers on the Table of the House, it would be seen that the United States exported in 1790 and 1793, when the population was four millions, a larger quantity of corn than she had ever done since, except in 1840, when the preceding harvest of 1839 had been remarkably abundant. But of the corn exported by America in that year a very small part found its way into the English markets. The population of America in 1840 was calculated at upwards of 17,000,000 l.; the crop of wheat in that year was estimated at ten million quarters. Of those ten millions America exported 215,000 quarters in the shape of wheat, and 1,897,000 barrels of flour, which, subtracted from the total quantity, left only about four bushels per head for the consumption of their own population. Now, of that quantity exported from America only 620,000 barrels of flour came into England in 1840, the year in which there was the greatest importation. In the next year, 1841, America exported only 108,000 quarters of wheat, and 1,500,000 barrels of flour; and in 1842 her exports were 140,000 quarters of wheat, and 1,100,000 barrels of flour. The population of America was now about 20,000,000, and it was supposed that she could export little more than half the wheat she had sent out in 1840, still leaving a supply for her own people not greater than four bushels per head. With regard to the Eastern States of America, the fact was, they scarcely produced a sufficient supply of corn for their own population; and this being true—and that it was true was notorious to all who knew anything of the matter—it was clear that there could be nothing more absurd or untenable than the apprehension that from that quarter of the world, at all events, a supply of grain was to come in such exorbitant profusion as to glut the home market. Indeed, he believed that the apprehension would be found to be totally without foundation as regarded the United States generally; for circumstanced as those States were at present, and as they were likely to continue, with respect to

1427
their commercial relations, and the vast calls which their own population made upon their home market, it was in the last degree improbable that they would ever be in a position to export corn in sufficient quantities to injure the growers of any other country whatsoever. The United States already supplied Brazil and the West India islands with flour; and as the demand for the article had enormously increased, and was still increasing in the latter countries since the emancipation of the slave population—which, by the way, was a most gratifying fact—the possibility of our receiving any very considerable supply of corn from the other side of the Atlantic was rendered more and more unlikely. In fact, he regarded it as a contingency so extremely improbable, that it might fairly be considered as almost entirely out of the question. Nay, he viewed the matter in another aspect altogether—in an aspect which, he must say, he considered as a much more alarming one than that in which it was viewed by the hon. Member for Somersetshire; for he could not help thinking that the actual state of things being such as he had described it to be, hon. Gentlemen, instead of indulging in an apprehension that our home market would be inundated with foreign corn, ought to apply themselves to the consideration of this question, whether, if our population were to continue to progress at the ratio in which it had of late years been advancing, we should be enabled, even though the resources of Russia and some other countries were to be developed to the very utmost, to procure a sufficient supply of corn for our own people. Within the last five years there had been imported into this country nearly ten millions of corn, being an average of two millions per annum; and surely there was no one who would venture to allege, that the people of this country had in that period been over-fed. Let the resources of Russia be developed to what extent they might, even though it were to that extent the prospect of which caused so much pain and alarm to the hon. Member for Somersetshire; and let it be taken for granted, that during the ten years preceding 1856, the importation of foreign corn was to average 3,000,000 quarters per annum, instead of 2,000,000 as heretofore—it would still be found that a larger supply had not been brought in than was absolutely necessary for the support of the people; and, furthermore, it would be found (he ventured confidently to
1428
predict it) that notwithstanding all this vast importation, not one single acre of land would be thrown out of cultivation; but that, on the contrary, agriculture would receive a fresh impetus, and that the demand upon the home market would still be very much greater than the supply. This was his deliberate opinion; and he had not the slightest doubt but that the result would show that he was a true prophet, rather than those who apprehended that the agriculture of this country would be discouraged, and large tracts of land be thrown out of cultivation if all restrictions on the corn trade were removed. The experience of the last thirty years proved that the rate of population advanced more rapidly than the rate of production; and that this was true was attested by the fact, that for a long series of years, we had every year been compelled to increase our importations of foreign corn in proportion as we approached more closely to the present time; and bearing in mind this fact, the truth of which was not to be contested, he could not help thinking—no matter how vigorously, no matter how scientifically, the arts of agriculture might be applied to the enrichment of the soil—that ten years hence we would be compelled to import 3,000,000 of quarters of corn annually instead of two, which had been required, for the last five years. It was a favourite argument with hon. Gentlemen who were averse to the repeal of the Corn Laws, that the sliding-scale had this merit at least, that it prevented, or, at all events, materially checked, the fluctuation of the market; but the fact was, it had not produced a steadiness of price. The fluctuation of the market had been considerably greater under the sliding-scale than it was in the period intervening between the years 1786 and 1792—the period when the corn trade of this country was the least trammelled by restrictions. This he considered a very valuable fact, and one highly interesting for the purposes of this discussion. The hon. Member for Sunderland, when expatiating on the probability of our being subjected to an inundation of foreign corn, had spoken of the facilities for speculating in that article, and had alluded to the circumstance of his having himself, in the year 1837, imported into this country a quantity of foreign corn at so small a cost as 25 s. per quarter. He had no doubt that the fact was just as the hon. Member had stated it, but it was capable of a very easy and natural explanation. Look at the state of the

1429
corn trade at home and abroad in the year '37. During the years '34, '35, and '36, we had a succession of good harvests, and consequently imported little or nothing. In the month of August, '37, it was ascertained that the crop on the Continent was an excellent one, and the crop in England was likewise very abundant, for the summer had everywhere been warm and genial. The consequence was, that all the markets here and on the Continent were well stocked. He held in his hand an authentic document, prepared at the period to which he alluded (August, 1837), and by a reference to it he found that at that time the Hamburgh market was so low that corn had fallen to a price varying from 22 s. 4d. to 29 s. 4d. per quarter, and that the rate of freight was only 2s. 6d. Now he could very well conceive that the hon. Member, if inclined to speculate at all, might have done so in this manner. He might have purchased a small parcel of corn, of a very inferior description, indeed, at 22 s. 4d. or thereabout, and after paying 2s. 6d. for freight, nothing was more natural than that he might have had the article for the cost he specified; but would the hon. Member tell the House that this was a thing that could be done every, or indeed to a very great extent in any, year? Mark what a revolution took place in the corn market the very next year. The crop on the Continent, in 1838, was an average one; but it was the reverse of abundant in England, the summer having been cold and moist. The fact that the English people had not been blessed with a very rich harvest soon became widely circulated, and the consequence was that, in the month of August, 1838, wheat rose at Hamburgh, from 22 s. 4d. to 63 s. 9d., and freight from 2s. 6d. to 6s. and 8s. The hon. Member for Sunderland had not given the House to understand that, in the year 1838, he imported any corn at 25 s. per quarter, or even at double that price. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had argued that the rule of commerce was, that in proportion as the demand for an article increased, the price fell; but he (Sir G. Clerk) contended that the history of commerce proved that the contrary fact was usually realized. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury quoted the price of tea in support of his novel theory, stating, that though a much larger quantity of tea was now imported, the price in this country was lower. The price had since been reduced to the consumer; but the fact was not to be attributed to the
1430
increase in the demand. Were there no other reasons for a fall in the price of tea during the last ten or twelve years? Could the House forget, that during that period the trade to China had been thrown open, and that the restrictions under which the East India Company were required to conduct that trade had been removed. While the monopoly of the Company existed, they were obliged at all times to retain in store in this country a stock equal to a whole year's consumption; and the manner in which their periodical sales of tea were conducted, was frequently very inconvenient to the dealer in this country. Now, in consequence of the opening of the trade, freights from China had been greatly reduced. The importations of tea were not now, as formerly, confined to the port of London; the consequence of the removal of these and other restrictions, had been to reduce the price of tea to the consumers in this country, while at the same time the increased demand had had the effect of raising the price at Canton. The prices in 1844 had been so exorbitant, as materially to check the purchase of tea; and it was not till the beginning of 1845, that large purchases had been made; and even then at prices much above those which prevailed in 1832, before the trade was thrown open. There was reason, however, to hope, that a trade in tea might be established in some of the other ports of China, and that the breaking up of the monopoly hitherto enjoyed by the merchants at Canton might enable us to obtain tea at more moderate prices than had been of late demanded. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had referred to the cotton trade as also affording an illustration of the truth of his doctrine, that, according as the demand for an article increased, the price fell; and he had instanced the fact that, in certain parts of the United States, cotton might now be had for three cents a pound. This statement, however, should be received with caution. He believed that cotton of a very inferior quality might be sold for that sum. He was given to understand that in New Orleans cotton of that description might be had for three cents per pound; but the latest commercial advices that we had received from New Orleans showed that good cotton, so far from being sold there for that sum, fetched so high a price as from six and a half to nine cents per pound. That was the actual price of the article at the present time in New Orleans. It was very possible that, owing to a stagnation of trade, or

1431
some other of those unfortunate casualties to which all branches of commerce were subject, a fall in the price of the article might have taken place in 1837; but that fall was only of a temporary character; and the indisputable fact was, that, so far from our manufacturers being able to purchase cotton at three cents per pound, they were obliged to pay a price for it ranging from six and a half to nine cents per pound. And there was no knowing what price it might yet attain; for there could be no doubt but that the merchants at New Orleans were narrowly watching the policy England was now about to adopt, and would model their own policy accordingly. The doctrines of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, he had no hesitation in saying, were totally untenable, and would not endure one moment's investigation. The mind of the hon. Member appeared to be tortured by the most dreadful apprehension of coming evil; but he (Sir G. Clerk) confidently trusted that the event would prove there was no ground whatever for such apprehensions. Alarm would always be excited whenever it was proposed to make any change, even the most trivial, in the commercial policy of this country. In the year 1787, when Mr. Pitt first brought forward his proposition to regulate the importation of corn from Ireland, the Scotch agriculturists were in an agony of alarm, and predicted that the corn trade and the agricultural interests generally of Scotland would be irretrievably ruined; but he was proud and happy to say that, notwithstanding this gloomy prophecy, in no part of the United Kingdom had the science of agriculture been prosecuted with more signal success than in Scotland, nor did he know of any portion of the Empire in which there had been a greater increase of rents to landlords since 1787. He ventured to predict that results equally happy would follow from the adoption of the measures now in contemplation; but let not the House be surprised at finding that apprehension and alarm existed in many quarters with regard to the effect of the measures of Her Majesty's Government, similar to what past experience had shown us had always taken place when any change had been proposed. As far back as the year 1820, a petition was presented to that House from some of the most eminent merchants in London, praying for the removal of those protective restrictions which cramped the energies of trade and commerce. The Government of Lord Liverpool,
1432
in the year 1824, acted on these recommendations, and brought in various measures with a view to the mitigation of the prohibitory system; but it was a notorious fact that, with respect to every one of these mitigatory measures, the same alarm was manifested, and the same gloomy forebodings were indulged in. At that time, the amount of the protective duty on linen was not very great, but a bounty was given on the exportation of linens from this country; and when it was proposed to do away with this bounty, the Irish Members rose with the utmost indignation, and declared that the reduction would be the absolute destruction of the Irish manufactures. He well remembered that the hon. Member for Londonderry expressly declared, that if the contemplated reduction were to be carried into effect, the linen and cambric trade of Ireland would be irretrievably ruined. Such was the prediction of the Member for Londonderry; but had the House forgotten the statement made by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in the course of his masterly speech of that day week, by which he showed, on the authority of some of the most eminent linen manufacturers residing in the neighbourhood of Belfast, that their prosperity dated from the year 1826, and that, notwithstanding the removal of protection, they had been able not only to compete with France, but to send their fabrics in enormous quantities to the remotest countries of the world, and especially to the United States? So much for the linen trade. His (Sir George Clerk's) right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), in the course of his speech, had summed all up in this way—"We reduced a great number of these things; we made further reductions in 1842; and now I call upon any Member—I call upon any person—who is connected with trade, to show us where it has suffered injury by the reduction." That challenge, then, remained unanswered. At last, the hon. Member for Birmingham took the field, and he referred to the article of spelter or zinc. He (Sir G. Clerk) had heard with great astonishment the declaration of the hon. Member, that the zinc trade had suffered from the change that had taken place; but he confessed he could not find out from his statement in what manner, or how, the manufacturers of zinc had been injured. He said, when the price of zinc was 75 l. a ton, the duty was 45 l. a ton. [Mr. MUNTZ: Oh, no! I beg your pardon.] He would take it at 50 l.

1433
a ton.; the duty was as high as 50 l. a ton, and the price of the article was 75 l. That duty was gradually reduced, and last year they took off the duty. He appealed to the knowledge of every Member of the House, whether the manufacture of zinc was not one of the most recent origin; and it was only within a few years the means were discovered of rendering zinc malleable, and readily converting it to any useful purpose. Formerly, they were dependent exclusively on the mines of this country for a supply of that description of zinc that was used for the mixing of copper as an alloy for making brass. The description of spelter or zinc found in this country was so brittle, that it could not be converted into those articles into which zinc was now manufactured. It was the foreign zinc that was susceptible of being made malleable. Large mines were discovered in the Prussian provinces, and large quantities of that zinc had been brought here; and by the admission of that zinc, an entirely new branch of manufactures was established. By that means, employment was given to many hundreds of persons; whereas if the prohibitory duties had been maintained, the proprietors of those inconsiderable mines from which the inferior quality of zinc was procured, might have retained the price of 75 l. per ton, and that zinc might have been used for the manufacture of brass; but then the country would have been deprived of the means of manufacturing those zinc articles. The hon. Member wound up his statement by this assertion: he said zinc was now 50 l. per ton, and that it was not worth any man's while to work up that zinc, for every article of it, with trifling exceptions, was brought from abroad. Now, what was the fact? They had last year a statement of the duties on every article: the duty on manufactured spelter was 10 per cent., and the whole value of the article brought in was 5l., and the duty was 10 s. 6d. Now, what had been the profits of the zinc manufacture in this country? He need go back only a few years, for the manufacture of zinc was but recently introduced. In the years 1843 and 1844, the quantity of zinc imported was 10,000 tons, and of that between 5,000 and 6,000 tons were exported to India and China, and 4,000 tons were retained to be worked up in manufactures in this country. In the last year, 12,000 tons were imported; and of that 2,000 tons only were exported, and 10,000 tons were worked up into manufactures. By means
1434
of that manufacture, a very useful and valuable article could be obtained at a moderate price, and employment was given to a great number of persons. Neither had the trade in British spelter been destroyed; for the fact was, that in addition to what was required for making brass in this country, no less than 1500 tons of British spelter had been exported in 1844. The hon. Member for Birmingham ought, from his position, to be well acquainted with this subject; but yet he said that the measures of the Government were productive of injury. He (Sir G. Clerk) would next refer to the observations of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had said, that so far from the silk trade having been injured by the reduction of duty, the quantity of raw silk imported had more than doubled since the restriction was taken of. No, said the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, for the right hon. Baronet has taken into his calculation waste silk and thrown silk. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury said, that they had nothing to do with them; and he then stated, that twenty years ago, in the last year of protection, the quantity of raw silk introduced was 4,010,000 lbs.; and that in 1844 it did not exceed 4,020,000. Now, he found that the silk imported in 1824 stood thus:—raw silk imported, 3,414,520; waste silk, 133,257; thrown silk, 462,731; making about 4,011,000 lbs., the quantity quoted by the hon. Member; and, therefore, the quantity of silk which was stated by him to have been imported in 1824 included waste and thrown silks. That was the quantity imported in 1824; in 1844 the quantity of raw silk imported was 4,021,000; waste silk, 707,850; thrown silk, 410,358; making above 6,000,000 lbs. The hon. Member, when he made a statement of figures, was bound in both cases to take the same items; for he came down there to make a business speech, throwing aside all those sallies with which he amused the House on former occasions. The hon. Member said he would take the year 1824, the last year of protection. He (Sir G. Clerk) thought he might, with more propriety, claim 1829 as the first year of free trade. In the month of February, in that year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House certain plans, including a proposition for the reduction of duty on raw silk, and the removal of the prohibition on the manufacture. An objection was taken to the introduction of the silk manufacture; but

1435
there was only one feeling in the House as to the propriety of immediately taking the duty off raw silk. On the 7th of March the House agreed to the Resolution, and on the 25th of March, in that year, the duty was taken off. Therefore, it was perfectly clear that as the subject had engrossed the attention of both Houses of Parliament in the former year, and a great change was universally expected, the year 1824 was naturally a year of great excitement and speculation as far as the importation of raw silk was concerned; and, in fact, in making any comparison of the past and present state of the silk trade, it ought to be left out of the account. The only true criterion to be taken in a thing of that sort was to take an average, and to see what was the effect of free trade, and what was the effect of protection and high duty. Let them compare the import of raw silk prior to 1824 with what it was subsequent to that period. For ten years previous to 1824 the average was 1,524,000 lbs. For ten years, from 1825 to 1834 inclusive, the average was 3,000,000 lbs. per annum, instead of 1,500,000 as before; and taking ten years, from 1836 to 1845 inclusive, gave him an average of 3,865,000 lbs., as compared with 1,500,000, presenting an increase of 150 per cent.; and in stating these figures, he had confined himself to the quantities of raw silk, excluding throughout the quantities of waste and thrown silk; though if those had been included, the result in favour of the system of free trade would have appeared greater. The result, therefore, was to increase the silk manufactures of this country to the extent he had mentioned; and, instead of throwing any persons out of employment, employment had been given to a greater number of silk weavers and other persons engaged in the silk trade by the removal of that duty. The hon. Member said he was for free trade, as he understood free trade. He was for a free interchange of the commodities of different countries. He desired, he said, that they should interchange their commodities on the same terms with France and America, as they were willing to interchange with them; but, said he, there are hostile tariffs against us, and are we prepared to fight hostile tariffs with free imports? With reference to this observation, he (Sir G. Clerk) would remind him that those changes were proposed to be made, not with reference to their effect upon foreign countries, but for the benefit of the community of England. If they required those articles
1436
which were produced in other countries, were they to deprive the people of this country of the use of them, because some foreign nations said they would not take in exchange articles of British manufacture? Russia, he said, had a prohibitory tariff, and would not take our articles; while facilities were given for the introduction of Russian tallow into this country. But the fact was, that the people of this country would not buy the Russian tallow except they wanted it. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury said, as you have no direct market for your productions with Russia, the British manufacturer is obliged to have recourse to an indirect and circuitous course: he is obliged to send an extra quantity of goods to the Brazils and elsewhere, to enable him to find returns for the Russia market; and that consequently a heavy loss is sustained. That is in fact, we had to pay this additional price for the products of Russia. But how was the British consumer benefited, if, in addition to the enhanced cost above alluded to, he had to pay a heavy tax in this country before he could introduce the hemp, iron, or tallow, which were required to enable the shipowner of this country to build or fit out his ships? Those Members who entertained the same views as the Member for Shrewsbury, and who at the same time professed to take a deep interest in the prosperity of the shipping of this country, would do well to consider, whether the course of policy which they espoused would not greatly increase the difficulties of the shipping interest in meeting foreign competition. It certainly must be a matter of regret that the countries from which they imported so largely so many articles necessary for the interests of this country, should persevere in having prohibitory tariffs. They should hope, however, that those other countries—not only from their example, but also from experience—would see, that the most efficient means of increasing the revenue would be by having a moderate duty substituted for prohibition. The hon. Member had said that without diplomacy they would get nothing from France—that they might reduce their duties as much as they pleased, but that it would not produce any advantage for the manufactures of this country. Let them see what was the experience of the last twenty years. In 1826 the policy was to remove the prohibitory duties on French silks and gloves. In 1828 the duty on French wines was reduced from

1437
13 s. 9d. to 7s. 7d., and in 1832 to 5s. 6d. Madder, on which the duty was 12 s., was allowed to come in free. The duty on flax was altogether removed. The duty on cambrics was reduced from 11 s. 6d. to 5s. The duty on cloverseed, of which we got a considerable quantity from France, was reduced one-half. The duty on kid skins and other dressed skins was removed. The Government of France, it is true, had not during the same period relaxed any of their restrictions against British commerce; but the demands of the people of France baffled the diplomatists and legislatures; and our exports, from the very moment of the reduction of duties on our part, had been progressively increasing, and now exceeded by six times the amount in 1824. The declared value of the exports of British manufactures to France was—

In 1830

475,000 l.

1831

620,000 l.

1832

674,000 l.

1833

848,000 l.

1834

1,116,000 l.

1835

1,450,000 l.

1836

1,591,000 l.

1837

1,642,000 l.

1838

2,314,000 l.

1839

2,298,000 l.

1840

2,378,000 l.

1841

2,902,000 l.

1842

3,193,000 l.

1843

2,534,000 l.

1844

2,650,000 l.

The average of five years, from 1830, was 750,000 l., and the average of the last five years was 2,700,000 l. If he wanted then to select an instance to show that we might satisfactorily fight a hostile tariff with free imports, he could not have a better one than that of France. Judging then from past experience, there was every reason to believe that the changes now proposed were not likely to be attended with calamitous consequences, any more than the changes which had taken place at former periods. He had endeavoured to grapple with the facts of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, and trusted he had satisfied the House that they were incorrect in every particular. The hon. Member said that he was in favour of free trade, provided it could be got by diplomacy. He said that it was the duty of the Minister of this country to see that he did not give any advantage to a foreign country without an equivalent; and, above all, that nothing should be done which would, in the slightest degree, lessen the preponderance of the landed interest. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury would not
1438
admit foreign goods except some equivalent advantage were granted to the produce of this country; but, if any equivalent concession were made, then he was for free trade. If Prussia would admit our manufacturers free of duty, then he would be for the free admission of Prussian corn; that is, if he could make a good bargain for the admission of linen and cotton goods into Prussia, he would throw over protection to agriculture. Such being the necessary inference from the premises of the hon. Member, he doubted whether the agricultural Members would select him as their champion. He was as anxious as any one that the proper influence of the landlords and the landed interest should be upheld; but if the hon. Member meant by this, that it was to depend on the maintenance and continuance of the present Corn Laws, he would only say, that he could not agree to such a principle; and he did not believe that such an argument was for the advantage of the landed interest. He believed that it would be a most dangerous argument to put forward, that the Corn Laws must be kept up for the purpose of keeping up the influence of the landed interest. A statement had often been made to this effect on the other side, and it had been said that the Corn Laws had been adhered to for the purpose of benefiting the landlords. This was an argument or assertion which he had always repudiated; and he certainly conceived the assumption of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury as objectionable, and the argument which he had used, if adopted, would lead to the most dangerous consequences. The only meaning which he could attach to the language of the hon. Member was, that the Corn Laws were to be maintained as absolutely necessary to keep up what he termed our territorial Constitution; or, in other words, for the sake of the landlords alone. He (Sir G. Clerk), as a landed proprietor, disclaimed such doctrine altogether. He was of opinion that the aristocracy and landed proprietors of this country were not indebted to any system of Corn Laws for that influence they possessed with all those who were in any way dependent on them. They had acquired that influence long before the existence of any Corn Law; and he trusted they would for ever retain it, though these laws were all swept away, while they continued, as they had always hitherto done, to receive the respect and affection of their poorer neighbours by ministering to their

1439
comforts, supplying their wants, and improving their condition. He thought that the only just argument that could be used by the landed interest in favour of the Corn Laws, was, that the maintenance of these laws was not exclusively for their interest, but for the interests of all classes of the community. He felt that he had already trespassed too long on the attention of the House. In conclusion, he was ready to admit that he did not entertain the same opinions as to the effect of the repeal of these laws which he formerly did. He would only ask hon. Members to bestow the same pains to make themselves masters of the subject as he had done; and that they would disabuse their minds as to the effect of these laws. Hon. Gentlemen opposed to this measure were in the habit of saying that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government gave his opinion in 1839 and 1840 in favour of these laws, and had given the best arguments that could be used for their maintenance, and that they intended to rely upon such arguments; experience, however, had since convinced his right hon. Friend that he could not depend upon these arguments. He, therefore, thought hon. Gentlemen should seek for some new arguments. He hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who had formed opinions on the subject would state them, and give reasons for the conduct which they intended to pursue. He put it to hon. Gentlemen whether they would not best consult the interest of the parties they represented in that House, by at once assenting to the settlement of the question; the settlement of which, it was admitted on all hands, could not be long postponed. He put it to them to agree to accept a measure which was best adapted to promote the social, commercial, and political relations of the country; and calculated to promote the permanent well-being and best interests of all classes of the community.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that he wished to say a few words in explanation. The fact was that he had never found fault with the importation of foreign spelter, or with the reduction or removal of the duty. The reason why he alluded to the subject was, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in the course of his speech, stated that in no instance had the reduction or removal of a tax on a foreign article reduced the produce of the same article in this country. Now he was ready to show that that was not always the case, and he had mentioned spelter as an instance. He
1440
(Mr. Muntz) said, the other evening, that the whole of the spelter used in this country, up to the year 1816, was manufactured here. The price of the article at that time was about 75 l. per ton. Shortly afterwards, in consequence of the reduction of the import duty on it, the price fell to 45 l. a ton; and that, in consequence of further reductions in the duty, the price fell to 15 l. a ton. He also said, that a few years ago only one manufacturer of spelter remained in this country, and that person had peculiar advantages in carrying on the trade, as he possessed the right of digging coals in the neighbourhood of his manufactory, and he therefore promised them at half their usual price. This house for many years was the only manufacturing zinc house in England, and that now no longer in existence. He had never objected to the reduction in, or the removal of the duty on foreign zinc; on the contrary, he thought that it was a very proper proceeding. He was far from even having said he thought that such a course was prejudicial to the general interests of the country. He yearly used 1,500 tons of zinc himself, and, of course, he gained by being enabled to purchase it cheaper. All that he meant to say was, that the reduction of the duty had had the effect of making the manufacture of this article in this country cease altogether.
MR. LIDDELLobserved that his right hon. Friend, who had just concluded his speech, made use of one of the boldest assertions which it had ever been his lot to hear, even in that House. The right hon. Gentleman said in the commencement of his speech that this measure was in fact no change in the policy of the Government. If that was the case, why did they go to the country in 1841 and protest against the policy of the noble Lord opposite? What were the three articles upon which that noble Lord proposed a change—a change, let him add, much more judicious than that now proposed by Her Majesty's Government—what but the three articles of corn sugar and timber? and if a change respecting them was desirable, why was the noble Lord now sitting on the Opposition bench? Why was the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland now engaged in an election contest, and in which he was likely to be rejected? Why had so many Members, from a conscentious feeling, resigned their seats in that House? Anything more startling than the assertion that by this measure they were only pursuing the same line of

1441
policy which had been followed for the last twenty years, he had never heard—even from the Treasury Bench. The second proposition of the right hon. Baronet to which he wished to refer was, that those who were leading the opposition to these measures, should adduce reasons for the course they were pursuing. Ample reasons were already provided for that purpose. For that purpose they had nothing to do but to look to the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen—the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary of State. By doing this they would find the arguments which would fully justify them in the course they had taken. The country had a right to look to the right hon. Baronet and the Government for reasons for the course they had adopted, and to remove the alarm which they had created; to reconcile their former policy with the measures which they now recommended, and to show that the fears of the agriculturists were unfounded, and that they had little to fear from the change. This he thought that they had a right to ask from the Government; but they had hitherto asked it in vain. When the right hon. Baronet had asked why no new arguments had been adduced to prove their case, he seemed to forget the speeches made from the benches near him, and more especially those by the hon. Members for Somersetshire and Radnorshire. His hon. Friend the Member for Radnorshire had, as carefully as possible, prepared documents showing the prices at which wheat could be obtained from the ports on the Baltic, and the charge at which it could be brought to this country, and also the quantity that could be obtained from the several ports in that sea. Now this speech, and the statements of his hon. Friend, induced him and many of his Friends around him to regard the establishment of a free trade in corn as being pregnant with danger. On the one hand, it was said, that it would lead to the most ruinous reduction in the price of wheat; on the other, it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman, it would not lead to any important reduction. Now if the latter was the case, what became of the argument which had been so often used against the agriculturists with the view of exciting a popular feeling, namely, that the Corn Laws made dear to the poor man that corn which Almighty God had provided for his sustenance? This argument was often addressed to public meetings with the view of exciting popular feeling; but what became of it if, as they were told by the right hon.
1442
Baronet, the removal of the Corn Laws would not cause any important reduction in the price of grain? With respect to the present law, he never knew a similar period to that in which it had been in force, in which there had been so trifling fluctuations in prices. When the right hon. Gentleman complained that he could not get any new arguments against the measure, he at any rate should have set the example, and adduced some new arguments in support of his new opinion. The speech, however, of the right hon. Gentleman was merely a repetition of that of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He therefore should proceed to refer to some of the points in that speech. No doubt the speech was delivered with his characteristic power and eloquence, and could not fail to make a great impression on the House and the country. Nevertheless, in that speech there were some fallacies and inaccuracies, which he should endeavour to point out. He thought that the speech might be divided under three heads. The first part pointed out the direct causes which had led to a change of opinion on the part of the Government on this subject. Under the second head he vindicated the course which the Government had pursued. Under the third head he stated various facts, with the view of showing that the reduction or change of duties in other trades had had no injurious effects on those trades, and that this circumstance had induced Her Majesty's Government to change their opinions as to the effect of the removal of the Corn Laws. He would not go into the first two points, as they had been so ably dealt with by other hon. Members, and more especially by his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire. In referring to the cases stated by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and restated that evening by the right hon. Baronet the Vice President of the Board of Trade, he would first allude to the silk trade. It was not necessary to him to go back to the former Acts of Parliament which ensured to the Spitalfields weavers all sorts of privileges, and were based on an actual prohibition of foreign silks. Such privileges could not be maintained in any trade; and though the silk trade had greatly increased under them, it could not be denied but that great distress frequently existed among the silk weavers during their continuance. But how was that prohibition of foreign silks met? It was met by the trade of the smuggler—by the importation of contraband goods. He

1443
remembered when Mr. Huskisson stated in that House some remarkable facts on this subject. That right hon. Gentleman said that he had devoted considerable attention to the amount of foreign silks seized and confiscated in this country; and he found that during three years of the time that the importation of foreign silk was prohibited by law, the annual value of silk seized as contraband in this country, was not more than from 4,000 l. to 5,000 l. He stated also that he had made inquires, at the foreign custom-houses, to ascertain the value of silk which paid duty there on exportation to this country, and that the annual value of silk exported from France, to be brought to England through illicit channels, as cleared at the French custom-houses, was from 100,000 l. to 150,000 l., and that, it should be recollected, was exclusive of the large quantities of silk that had been brought here by other means, and without going through the Custom-house at all. These facts only proved that, in articles such as silk and lace, it was impossible to maintain a total prohibition. But the question with regard to these trades was not one between prohibition and free trade, because the right hon. Baronet proposed to retain protective duties in their favour to the amount, he believed of 15 per cent. ad valorem, which was probably the exact rate that would keep out contraband goods, and at the same time maintain protection to the home manufacturer. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, maintained protection in favour of these articles; and while he did so, he (Mr. Liddell) could not see why he should object to continue protection in favour of other articles also. He could not understand why protection should be maintained in some interests, and why the agricultural interest should be altogether deprived of it. The right hon. Baronet next went into the case of the timber trade, and took occasion to allude to the petition which he (Mr. Liddell) had the honour to present from the general society of shipowners of the port of London, against the proposed reduction of duties on foreign timber. The right hon. Baronet said he could not look at that petition without feeling ashamed of the petitioners, and their motives for presenting it. He was sure the right hon. Baronet did not mean to give offence to any gentlemen who felt it necessary to approach the House in what they believed to be the defence of their rights, property, and interests. In reply to the right hon. Baronet, it was necessary for him to state,
1444
in a few words, the real case of the British shipowners. The right hon. Baronet proposed to reduce the duty on Baltic timber from 25 s. to 15 s.; and, by doing so, he stated that he had no doubt of affording a better supply to the consumer at a diminished cost. There could be no doubt but that, partly from the judicious arrangements made by the right hon. Baronet in a former year, and partly from other causes unconnected with those measures, an immense stimulus had been given both to the timber trade and other branches of industry in this country. The demand for labour had been considerable, and the results to trade and commerce most gratifying. The British shipowners, no doubt, shared in this prosperity; but he would best state their case in the words of their own petition. They stated that it was of the last importance to the consumers of timber, that no monopoly of the supply of that indispensable article should be allowed; but that from the great distance of the Colonies, and from the consequent heavy cost of importing timber from thence, beyond the expense of importing timber from other countries, it was only by the protection of duties equivalent to the increased expense of importation from our colonial possessions, that the market in this country could be readily supplied with colonial timber in competition with that brought from the Baltic. They added, that the interests of the whole British public were involved, as well as the interests of the petitioners; and still more from the inevitable certainty that the greater part, if not the whole of the importation of timber from the Baltic, would, under the proposed duties, be ultimately thrown into the hands of foreign shipowners. That subject brought him to the consideration of the alleged incapacity of the British shipowner to compete with the shipowners of the north of Europe. On this point he should draw the attention of the House to the relative expenses of the British and foreign shipowners in navigating, in building, in victualling, and fitting out their vessels. He would take the returns from the Report of the Committee of that House that sat the year before last on the Shipping Interests. According to the evidence given before that Committee, it appeared that the relative cost, of navigating British and foreign ships on a three months' voyage was, for the British ship, 169 l. 10 s., and for the Prussian ship, engaged in the same trade, 81 l. 14 s., being a difference of

1445
88 l. 5s. 6d., or upwards of 100 per cent. in favour of the Prussian shipowner. Again, in the case of provisions. The victualling of the British ship amounted to 96 l., and of the Prussian ship only 31 l. 19 s., being a difference of 56 l., or 140 per cent. in favour of the foreigner. Again, with regard to the cost of shipbuilding, the same differences would be found to exist. Ever since the framing of the navigation laws, the support of the British shipping trade was considered to be of paramount importance, and the public agreed to pay the additional price of increased protection, because they obtained security thereby. Even Adam Smith, with all his predilections for free trade, admitted that of all the restrictive policy adopted by this country, that of the navigation laws was the most justifiable. Now, in the port of London the wages of shipwrights had not varied for the last twenty-five years—the workmen declaring that they would rather starve than take less wages than 6s. a day. According to an official report lately published by the French Government, it appeared that the wages of shipwrights at Toulon was only one and a half francs a day; while in the dock-yards in this country the present amount of wages to shipwrights was 4s. 6d. a day. Foreign ships could under these circumstances be built at from 5l. to 6l. per ton; while at Sunderland vessels built there could not be got for less than 10 l. per ton; and even these were not what were called first-class British ships. The first-class British ships built on the Thames sold at 16 l. per ton, or, with all their fittings complete, at 21 l. per ton. It was, therefore, evident that the British shipowners could not possibly contend against such unequal competition if all protection were withdrawn from them, and that the only mode by which they could do so would be, by bringing down the rate of wages paid to their workmen, and to all persons connected with them. The right hon. Baronet had asked were they to advance or to retrograde? He would answer by stating that if they were to advance by reducing the wages of their labourers and the condition of the people—if such were to be the results of free trade—then he thought the measure of the right hon. Baronet would be one of retrogression and not of advancement. But to return to the timber question. By the comparative returns of British and foreign tonnage engaged in the Baltic trade from 1842 to 1844, it appeared that the total tonnage entered inwards from Sweden,
1446
Denmark, Norway, and Russia, in the former year was 109,382 tons British, and 341,533 tons foreign. In 1844, which was a year of great activity under the Tariff duties of the right hon. Baronet, and when, whether there were any duties or not, the British shipping trade would no doubt maintain some degree of prosperity, the returns of this trade were as follows:—British, 130,170 tons; foreign, 528,722 tons; thus showing that while the increase in British shipping was 20,000 tons, or 19 per cent., the increase of foreign shipping was 187,189 tons, or 54 per cent. Now, what was the argument of the British shipowner on the subject of the Baltic timber trade? He said that he could not contend permanently with the owners of ships employed at so much a cheaper rate than his were; that he should be necessarily driven from the trade altogether, if obliged to enter into direct competition with the foreigner; and that the entire carrying trade from that quarter must therefore, ex necessitate, be thrown into the hands of the foreign trader. But it was said in reply that the British shipowner had the advantage of a monopoly in the coasting trade and the colonial trade. But by destroying the colonial timber trade the British shipowner would be driven altogether out of the market; and the result would be, that according as the supply of colonial timber decreased, the price of Baltic timber would rise, so that the consumer would, in the end, not benefit by the change. The right hon. Baronet stated, in the next place, that in the port of Liverpool there was not a ton of Baltic timber fit for the building of a first-class or a twelve years' ship. He could tell the right hon. Baronet that no Baltic timber whatever was used in the building of a twelve years' ship, so indifferent was that timber considered to be; the rule being to leave a ship on the first class for a length of time, proportioned to the quality of the timber used in her construction. First-class ships were built of British oak, or African teak; and the right hon. Baronet was in error when he stated that Baltic timber was used in their construction. A question most intimately connected with that on which he had been detaining the House, was the colonial trade. On this point he would not feel it necessary to offer more than a very few observations. A petition had been presented last year by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) from parties connected with the Colony of South Australia, praying that the import trade of

1447
corn from that colony might be placed on a similar footing with that from other Colonies. The Motion which the hon. Member founded on that petition was opposed by the right hon. Baronet, though it was founded on precisely the same arguments on which the Government advocated the Canada Corn Bill. He (Mr. Liddell) felt the force of those arguments, and voted with the hon. Member for Gateshead. In order to show the present state of that Colony, he would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to a statement which had appeared in the newspapers a few days since. It appeared that for the five years from 1840 to 1844, the quantity of land under cultivation in South Australia had increased from 2,503 acres in 1840, to 26,900 in 1844. In 1843, which was the most remarkable season in that respect, the number of acres under cultivation was no less than 28,600 acres. Since that time shipments to England from South Australia were very much increased; but if land were thrown out of cultivation in Australia in consequence of the admission into England of grain from other countries, the shipments to England would decrease also. Again, if corn brought a lower price in England than it did at present, a great deal of land in England would also be thrown out of cultivation. It was hardly to be conceived that prices in this country would not be reduced 5s. or 6s.; and if the colonists of South Australia were not able to import corn into this country when the average duty on wheat was 5s., how were we to receive wheat from that Colony when there was a free importation from foreign countries? Under such circumstances what became of the argument by which hon. Members were induced, and indeed successfully, to give their support to the Canada Corn Bill? What would become of the shipping trade, after the trade between the Colonies and the mother country had ceased? The Canadians must then resort to the United States, and purchase from them such goods as the Americans could supply. This was one of the evils connected with the subject, from which it was impossible to escape. He had heard nothing in that House to reconcile him to the great change which must take place in respect to our colonial trade. With regard to the general question, he had been on one point extremely anxious to learn what was the real opinion of Her Majesty's Government as to the probable consequences of that measure. On that point he owned himself
1448
still unsatisfied. Perhaps in the progress of the present debate the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) would favour the House with some sort of calculation of what might be the average amount of prices which the farmers of this country might expect to receive under the operation of free trade. It was of the greatest importance that, in coming to arrangements with one's tenants, hon. Gentlemen should have some sort of guide given from high authority. He had heard indeed, but he paid little attention to the assertion, that the trade in corn would in future be liable to little fluctuation. Now, the present Corn Law had certainly succeeded, whether by accident or design he knew not, in securing steady prices for corn in the British market. On that point there could be no dispute; but his belief was, that if we depended in a greater degree on a foreign supply than we had done before, although in ordinary times and seasons there would be steadiness of price, yet that in extraordinary occasions, and in bad seasons, or in case of war with a foreign Power, there would be greater fluctuations in prices than had ever been known. He trusted that the noble Lord the Member for London, would not abandon altogether the principle of protection. It was true that the noble Lord was in some measure bound by the famous letter to his constituents; but if the noble Lord could in any way get out of that difficulty, he trusted that he would soon see reason to adhere to the principle of protection. Adverting to another point, he tendered his most hearty thanks to the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the humane and wise recommendations which he made at the end of his speech, notwithstanding the caustic, and he might say rather spicy, language in which they were conveyed. He admitted that the proposed new law of settlement would be a boon to the agricultural interest; but it was also much more—it was a boon to the country, and a boon to humanity. He had seen, and seen with sorrow, in times of commercial depression, miserable objects with their families wandering about on the highways, unable to ascertain where their settlement was; and in all cases where they belonged to Scotland and Ireland, knowing that when they arrived in their own country, they would be unable to claim anything in the shape of parochial relief, they were obliged to eke out a miserable subsistence by casual charity, and perhaps die by the road side. He trusted that no consideration would induce

1449
the right hon. Baronet to lay aside that important part of his scheme, and that he would resolutely carry it through the House, since by so doing he would confer a great boon upon the people at large, and especially upon the working classes. He did not mean to say that after the declaration of the noble Lord the Member for London, and that of the right hon. Baronet, the present system of Corn Laws could be looked forward to as one likely to be permanent. So long, however, as he (Mr. Liddell) had a seat in that House, he would endeavour to maintain the principle of protection, though in a modified form, and he should therefore oppose, though without bitterness and without acrimony, the measures brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. HUTTregretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) should have enlisted his talents on the side of protection, which necessarily forced him to take the narrowest views of a question that ought to be contemplated in the broadest and most comprehensive manner. His hon. Friend had dwelt at considerable length upon the contents of a petition which he had presented from certain shipowners against the proposed reduction of duties on foreign timber. He (Mr. Hutt) had presented petitions of a very different tendency from a large body of shipowners of the Tyne and Wear, who were convinced that the measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet was calculated to do them great benefit. He would beg the House to notice what was the remedy suggested by his right hon. Friend to remedy what he considered to be a hardship on the British shipowners. Why, to maintain high duties on Prussian timber. That might be a satisfactory argument to the shipowners signing the petition which his hon. Friend presented; but it would be far from satisfactory to the great body of the shipowners of this country. The protective system had materially injured both the British and the colonial shipping. Relying upon this protection, the North American Colonies selected the worst description of timber for exportation to this country, whilst they sent their best timber to the United States. The only likelihood of the British shipowners getting good timber was by facilitating the importation of timber from the Baltic. He did trust that the House would take a more liberal view of this question than his hon. Friend had done, and that they would adopt the proposition of a diminished duty
1450
on Baltic timber. His hon. Friend had intimated his intention to discuss this question in Committee. He hoped his hon. Friend would do so, and then he should be extremely happy to meet his hon. Friend. Now, approaching the more immediate question before the House — that of the Corn Laws—he begged, in the first place, to disclaim any wish to touch upon the question of the political consistency of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government. If the right hon. Baronet deserved all the censure that had been poured out upon him, those who thought so would do well to adopt the advice of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), and bring the question substantially before the House as a Motion of censure. That would be far more regular, and more consonant with the practice of Parliament, than to mix up with a question of fundamental policy their party grievances and personalities. What was the worst charge that could be brought against the right hon. Baronet? Only this, that he was unwilling to retain those laws which had been proved to have been so long injurious to the industrial interests of the country. The country had had ample warning that these measures would inevitably become the policy of the British Government. In 1842 he attended a meeting at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he told those who were assembled, that if they expected to maintain a system of exclusion, they would find themselves bitterly deceived. There was every indication that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was inclining towards free-trade principles. In 1841, when the discussion took place on the sugar duties, the opinions delivered by the right hon. Baronet were so tending in their nature to free trade, that the present Earl Grey, in answering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, hailed the declarations then made by him as evidence favourable to free trade. So, measure after measure, and step after step, had the propositions of the right hon. Baronet been in the direction of free trade; and in all these instances hon. Gentlemen opposite (on the Ministerial benches) had given the right hon. Baronet their unqualified and ready support. They supported him in his Tariff of 1842, and they further supported him in his alterations of that Tariff in 1845; but now, when the right hon. Baronet had brought forward a measure in perfect consistency with the principles of all his former measures, hon. Gentlemen opposite

1451
suddenly stopped short, opposed the right hon. Gentleman, and talked of treachery to his party. The hon. Gentlemen, the Members of the Cabinet that was to be hereafter, had, at their party dinners and protection meetings, maintained the doctrine that, if free trade were adopted, foreigners would give us their corn, but take nothing in return but our gold. This was always represented as a most alarming thing. It was said that by our purchasing their corn we should give employment to their labour, while they would give no employment to ours in return. But he (Mr. Hutt) denied in the first place that the foreigners would require us to give gold in exchange for their corn; but furthermore, in the second place, he would say, that even if they did, still the transaction would be advantageous to us. Gold was only an article of trade. To come to matter of fact, the only trade carried on by us for many years with China was precisely of that sort. We took China teas and China silk, and we paid for them in gold. A Committee was appointed in 1813 to inquire into the circumstances of the East India Company; and it appeared by the evidence then given, that although at that time their trade with India had been most unfortunate, still the Company had traded with China with success. Gold did not grow in England. It was obtained from the people of South America in exchange for our manufactures. It was his intention to give the measure of Her Majesty's Government his most hearty support.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, to his mind the question very naturally had arisen, to whom was the present state of things to be attributed? Most assuredly to the unexpected conduct of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government. In June last there was a division of 254 against 123, in opposition to the repeal of the Corn Laws; but then there was no indication of any change of opinion from the right hon. Baronet. The House rejected the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport, by a majority of 213 to 121—neither was there then any indication of a change. The season passed on until August; but as to any change on the subject of the Corn Laws, there was not the slightest symptom, although there were serious apprehensions that a bad harvest would follow, from two of the summer months being extremely wet. Two months of dry weather having dissipated all serious apprehensions as regarded the harvest, matters proceeded in the usual
1452
way: not the remotest intimation of either a repeal or a modification of the Corn Laws. But the moment there was an alarm about the failure of the potato crop, then the subject began to be agitated. He did not mean to underrate the calamity with which Ireland in particular was visited. He looked upon it as a visitation which demanded the interference of Government. But it being only, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, a "temporary evil," it required for its mitigation or removal, but a temporary remedy. But he would ask Whig, Tory, and Radical—and he believed they all felt an interest for Ireland—whether the proposed remedy would benefit that country? Were the Corn Laws repealed to-morrow, would it place the Irish peasantry in a better condition than they were in at present? His firm conviction was the results would be to them most injurious, Ireland being an agricultural country. It would reduce the value of labour; it would throw numbers out of employment; and, consequently, place them in a worse condition. But suppose the failure in the potato crop was more general than reported to be, was that any argument for the sweeping measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet—was that a reason why there should be so great a change in the whole of that economy which governed the interests of the country? While he did not doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Baronet—while he was convinced on many occasions of his integrity and patriotism, yet he (Captain Harris) deprecated the manner in which the right hon. Baronet dealt with the great question before the House. He did not merely refer to the right hon. Baronet's conduct to those of that side of the House who formerly supported him, but he also referred to what was due from him as a Minister of the Crown to a British Parliament. He said so without one particle of hostility to the right hon. Baronet, who might be driven from power for conduct like the present—whose great career might be suddenly terminated, as the consequence of not acting in accordance with the feelings of the people. He ruled the country for some time with that spirit and with that energy becoming a great statesman; but the introduction of the measure before the House would be a drawback to his great celebrity. He would look to the bearing of this measure on the currency; and he believed its effects would be to neutralize the sound and able legislation of the right hon. Baronet on that subject. Their export

1453
trade to the Dantzic in 1844 was 376,651 l.; and the value of wheat imported from the Dantzic was 1,517,512 l.; that was an excess of 1,100,000 l. of bullion going out of the country: would not that disarrange the currency? The right hon. Baronet had said, that his measure would restore commerce to its natural and primitive state; but the question was, would foreign nations return to that primitive state of commerce? because if not, he apprehended that the advantage would be all on their side. It must be remembered that they gave up now every chance of successful negotiation with other countries; and he was afraid that they were incurring a great risk of losing their place in the scale of nations, for the sake of becoming the workshop and warehouse of the world. The hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had said, that the approach to free trade had given a great development to our commerce: now, he took no ultra views on this subject, and admitted that that might be the tendency of such measures, always reserving a fair degree of protection to native industry; but the hon. Baronet had made especial reference to France, and he begged to remind him that our trade with France had been increased by a wise development of the resources of that country. Above all things the great injustice of this measure struck him; for whilst with all other things the right hon. Baronet proposed a reduction from twenty to ten, when he came to corn, he repealed the duty altogether at the end of three years. He was surprised that such a measure—so little in accordance with his usually cautious and prudent policy—should have emanated from the right hon. Baronet. Again, he hoped to have heard the right hon. Baronet rebuke those who had conducted the agitation on this subject, for their exciting language; and to have heard the noble Lord who introduced the Reform Bill into that House, rebuke them for tampering with the representation; but, now, on the contrary, he saw the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord advance hand in hand with the hon. Member for Stockport, dancing like the witches in Macbeth round the precious mess they had cooked for the country. That debate had proved that they had honest and talented men on their side in that House; and their cause was graced by a noble Lord in another place, who had ever acted upon the dictates of his conscience and the impulse of a highly sensitive honour. He spoke with perfect sincerity, when on
1454
the hustings, in 1844, he declared his opinion in favour of the Corn Laws; he had not changed his opinion since; and he should, therefore, give his decided opposition to the measure of the Government.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that this was the second occasion, during a not very long Parliamentary experience, on which he had witnessed the great subject of the Corn Laws come under discussion, encumbered with all the difficulties and dangers of a party question. It was, however, impossible to imagine two occasions more different than those of 1841 and 1846. In the one, this question was agitated us the last hope of a falling party; in the other, it was brought forward as the cause of the destruction of a vigorous and a powerful one. In the one case, it was hardly possible to conceive any other principle upon which a Government could stand; in the other, it was hardly possible to imagine a cause from which a Government should fall. But the little experience he had had of Parliament, and of public life, had been quite sufficient to convince him that it was very difficult effectively to bring great questions before that House, whether of a commercial or other nature, without connecting them with some party motives with which to influence the public mind. We were a practical people, and not given to examine into abstract theory or truths by themselves; we were more inclined to give such matters a serious and earnest attention (and it was of some consequence to set a value on this disposition) when stimulated by the sense of party interests, or when suffering from temporary difficulties. It had been his object, on every occasion since he entered Parliament, to give hon. Gentlemen opposite the full benefit of his appeciation of their motives, even when they brought forward measures which he could not in themselves approve. In no case had he suffered his political feelings to blind his judgment in this respect. Therefore it would not be fair in him to deny the same just estimate of the motives of those with whom he had acted, faithfully and trustfully, for many years. He was not inclined to interpret the actions of Her Majesty's Government so harshly as some of his hon. Friends had done. He was disposed to consider much as unconscious bias, which they regarded as concerted treachery—much as accident, which they regarded as stratagem. And, indeed, considering the peculiar crisis of the laws under discussion, there was little reason to

1455
press hardly on any statesman for changing or modifying his opinion on the subject. Though the hon. Member for Cumberland might maintain the same opinion he did in 1815, very few of those who had mingled practically in political life, had not in some degree modified their opinions. When they saw such singular instances as Lord Fitzwilliam supporting the high duty of 1815; and Lord Spencer, not content with Mr. Ricardo's proposal of a 10 s. fixed duty in 1822, insisting on its being raised to 20 s.; and Mr. Ricardo himself, who was thoroughly convinced, if any man in the country was, of the truth of the doctrines of free trade, recommending a 10 s. fixed duty; they ought not to judge statesmen very hardly and harshly for modifying their opinions. But these peculiarities were not confined to one side of the question. He believed that the opinions of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had undergone a modification in a different direction; and he was quite sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, if he candidly declared the real state of his mind, would admit he had not always been so strong a protectionist as he was at present. Thus, considering the difficulties of the question, all possible allowance ought to be made for the men engaged in the government of the country. It was hardly for one like himself, totally inexperienced in such difficulties, to estimate the amount and the gravity of the considerations with which they had had to grapple. No one could have heard the right hon. Gentleman's earnest mode of describing his sense of responsibility, without feeling that every allowance should be made for the change in his opinions, from the purity of the motives which dictated it.
"O faciles dare summa Deos, eademque tueri Difficiles."
The House would decide whether, under such circumstances as those under which the country was now placed, they were to allow a statesman to modify his opinions, or whether they would prefer to have the Government constantly changed from the hands of one party to those of another, and leave the country exposed to the inconvenience of all those changes. He was not, however, prepared to take the question in the light in which it had been placed before them by the President of the Board of Trade. He was not prepared to look at the measure before them—the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government—as a legitimate deduction from their former propositions.
1456
He (Mr. Milnes) had always maintained, while allowing the right hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) helm to traverse as freely as he could wish, there were two questions which the present Government were nearly precluded from deciding. One was the secularization of the Irish Church, and the other the repeal of the Corn Laws. He thought those restrictions were imposed by honourable engagements entered upon at the time of the discussion of the Appropriation Clause, and at the election of 1841; and only within these limits Her Majesty's Government could be allowed freely to act. He felt this so deeply, that but for the circumstance of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government having resigned power, and of the noble Lord's refusing to accept it, he could not in any case have given his support to the Government; but would have preferred withdrawing from Parliament altogether. Nor could he take the view of the question which had been taken by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, and think that Members of that House were bound to follow, on this question, any guidance other than their own judgment. With respect to the influence of party obligations, he would say that the present state of the party to which he once belonged was such, that he did not see how these party obligations could any longer exist. He looked upon the Government of the right hon. Baronet as a Government ad interim, to carry out the measure which had been proposed to them. It was a Government which depended on the sufferance of its opponents—which hung upon their will; and if any sentiment weighed heavily on his mind, it was, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had thrown away the opportunities for doing good which Providence had placed in his hands. He saw him at one time the leader of a powerful party, and he believed him capable of allaying animosity, suppressing intolerance, and leading to the greatest and most lasting improvements — performing many of those great services to the country which hon. Gentleman opposite were, perhaps, inclined to perform, but which they wanted either the power or the opportunity to accomplish. He had seen the fabric destroyed—he had seen the opportunity lost, and he deeply regretted it. Perhaps it was a vain regret, but he should not have done justice to his own feelings if he had not expressed it. He could not say that it was because he had any longer confidence in the right hon.

1457
Baronet that he intended to give him his support on this occasion. He gave him his support because it was the only course which he could pursue, being desirous as he was to pursue the most consistent course practicable in the emergency; and however he might regret to find himself separated from many of those friends with whom he had so often acted, and who had so distinguished themselves during this debate—unwilling as he might be to vote differently from those friends with whom he was connected by such close ties of private friendship, yet he felt it necessary to support the right hon. Baronet; for he believed that on the conscientious vote of every man on this division depended the settlement of the question, whether or not we were to adhere to the doctrine of protection, not as laid down by the moderate and most prudent advocates of protection, but as maintained in all its integrity, by the Central Agricultural and other associations. Now, he had ever looked upon the Corn Law as a temporary arrangement, and the best, perhaps, for the purpose of educating the agriculture of this country to such a degree that it could compete with the foreigner; and when he saw how much had already been done—when he witnessed what he might call the miracles of physical agriculture which had developed themselves, and which showed that it was not a deficiency in our soil that had retarded our agriculture, he could not think otherwise than he did about a settlement of this question. When he looked at the increasing cheapness of drain tiles, and of other adjuncts to improvement, he thought it more just to suppose that the Corn Laws were approaching a termination, than that they should be permanently and in all their rigour retained. The principles which he on former occasions advocated, he could still maintain; and when the Bill was in Committee, he would hold no other line of conduct. He did not participate in the hopes which the warmest advocates of the measure entertained, no more than in the fears which were indulged in by those who opposed it. No one had satisfactorily shown him that abundance of corn on the banks of the Ukraine, or in the Valley of the Mississippi, necessarily involved abundance of food to the people of this country. There was surely an analogy between the produce of corn and manufactures; and they often saw that, while the warehouses of Manchester were stuffed with goods, the people of Ireland went
1458
cold and naked. He did not, therefore, hope, from the proposed change, the great relief that was expected. There would certainly be a loss somewhere in the change; and in his opinion it must be divided between the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer. It was maintained by hon. Friends of his, that a large proportion of that loss would fall on the labourers; but he did not think that at all proved. Hon Gentlemen had often asserted that they were perfectly convinced that wages would fall in proportion—the fall in the prices of which would be an injury to the labourer; but in his opinion the labourer in many parts of the country could not be worse off than he was at present. He did not know whether it was from seeing the produce of labour in foreign countries that he had imbibed the notion that there was a far greater equality between the prices of labour in England and on the Continent than was generally believed. There was something in the remuneration of labourers which political economy could hardly account for, but which depended on the physical capabilities of the labourers. He was told by gentlemen engaged in railroads on the Continent that they were ready to give to the English labourer half as much more as they would give to the French labourer, provided he would not get drunk. When he saw the Frenchman ploughing with his nightcap, and stopping every five minutes to talk to somebody, and singing if that somebody was not there to talk to—when he compared that to the hard work of the English ploughman, he did not see reason for that great fear that was entertained by his hon. Friends, with regard to the interests of the labourer. The labourer, he did believe, would not be the immediate sufferer in this case. He was sorry to say, that in many parts of England the labourer was already reduced to the minimum of subsistence, and his wages went below the possibility of reduction. He believed that if the hon. Member for Northampton looked to the county of Northampton, he would find—not perhaps in those parts of it to which he extended his benevolent influence — the labourer receiving from seven to nine shillings per week. Here at least they could not find it possible, under any form of Corn Laws, to reduce such wages; and when he came to the labourers in the north of England, where he lived, and where ten shillings was considered very scanty remuneration for work, he

1459
thought that the advantage of the labourers was derived, not from the benevolence of their employers, but from their contiguity to the great manufacturing districts of this country. He believed it to be the tendency of the large manufactures already established, not only to improve the immediate neighbourhood by raising wages, but to affect a very large circle about them. He thought that the hon. Member for Knaresborough would find some difficulty in denying that the extension of manufactures in his neighbourhood, in the course of the last twenty years, had trebled the wages of labour in that district. He was of opinion that the real gist and difficulty of this question was, the effect which it would have on the small and impoverished farmers; and for that reason he would have called upon the right hon. Baronet to have been more moderate and slow in his change. They might tell him that that class was already reduced to the class of labourers, and even below it, by the consolidation of large farms and improved agriculture. That might be so; but here, by this Bill, they were possibly inflicting a very large amount of human misery, which all the benevolence and kindness; of the English landlords would not be able to meet. He had only to make one remark more: he alluded to the gross injustice done to the landlords by the leaders of the manufacturing interest, who had thrown in their teeth that this question was one of rent; forgetting that the rents of the landlords was a means of usefulness, and a means of supporting the poor around them—that rent, too, was the interest of
1460
the landlord's capital, and was the same thing to him as that for which those hon. gentlemen, members of the League, were subscribing their half millions. The land of England was well known to be generally and considerably below its value; and he thought that one of the worst parts of this measure was that it held out to the landlords a great temptation to increase their rental; and this was one of the worst evils which it would lead to, and on which he was sure that the right hon. Baronet had not changed his opinions, which he expressed in such glowing terms some months ago. The landlords, though exposed to such a temptation, would overcome; but it was one that should not have been held out to them. If they only bore this temporary temptation with prudence, and showed themselves ready to employ that wealth which they were now spending in amusements and accomplishments, in the improvement of their estates—if they were ready to make the sacrifices which the present case demanded of them, he believed that all would go well. Possibly, many an old hall would be deserted—possibly, many painful feelings might be excited; but let them be only true to themselves; let them maintain all that was really good and useful, all that was really advantageous in their position, and although they might lose something as the ruling class, yet, notwithstanding that loss, he believed that they would maintain a powerful and prosperous condition in the community, and remain the chief element of peace and permanence amid the fluctuating fortunes of this extending Empire.
Debate again adjourned.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Protection of Life (Ireland), (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Clare, from Physicians and Surgeons of the City and County of Limerick, for the better Regulation, and for the more efficient Support, of Medical Charities (Ireland).—From Samuel Gordon, of Aungier Street, Dublin, in favour of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill (No. 2), and suggesting the Insertion of a Clause for the Trial of Cases of Deliberate Assassination before Courts Martial.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL (No. 2).
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid: I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to give your sanction to a measure which nothing but the urgent necessity of the case would, in my opinion, have justified Her Majesty's Government in proposing, or your Lordships in adopting. Of the necessity of the case, it will now be my duty to endeavour to satisfy your Lordships. This Bill proposes to invest the Executive Government in Ireland with powers which no existing law invests it with; and powers with which, under ordinary circumstances, I think it ought not to be invested, It is a matter of notoriety to all, that the crime of murder and outrageous assault in Ireland, has become lamentably frequent. But I should not, I think, be justified in asking your Lordships to give your assent to a measure of this kind, without laying before your Lordships official documents upon the subject. I am not to take for granted that your Lordships are cognizant of the facts. I shall, therefore, be compelled, considering the importance of the subject, to draw upon your Lordships' patience at some length, whilst I read some of the numerous returns and reports which have been received in reference to the state of crime in Ireland. The Return which I now hold in my hand contains an account of all offences that have been committed in Ireland during the last two years; I mean of offences that have been reported to the Government by the Constabulary. It is the practice in Ireland for every crime to be reported by the Superintendent of the Constabulary district in which it occurs, to the Inspector General, and by him to the Government. The offences which I shall now refer to are those against the person and against the public peace. In the year 1844, there were no less than 144 homicides in Ireland; last year there were 136. During the last year the number of cases of firing into houses was 104; during the present year,

1349
138. Of aggravated assault, last year, 504; this year, 544. Of common assault, last year, there were 251 cases; the present year, 242. I will pass by offences against property, which your Lordships are aware are of comparatively rare occurrence in Ireland, as compared with crimes of that kind in England. With respect to offences against the public peace, last year the cases of demand or robbery of fire-arms was 159; the present year, 551. Of unlawfully carrying arms, last year, 79; the present year, 89. Of administering unlawful oaths, last year, 59; the present year, 223. Of sending threatening notices and letters, last year, 362; and, in the present year, these cases have increased to the frightful number of 1,944. The number of cases of attacking houses, last year, were 254; the present year, 483. The number of dwelling-houses fired into, last year, were 77; in the present year, 148. This makes a total of this class of offences of 1,495, last year; and 3,462, in the present year. The grand total of all offences committed in Ireland against the person, against property, and against the public peace was, last year, 3,103; in the present year, 5,281. But, my Lords, I will now proceed to state what I am sure must be, in some degree, consolatory to your Lordships to know, that, in eighteen counties of Ireland, crime has diminished in the last two years, and in four others it has remained stationary. It is only in ten counties that the commission of crime has increased. These counties are Cavan, Fermanagh, King's County, Longford, Westmeath, Clare, Roscommon, Limerick, Tipperary, and Leitrim. The state of crime in these counties, during the last and the present year, is as follows:—

County.

Cases last Year.

Cases present Year.

Cavan

109

257

Fermanagh

80

166

King's County

226

301

Longford

205

372

Westmeath

163

313

Clare

279

327

Roscommon

264

716

Limerick

321

416

Tipperary

908

992

Leitrim

328

922

This is the general result of the returns forwarded to the Government as to the number of crimes committed in these counties, during the past and present year. My Lords, it is now my painful duty to
1350
read to your Lordships some of the most remarkable cases of homicide and outrage that have been perpetrated in Ireland during the last year; and I do so the more readily, because I think it is desirable that your Lordships should be able to form correct notions of the circumstances under which those crimes have been committed, and, as far as may be, form some judgment of the nature of the remedy that may be required. I will now proceed to read some account of the outrages which I am in possession of. On the 22nd of July, last year, the house of Andrew Hickey, in South Tipperary, the steward of Mr. Leonard Keating, a justice of the peace, was entered by four men, armed with guns and a bayonet. They inflicted several bayonet wounds on his body, of which he died four days after. The men were disguised. On the 22nd of July, in Limerick, the house of Timothy Mahoney, a farmer, was entered by five men, with their faces blackened, and armed with guns. He was so violently treated that, in two days after, he died of his injuries. It was confidently believed that these men were hired from a distance. On the 5th of October, in Clare, Arthur Gloster, of Moylish, a proprietor, who had lately levied on some of his tenantry for rent, and served several notices to quit, was shot dead in the high road, about five P.M. On the 6th of October, in North Tipperary, David Maxwell, of Clonakenny, the under-agent of Mr. P. D. Latouche, was in the act of retiring to rest for the night, when he was shot through his window, which was without shutter or screen, and died of the wounds he received. The perpetrators of that act have not been discovered. In Limerick, Thomas Macnamara was found dead in the road with the back of his head beaten in, as if with a spade. It seems he had been appointed a bogranger in the place of somebody else, who had been dismissed. In Roscommon, Michael Shiel and his son, carriers, having paid a higher price for corn than the neighbouring carmen, were violently assaulted as they returned home by six men. The elder Shiel's skull was fractured, and he survived but two days. Their assailants were not identified. I mention this case, because it is rather uncommon that persons should be ill treated for having purchased corn at a higher price than their neighbours. On the 30th of September, 1845, at 10 P.M., three men, with faces blackened, entered the house of Michael Hill, at Garraneby, armed with bludgeons, and, not

1351
finding him, went into another house next door, belonging to George Hewitt, whom they found sitting on a chair. They so severely assaulted him on the head with sticks that he died next day. This, my Lords, is the case of a murder intended to have been committed on one person, and, because the perpetrators could not find him, they wreak their vengeance on his next door neighbour. I beg now to call your Lordships' attention to a remarkable notice that was published in the county of Tipperary by the board of directors of the Mining Company of Ireland, giving notice that the company's works at the Earlshill Colliery, on the 20th of December then next, or at the earliest day compatible with existing contracts, would be suspended; and that the board had been compelled to take this step in consequence of the threats and outrages to which their stewards, Martin, Morris, and others, had been subjected, and by the threatening notices subsequently served on those well-disposed workmen who were desirous to work under the company and earn support for themselves and families, but whose lives were too highly valued by the board to be risked by a continuance of the works, until sufficient protection could be afforded to them. This company employ a very large body of persons, and because these men choose to take umbrage at the agents or stewards of the company, they are actually compelled to stop the works, and turn a large body of men out of employment. Another case of outrage to which I will refer is contained in the following report—
"On the 29th of November, about 5 o'clock, as Nicholas Carney, steward to Mr. Richard Dyas, justice of the peace, was returning from his master's house to his own at Dervottstown (situate In the parish of Killua), a distance of half a mile, and midway he was attacked and knocked down by a party of five men armed with loaded bludgeons, who beat him in a most shocking manner, whereby his life is in danger. Being on duty at Mullingar I was unable to visit the scene until to-day, when I requested the attendance of Mr. Dyas to take the man's depositions. On visiting Carney I found him in a most deplorable condition, his head and face being one mass of bruises, not able to see or speak, and all his body frightfully contused. In consequence of the man's state, I was obliged to obtain the necessary information from Mr. Dyas, who had seen him soon after the occurrence, which was to the effect that he knew none of the party, nor could he give a description of any, as he was instantly knocked down and rendered senseless. His assailants never spoke a word during the attack. The only reason Mr. Dyas can assign for so brutal an attack is the extreme confidence with which he treated Carney, in consequence of his zealous attention to his interests and the fidelity
1352
with which he discharged the duties of his situation."
Another instance is from the county of Armagh, which is not one of the counties where crime has been on the increase. The following is a communication from a justice of the peace of that county:—
"Carmagh-house, Sunday, Dec. 14, 1845.
"Sir—I beg to report to you, for the information of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, that at half-past seven o'clock this morning a party calling themselves Molly Macguires attacked a house on my property, which house they had pulled down last month, and was rebuilt by some of my tenants, and in which a man and his family were living. They beat the man very severely, ordered his family out of the house, and then pulled the house down, fired a number of shots, and went off cheering. The noise was so great it awoke me, although the house is about half a mile distant. I sent an alarm to the police, but by the time they were ready the Molly Macguires were too far off for any of them to be captured. Although it was daylight, and the uproar so great, not a creature came to the assistance of the unfortunate man, nor did they alarm the police, which shows how complete their organization is. I beg to say, if some immediate measures are not taken to check these outrages, no person's life in this county will be safe, except he joins the Molly Macguires. Before the party left the house they charged the man they beat to tell me that if they had time they would have paid me a visit, but they would do so when they had time. Reports of the former outrages have been forwarded to the Lieutenant of the county, and reported by the police to the authorities. I have the honour, &c.
"JOHN ROBERT IRWIN, Justice of the Peace."
Another case is from Clare:—
"Tulla, Jan. 9, 1846.
"I am sorry to be again obliged to report that an outrage of a very serious nature occurred in this neighbourhood yesterday evening. On my visiting the place this day, I learned the following particulars, namely, that about half-past 6 o'clock on the previous evening, a party of armed men, about nine in number, wearing bonnets, and having their faces blackened, entered the house of a respectable farmer of the name of Murphy, and after discharging a blunderbuss in his face, which fortunately only contained some powder, they in the most savage manner commenced beating Murphy with the butt ends of their guns and clubs, and only left off beating him when they thought he was dead; they broke his leg and left his head in a most frightful state; there are two physicians attending him, who have but slight hopes of his recovery. They also inflicted several wounds on his son and daughter. The latter is also confined to her bed in a bad state. The son several times endeavoured to discharge a blunderbuss at them while beating his father, but unfortunately it would not go off, though heavily loaded. The party then went away, taking with them three guns and a blunderbuss. The family all deny having any knowledge of any of them. The cause assigned for this brutal attack is, that Murphy, about seven years ago, took a farm of land from which some people had been ejected. There is no clue at present that could lead to the apprehension of any of the party.".… "Sub-Inspector Comyns

1353
has succeeded in arresting three of the party, one of whom has been identified as a principal in the outrage by Murphy's servant boy, and as it is feared he will either leave the country or be deterred from prosecuting, I have directed the police to keep him in their barracks for some time."
This is communicated by Mr. Thomas Baily, resident magistrate in Clare. Your Lordships will not fail to notice this important fact, that a conviction cannot be procured, in many instances, unless the witnesses are taken up and kept in confinement. From Moate we have the following letter from Mr. Irwine, Manager of the National Bank:—
"Moate, County of Westmeath, Jan. 9, 1846.
"Sir—I am manager of the National Bank in this town. My mother, an aged lady, living at Fern-hall, near Castle Plunket, in the county of Roscommon, was, on last Sunday night, at 7 o'clock, visited by a band of armed men (about ten), masked. They broke in the kitchen door, and sent the servants for my poor mother. She and my sister came down. They were most rudely assailed. My poor mother, a feeble widow, was placed on her knees, a loaded pistol put to her breast, and she was then sworn to discharge a herd, and give his place to another. I take the liberty of bringing this matter under your notice, hoping you will have the goodness to instruct the police of Castle Plunket to patrol more frequently (as I apprehend another attack) about my mother's grounds, which are situated within a mile of the barracks. The Government can hardly have an idea of the dreadful state of alarm in which every well-disposed member of the community and of Her Majesty's subjects in these districts are from the wild and savage laws of these midnight legislators, which are now more than ever in the ascendant, and from which neither rank, sex, nor age is exempt.—I have the honour to be, Sir, &c. "P. D. IRWINE.
"N. B. After leaving the house a volley of heavy stones was thrown at the windows, and glass, sash, and shutters, were scattered about the room; this occurred in the next field to the Roman Catholic chapel of the parish, so early as 7 o'clock in the evening."
Mr. Comyns, Sub-Inspector in the county of Clare, district of Tulla, writes as follows:—
"Tulla, Jan. 9, 1846.
"I have to report, that on the night of the 8th instant, about 7 o'clock, eight or nine men, unknown, all of whom are supposed to have been armed with guns and blunderbusses, entered the house of Michael Murphy, at Laharden, and fired a shot into the house on entering it, and obliged Murphy's daughter to light a candle, while they searched the rooms and took away the arms noted underneath, and also beat Michael Murphy so severely with the butt end of a gun or a blunderbuss, that his life is in great danger from the wounds on his head. His daughter, Honor Murphy, is also much injured from having been beaten in the same manner; and his son, and two labouring servants, named O'Brien and Boland, but not so severely. The party had their faces blackened, wore women's caps, and had no shoes, as the house
1354
was near a bog, which it appears they crossed. On hearing of the outrage, I proceeded immediately there, with head constable Shaw and party, who searched the neighbourhood promptly, but without effect. I have directed the attendance of the constabulary doctor; and Mr. Bailey, R.M., concurs with me as to the reward. The guns taken were registered and numbered cl. 1784, 1785, 1786, and 1787. I should have added that the cause of this outrage is, that Murphy took the land and house he occupies from Mr. H. Butler, of Castle Erin, on the termination of a lease, and from which some persons were ejected. The party, when beating Murphy, told him to take that for robbing poor people of their land. It is ten years since he took the land. Neither Murphy nor any of the persons in the house knew or even could describe or identify any of that party."
Next, as to the county of Tipperary, I will read the following letter:—
"Nenagh, Feb. 2, 1846.
"On yesterday, as Mrs. Bennett, of Moneyquil, was driving to Ballinaclough Church, she was stopped on the road by two men, one armed with a pistol and the other with a wattle, and ordered to put away two of her men, Henzy and Fechally: on her asking them what they had done, they snapped the pistol twice at her, and gave her three blows with the wattle, which severely injured her arms. Henzy, whom they ordered to be turned away, has been repeatedly attacked within the last few years, and who is the same man who, a short time since, was fired at through the window at Moneyquil-house, while eating his supper, and wounded in the arm with a ball, although there were two men stationed in the house for his protection. Finding no threats could intimidate him, and that it is difficult to get at him, in consequence of the presence of the police, they have resorted to this cowardly attack on an old lady, nearly blind, and against whom they have no complaint, but for keeping men in her employment whom she considers faithful. I do not particularly mention this case on account of the amount of injury done, as Mrs. Bennett has not received any serious injury; and she thinks herself the pistol was not loaded, and only snapped to intimidate her; but it clearly proves to what a state of in human barbarity many of the people of this country are reduced, when they can thus assault a feeble old lady while on her way to church; with what endless perseverance they follow up their designs when once formed; and another of the numerous instances, that it is not the rights of property they alone attempt to put an end to, but all right to the freedom of action or even judgment. "JAS. TABUTEAU, R. M."
This lady is upwards of eighty years of age.—The next document is a letter, dated—
"Nenagh, Feb. 9, 1846.
"Between seven and eight o'clock on yesterday morning a party of twelve men, all armed with guns, made a simultaneous rush into the dwelling of Michael Gleeson, who was in bed, as was all his family, with the exception of his daughter Judy, who had opened the door. The armed men dragged Gleeson out of bed and beat him about the body and head with the butt end of their guns, inflicting two wounds (seemingly dangerous) on his head. Gleeson's son, who slept in an opposite room, hearing the uproar,

1355
got out of bed, and was immediately attacked in his attempt to oppose his assailants' ingress to his apartment; one of the villains fired a shot at him, which missed him, the two balls striking the wall in his rear. After a struggle they forced into his room, and treated him in a manner similar to that of his father, inflicting three severe cuts on his head. After breaking twelve panes of glass, and all the delf in the house, and ordering Gleeson to give up the land (9½ acres) to Seymour, or they would pay him another and a more serious visit, they went away. Gleeson came into possession of this land twenty years ago, and out of which Seymour was dispossessed for non-payment of rent. Though there were five of Gleeson's sons in the house, not one of them informed the police of this occurrence; had they done so, there is little doubt but that the Corbally party would have succeeded in tracing out the offenders, as they were seen to pass up the mountains within less than a mile of that barrack (Corbally). Nor would they even describe to me any of this gang, although Gleeson's daughter and one of his sons, from the opportunities they had, could, I am convinced, do so; however, such is the system of terror prevalent in this district, my belief is, that had this gang murdered old Gleeson, not one of his family would come forward to vindicate the law, unless forced to do so. I directed the constable at Corbally to bring into Nenagh on to-morrow the son and daughter of Gleeson, and should their evidence be of any importance I will report accordingly. The resident magistrate approves of the suggested reward."
Such is the system of terror in this district that not one of these people would come forward to vindicate the law unless compelled to do so. I now come to notice some of the principal homicides that have taken place in Ireland:—
"January 27.
"John Ryan (county of Tipperary), a farmer, was about to propose for land, the property of Mr. Philips, of Mount Rivers. There had, in this case, been no compulsory ejectment, or rigorous exaction of righs. The occupier, it is said, voluntarily resigned one-half of the farm—alleging his inability to hold the entire—and continued to retain the other half. The deceased, represented to be of respectable character, of some substance, and a native of the place, made no secret of his intention to propose for the unoccupied land, and had no apprehension of consequences. On his way, however, to the proprietor, he was assailed by two men (strangers to himself), one of whom pulled him from his horse, and fractured his head with a stone. He survived only a few days. Two persons were taken into custody on strong suspicion, but the injured man, evidently fearing the consequences to his family, would make no disclosures tending to their indentification."
The next case is the murder of Captain M'Leod, in the county of Leitrim, a gentleman who had been formerly in the army, and was by all who knew him highly esteemed. He was for some years in the county of Tipperary, where he was eminently successful in calming down the disturbances
1356
which prevailed in that county, and where, by the discharge of his duties, and by the amiability of his disposition, he obtained for himself the esteem of all parties in the district. Captain M'Leod was afterwards removed to Fermanagh, where his services, on account of the disturbed state of that district, were deemed of importance; but when outrages broke out in Leitrim, he was sent to that district as resident magistrate. On all hands he was admitted to be one of the most humane, moderate, and peaceful of men; yet he fell a victim to the spirit of outrage which so unhappily prevails in Ireland. Here is the account of his murder:—
"January 29.
"John M'Leod, Esq., R.M. (county of Leitrim).—Towards the close of November, 1844, the peace of the northern part of the county of Cavan, and the adjoining part of Leitrim, had become very seriously disturbed by numerous armed and organized bodies of Whiteboys. To meet these circumstances, the magistracy applied for an increased police force, and an additional stipendiary magistrate. The required police were immediately supplied; and Mr. M'Leod, the resident magistrate stationed at Enniskillen, was selected by the Government, and temporarily placed at Balinamore, in aid of the local authorities in the suppression of the illegal organization referred to. On the day above stated, Mr. M'Leod had been dining with W. Percy, Esq., J. P., of Garadice, and had set out in the evening on his return to his own quarters. Finding Mr. Percy's lodge-gate shut (contrary to practice when company is entertained), Mr. M'Leod was in the act of desiring the driver of his car to get it opened, when he was fired at from behind an opening in the evergreen at the lodge-gate, where the assassin aided by the light of a candle, left (as if designedly) in the lodge, is believed to have deliberately taken his aim. The gunshot penetrated the heart and lungs, and caused instantaneous death. There is no doubt that a conspiracy had been formed; and it is an ascertained fact that a notice of the murder was posted at Enniskillen two days before its perpetration. Some of the circumstances above described strongly implicating the gatekeeper, he, with other suspected individuals, was afterwards taken into custody; but after prolonged and searching inquiries by the magistrates assembled for the purpose, the evidence was not found to be sufficiently conclusive, and the parties were liberated on bail. That this outrage is referable to feelings of revenge prompted by Mr. M'Leod's discharge of his magisterial duty, but one opinion has been expressed; two circumstances have, however, been mentioned as its immediate existing cause: by some it is attributed to his having refused to bail certain individuals in custody on serious offences; by others, to a decision made by Mr. M'Leod, some days previously, at Bawnboy petty sessions."
This murder had excited everywhere but one feeling of indignation and regret.
"Patrick Swift was found dead in the river of the town of Galway: there were several marks of

1357
violence about his body and head. He had come to the town to give evidence in a civic bill case, which was dismissed in his (Swift's) absence. Some threatening expressions were used towards him by some of the relatives of the defendant, who were chiefly interested in the case. One of these was arrested, and from his contradictory evidence and terrified appearance, he was obliged by the coroner to find bail to appear when called on."
"John Waters (county of Tipperary) had been in the employment of Mr. H. Going, of Riverlawn, and was a stranger at the place. As he was returning to his master's residence, with a man named Corrigan (whose services as ploughman were likely to be superseded by those of Waters), several men armed with bludgeons, according to the statement of Corrigan, leaped off the road into the grove. Corrigan says he ran away, and looking back saw the party strike Waters to the ground, and that on returning shortly after, he found Waters speechless. He did not report the circumstance immediately on his arrival at the house, and his conduct being suspicious he was taken into custody, and committed for examination."
"Mr. James Gallagher (county of Cavan) was sub-agent to Mr. Enery, of Ballyconnell house. A considerable amount of old arrears was due by the tenantry on Mr. Enery's property, and Mr. Gallagher was supposed to be the only person fully acquainted with the state of affairs, and competent to undertake the recovery of the rents. As he was proceeding from Mr. Enery's residence, accompanied by the gatekeeper, he was followed by two men, one of whom shot him in the back, of which he died within an hour. The occurrence took place before dark, on the confines of the town, and in the presence of several people; but no information could be obtained leading to the identification of the assassins."
"Cavan, Monday evening, May 19, 1845.
"My dear Sir—I have only just returned from Enniskillen, and write a hurried line to inform you that poor Mrs. Gallagher, wife of the man who was shot at Ballyconnell on Wednesday last, died last night. She was so dreadfully shocked on hearing of her husband's murder, that she scarcely ever spoke a word after.—I have, &c.
"Colonel M'Gregor, &c." "J. BATTERSBY.
"Cavan, May 22, 1845.
"My dear Sir—I wrote to you on Monday last, telling you of the death of poor Mrs. Gallagher, whose husband was murdered on Wednesday night, the 14th inst. I have now another sad piece of information to communicate—his mother died last night. She was a healthy, poor strong old woman; but got such a shock on hearing of her son being shot, that she never after left her bed. I also understand that Gallagher's daughter, fifteen years of age, is quite out of her mind.—I am, &c.,
"Colonel M'Gregor, &c." "J. BATTERSBY.
"Fanny M'Elhill (Tyrone) was the wife of a woodranger, who had made himself obnoxious by prosecuting trespassers. She had proceeded from her own dwelling, with her little daughter, when she was fired at from a wood by the road side. Some of the charge entered the child's head, and it is feared her brain is injured; the mother was wounded in different parts of the body, and died in a day or two after, having previously given birth to a still-born child. Suspicion rests on the former ranger, who was discharged about a year ago; but there is not sufficient evidence to warrant proceedings."
There are many more of these cases; but I really think I may close this black catalogue. I think, too, I have said quite enough. I do not wish to harrow the feelings of your Lordships unnecessarily by the recital of these enormities; but there are one or two which I will lay before you, to show the state of the country at this particular time:—
"On the 13th inst. a party of about sixteen men came to the house of Thomas Cowan, beat his sons, and, having found him concealed, beat him severely, compelling his wife to hold a candle for them. The cause assigned is having endeavoured to make some cottier tenants pay rents for the houses they have on his land. He denies publicly that he has any knowledge of any of the party; but his eldest son privately informed me that both he and his father knew some of them, and that they will come privately and lodge informations; but not until they first sell their farm and stock, &c., preparatory to their leaving the country, as they consider it unsafe to remain in it much longer; and they are afraid that should they publicly lodge their informations they could not effect the sale of their property. I have communicated this circumstance to the resident magistrate, with whom I have arranged to take their informations privately on the first opportunity."
"Two armed men searched three houses, at Canadoan, for arms; they only obtained an old sword. On leaving the house of T. Mullvennin, they discharged some powder into his face, which slightly injured him."
"The following outrages took place in the Elphin district on the 11th inst.:—A party of forty or fifty men visited the house of John Watkins, robbed him of a pistol, and swore him to reduce his conacre rent. A party of ten or twelve men attacked the house of James Hogg for his arms; he resisted and fired on them (though eighty years of age); they returned the fire and fled. A party entered the house of John Simpson, and searched it for arms. A dispute took place on this day between P. Healy and four persons named Waters; they beat Healy so that he died on the 15th. Three of the Waterses are in custody. On the same evening, the 11th inst., they visited the house of Mr. Owen Reynolds, and cautioned him not to charge more than half-rent for his conacre."
I call the attention of the House to the following letter from three magistrates of the county Tipperary:—
"We beg to direct the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the informations we herewith send respecting an agrarian outrage committed in this district on Friday last, as forcibly illustrative of the present state of society in this district, and of the total insufficiency of the law to prevent or punish offences of the kind. A party of five men, two armed with muskets, one with a pistol, another with a wattle, and the fifth with a pitchfork, entered the house of a man of the name of Michael Murray, holding between seventy and eighty acres of land, and brutally assaulted himself and his family. On Monday, sub-inspector Morgan, and a party of six policemen, went to the man's house to inquire into the case. Murray's daughter, Biddy Murray, a young woman over twenty years of age, told the police (see their informations) who the

1359
assailants were, and described the particular acts of individuals of the party. Mr. Morgan and his party immediately went in search of these men, and succeeded in arresting four of them, a duty which occupied them from seven o'clock on Monday evening to nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. We were apprized of the case by the police, and remained investigating it in the barracks of Roscrea from noon till dusk. On Tuesday, Murray's family were brought into Roscrea, under an escort of police. Murray's brother, Martin Murray, a man also of the higher class of farmers, with a crowd of other people, followed the car on which Michael Murray's family were, and, being prevented by the police from coming into immediate contact with them, he called out to his niece Biddy Murray, the principal witness, 'not to be an informer, or to have it said in the country she was one.' This appears by the girl's sworn information, as also by the information of constable Connors; the result of this was, that on the girl's being sworn, she refused to identify the parties (arrested, on her own statement of the previous evening, by the police), and denied that she knew who any of them were. Murray, his wife, his servant man, and his two other children, all of whom we examined on oath, refused equally to give any evidence on the subject which could lead to the conviction of the offenders, and we had no alternative but to liberate the prisoners. Thus the very praiseworthy exertions of Mr. Morgan and his party, and our own anxious endeavours to make the offenders in this case amenable to justice, were of no avail. The system of intimidation established in this country proved an overmatch for the constabulary, the magistrates, and the law.—We have the honour to remain, &c.
"J. V. PRETTIE,
"W. P. BIRCH,
"F. A. JACKSON.
"To R. Pennefather, Esq., Under-Secretary."
I may refer also to the Shannon Commission and the great works for the improvement of the Shannon navigation, to point out the intimidation of the men there who are willing to go on with the work, if permitted to do so; but I will give only one more case, to show the extent of audacity to which these people go. It is a case that occurred no longer ago than the 18th of February, five days ago, and relates to a person of the name of O'Brien, an excellent officer of the Constabulary:—
"I have to report that about eleven o'clock on the night of the 17th, as constable D. O'Brien, of this station, and sub-constables M. Kearney, C. Rohen, W. Ireton, J. Kenna, and W. Donohoe, were on patrol, they heard the sound of voices near them; they stopped a short time and heard a shot fired, at which they proceeded at once in the direction of the shot, and perceived a man armed with a gun, whom they called on to surrender; he replied that he would not; upon which he was arrested by Rohen. His name is Pat Cosheen, from the county of Cork. After securing Cosheen, the police proceeded a short distance, when several shots were fired by a body of men, about fifteen in number, who were in front of the police. At this time, a ball or slug struck Kearney in the temple, which only slightly wounded him and perforated his forage cap; and a bullet passed through the
1360
watch-coat of Ireton. The police called on the party to surrender, and charged them, at the same time firing upon them. One of said party was at this time secured, named J. Hulan, upon whose person a number of percussion caps were found; he was then handcuffed to Cosheen, upon which several shots were fired at the police; the police returned the fire, and succeeding in arresting a man named Pat Dwyer, who ran off when about to be secured; he was recaptured, and in the effort received a gunshot wound, which, entering near his left breast passed through his body; he also received a bayonet wound in the side; he is in the Bridewell here, and lies in a dangerous state. When Dwyer was recaptured, one of the party came to his aid, and fired a pistol at constable O'Brien, upon which the constable struck him on the breast with his bayonet, and sub-constable Rohen fired at him, and it is supposed wounded him, as he was seen to stagger. He succeeded in making his escape. He is supposed to be Patrick Rufoyle, from the county of Tipperary. At this stage the fellows separated to both sides and rear of the police, and fired several shots at them, which were returned. There was a small cabin, occupied by a man named Gorman, quite close, into which the constable decided to go with his party, as, from the darkness of the night and the manner of the Rockites, he thought his life and those of his men would be endangered by a fire from behind the road ditch. After the police had retired into the house, a shot was fired into it; they did not deem it prudent to go out, but preferred to resist an attack; they remained in the house until morning, when a reinforcement from this joined them, who marched the three men already named into this town; they have been fully committed for trial at the assizes; but Dwyer will not, if at all, be able to move for some time. Messrs. Burke and Russell, justices of the peace, came in here immediately after; they accompanied me to the scene, with fifteen men; we scoured the neighbourhood in the hope of meeting some of the party, several of whom must have been wounded, but did not succeed. I had previously sent to the Altar and Garrysfillane stations to intercept the escape of any of the fellows; the police fired thirty-five rounds of their ammunition."
Your Lordships perceive it was a regular engagement.
"The gun found with Cosheen is a very formidable weapon, being a large rifle with an excellent percussion lock. A pistol was found on the place where the attack took place; also the barrel of a gun, and a portion of the brass mounting, which must have exploded during the conflict. The three men in custody are the worst characters in the county, and were looked upon as the leaders of armed gangs, who go about committing assassinations for hire. Cosheen is the person named in my report of the 27th ult., relative to the homicide of James Lynch. About thirty bullets were found at the scene, which the party must have dropped. The wife of the man into whose house the police went, became so alarmed when the shot was fired into it, as to place her life in danger. I sent a doctor to her. I also procured medical aid for the man whom the police wounded. The armed party must at the time have been proceeding to commit some serious outrage; and I am of opinion, that they were going to the neighbourhood of Ballingady, where persons are

1361
about being evicted; and in reference to which Mr. Coote received a Rockite notice, as reported on the 17th inst.; they possibly were going to attack Mr. Coote. No circumstance has occurred for a long time which, in my opinion, tends more to improve the peace of the country than the one in question."
I am sure it is a most dreadful way of effecting that end.
"It has also, I am sure, caused great dismay to those ruffians who are leagued for the pepetration of ruin, and secured for the police, in the opinion of the peasantry, a confidence which, I trust, may induce them to look to the authorities for protection, instead of considering those marauders as necessary evils, to call upon when disputes arise about their private (as they imagine) rights. The bravery and steadiness of the constable is beyond all praise, and he was well supported by the sub-constables of the party. I beg to recommend them to the favourable notice of the Inspector General. I will escort Cosheen and Hulan to Bruff to-morrow. A further search on an extensive scale will be made this night, in the hope of meeting with some of the fellows, who must have been wounded."
This was signed by Mr. T. O'Connell, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary. I have read these documents, my Lords, to show the extent to which the illegal acts of these men are carried; and I think such of your Lordships as have done me the honour to attend to the details I have submitted, will have remarked that the great proportion of these crimes are committed by bands of armed men—of men who, as it is generally believed, belong to secret associations, bound to each other by oaths, and banded together for the purpose of intimidating the well-disposed and peaceable inhabitants. In the list I have read, out of the 137 homicides, and the large number of aggravated assaults, your Lordships will have perceived that five only were committed on the persons of gentlemen. I am far from saying that the position of a gentleman is enviable, who, from a sense of duty, remains at his post in a disturbed district, and performs the obligations of a magistrate and a resident landowner; but still his position is a safe and secure one compared with that of the small farmer and cottier. In a sense, it may be said that "his house is his castle;" it is capable of being defended; he and his servants are armed, and he runs comparatively little risk from the inroads of these bands; in fact, those by whom these descriptions of crimes are committed, dare not venture to make an attack. But your Lordships may imagine what is the position of the unfortunate small farmer or cottier—the man who has, perhaps, been fifteen or twenty years in possession of a particular spot, or is employed
1362
by a particular person who is obnoxious to these depredators, and who receives a threatening letter. If he obeys the mandate, he sentences himself and family to all but certain ruin; there is no other farm open to him; and he has no alternative, if he leave his holding, but to become an outcast and a wanderer. He has no means, in fact, of obtaining a living for himself and those who are dependent upon him. He is compelled, therefore, to brave the danger and remain. And now, my Lords, mark the consequences! In the dead and silent hour of the night, the fragile door of his cottage is burst open; a band of armed and disguised ruffians rush in, drag him from his bed, and, before the eyes of his trembling wife and children, either murder him outright, or so mutilate him that his life afterwards become a burden. My Lords, in what I have stated I have not said one word which is not fully borne out by the facts I have detailed. The unfortunate man who is the victim of these outrages is either killed on the spot, or is left, if he survives, to drag out a miserable existence, incapable of labour for the rest of his life, or, at all events, for a long time; and yet neither the man himself, if he survive, nor his family who witness the perpetration of the crime, can be induced to come forward to give evidence for the purpose of bringing the perpetrators to justice. I say, then, my Lords, that this measure is necessary and essential for the protection of the lives and limbs of the people. As I have said, the rich man is comparatively safe; but, as the law stands, it affords no protection to the poor man—or at least a most inadequate and inefficient protection—though no means have been left untried by Her Majesty's Government to give full effect to the existing law for that purpose. This, I shall now proceed to show. I have a Return showing the amount of the Constabulary Force in Ireland now as compared with what was in the year 1845:—

Counties.

Number of Police Constables in 1835.

Present Number.

County Cavan

169

400

Monaghan

110

181

King's County

272

319

Longford

140

191

Westmeath

272

282

Clare

343

343

Leitrim

170

311

Roscommon

250

459

Limerick

250

621

Tipperary

North

315

564

South

371

466

1363
This, too, is independent of the various military parties stationed there. A considerable addition has also been made in the number of the stipendiary magistrates. But notwithstanding these measures, so great is the evil at this time, that Her Majesty's Government feel it their duty to come to Parliament for the purpose of being armed with extraordinary powers, to secure that protection to life in Ireland, and to give to the well-disposed and peaceable inhabitants of that country that security which alone makes life a source of enjoyment. Memorials from the Grand Juries of every one of the disturbed counties, representing the inadequacy of the existing law to repress these outrages, have been laid before the Government. I hold in my hand those from Roscommon, Leitrim, and Tipperary. I think, assuming that it be the intention of Parliament effectually to cope with this evil, which has now grown to such a fearful extent, and that you agree with me that it is necessary to arm the Government with extraordinary powers for that purpose, that you will, on consideration, find it would be impossible to adopt a measure, violating in a less degree the principles of the Constitution, than that which I have had the honour to submit. In the first place, the Bill provides that it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with the assent of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to declare by proclamation, that any county or any part of any county in which any of the offences aforesaid shall have been committed, requires an additional establishment of police, and thereupon it shall be lawful to appoint such and so many resident magistrates, sub-inspectors of constabulary, and constables, as he shall think proper, the expense to be borne wholly by the district. There is another clause of great importance—the introduction of which into any Bill can only be justified by the necessity of the case; I mean that which empowers the Lord Lieutenant to warn the inhabitants of the district so proclaimed to be and remain within their respective places of abode at all hours between sunset and sunrise. Your Lordships are aware, that in the course of the system of crime in Ireland, the poor and humble have generally been made the victims, and that the outrages have been almost wholly committed in the night: these bands of armed ruffians do not generally patrol the country except at night, and we have every reason to believe that these crimes are deliberated and decided upon by persons frequenting
1364
low public houses and other similar places during the night: therefore, I consider, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, that, under the peculiar circumstances, the power which this clause gives is essential to be vested in the hands of the Executive Government; but although the power is extraordinary, it will always be competent to revoke it when the necessity for it ceases to exist. Another clause empowers the Lord Lieutenant to offer rewards for the apprehension of offenders; and the next provision is, that which enables the Lord Lieutenant to assign and direct the payment of such sums of money as to him shall seem reasonable, as—you can hardly call it compensation; [Lord CAMPBELL: Solatium;]—for what can compensate for such a loss? but—to the personal representative, wife, parent, child, or relative of the person who has been murdered or permanently maimed. With regard to the destruction of property, there is already a remedy, the hundred in which the offence is committed being liable for the damage; the Bill in this respect, therefore, carries the law a little further than it goes at present, and it certainly appears to me that it should be in the power of the Executive Government to charge, by way of fine upon the district, the money necessary to relieve and maintain the family which has, by these outrages been deprived of its head. These are the most important of the provisions of the Bill. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, will agree with me that it would be inconvenient now to enter upon any discussion of the details. I may, however, add, that in all cases the rate is to be levied on the poor-law valuation, and that no individual, however small may be his holding, will be exempt, and that it is not intended in any case that the party who is made liable to the payment should have the power to deduct the money so levied from the rent due to the landlord. Another clause, the object of which is to prevent persons congregating in public-houses, and other places, licensed or unlicensed, in which beer or spirituous liquors are sold, between sunset and sunrise, authorizes any justice of the peace, or other person authorized thereto by his warrant, to search such places and apprehend any persons who may be found congregated therein, and bring them to punishment. The offence for so congregating is by another clause made a misdemeanour, to be tried either at the quarter-sessions or the assizes; as is also that of knowingly keeping fire-arms

1365
in any house in a disturbed district without being duly authorized. Your Lordships will perceive, then, that trial by jury is preserved in all cases, and that the ancient and constitutional mode of carrying on the prosecutions which may be instituted under this Act will in no way be altered. There is another clause introduced for the purpose of securing from intimidation persons who may be called upon to give evidence against those who may be prosecuted under this Bill, and which declares that any person injuring the person or property of any witness, or who shall by threats, menaces, or otherwise, deter or intimidate any witness, prosecutor, or juror from discharging his or her duty, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour. I think, my Lords, it is scarcely necessary for me on this occasion to say more as to the details of the Bill. Other opportunities will be afforded for that purpose, when any objections that may occur on the part of any noble Lord may be stated; and it will be my desire, and that of Her Majesty's Government, to give them the fullest consideration. I am aware that, with regard to the original causes by which these crimes have been produced, many and conflicting opinions may be entertained. Some conceive, I know, that these crimes are attributable to defective political institutions; but, my Lords, I submit that the facts I have stated afford a sufficient demonstration of the utter futility of that opinion. I have already shown that in eighteen counties of Ireland crime has actually diminished; and if the state of crime in Ireland is the result of political grievance, why is not the same effect apparent in all? Be the grievance great, or be it small—be it real or be it imaginary, it must exist in the same force and to the same extent in Wexford as in Limerick—in Kilkenny as in Roscommon—in Westmeath as in Tipperary. It cannot fairly be said that these outrages by which particular districts are distracted — outrages which do not partake of an insurrectionary character, and are not in any way directed against the authorities of the country, but against individuals (mostly of the poorer orders), who for some cause or other have incurred the vengeance of those by whom they are perpetrated, are occasioned by political grievance. It does not appear to me, however, that it would be a necessary or convenient course at this time to enter on the discussion of this the political question, though I may be allowed to say
1366
that Her Majesty's Government have not given any light or insufficient proof of their desire to consider and remove any just cause of dissatisfaction that may exist in regard to political grievances. My Lords, if I were to advert to the various measures Her Majesty's Government have already brought forward, to those which they may now have in contemplation, or to the measures which other Members of this or the other House of Parliament may be disposed to recommend as remedial measures, I should be diverting your Lordships' attention from the subject now immediately under your consideration, and possibly be calling forth a difference of opinion which would not tend to forward the discussion or further the object we have at present in view. I will, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, pass on to other matters, offering, by the way, this one observation only—that I shall be prepared on all fitting occasions, as will my Colleagues, to declare our opinions and defend the policy of Her Majesty's present Government in Ireland. Of this we are convinced, that no measure of improvement, whether political or social, will ever be effectual in improving the condition of Ireland or its people until you have put down this system of terror and intimidation. Many of these outrages are, no doubt, of an agrarian character, that is to say, they arise out of the tenure and mode of occupying land in Ireland: I think this is sufficiently established by the extracts I have read. Many remote causes may be found for the existing state of things. Formerly it was the practice of the landlords to let their land upon long leases at low rents; since then, however, this land has, in many cases, fallen into the hands of middlemen, who subdivide it and extort high rents; the system of con-acre is carried on to a great extent, and the subdivisions of land, for the purpose of making 40 s. freeholders, has also been acted upon largely in many parts of the country. All these circumstances have tended to produce the evils we now deplore; but at this moment, I believe the chief cause of the evils that prevail in Ireland are to be traced to the existence of those secret and illegal associations which are used for the purpose of alarming and terrifying the population, and preventing their looking to the magistrates and the laws for protection against the system of coercion to which they are subjected, and which, by acting upon their fears, prevents their offering any resistance to the threatening

1367
and anonymous notices by which they are assailed. Believing that your Lordships will agree with me that it is absolutely necessary to meet this evil by some effectual check, I call upon you to give your sanction to this measure, and when it shall (as I hope and believe it will) have effected its purpose, and enabled the Executive Government of Ireland to put an end to the present state of terror and intimidation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have afforded to the people of Ireland that feeling of security which in England every peasant enjoys—and we may then hope for the full benefits of those measures in which the Government have been engaged for the good of Ireland, and which, on the proposition of the Government, Parliament has already sanctioned. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware, that under existing acts, or by Bills proposed in the course of the present Session, a sum of no less than 448,000 l. in grants and loans will have been voted or appropriated for the purpose of being now employed on piers and harbours and other public works. In the course of last Session no fewer than thirteen Railway Bills were passed, involving, with one passed in the preceding Session, an expenditure of nearly 9,000,000 l., and this will be applied in the most desirable mode, that of giving employment to the labourers of Ireland. But it is impossible that these measures should bear the fruit which we hope and trust they will produce, unless you give security to the capitalist about to embark his capital in that country, and to the labourers about to be employed by him, in carrying out the measures which you pass. I earnestly trust—it is my hope and my prayer—that the day is not far distant when it may be in the power of the Government to propose to Parliament to repeal this Act, and to abandon measures which the circumstances of the country no longer render necessary. I move your Lordships that this Bill be now read a second time.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that after the very clear, full, and able statement of the noble Earl, which, in many respects, he was sure must have been as painful to him to make, as it was for their Lordships to hear, he did not rise for the purpose of offering the slightest opposition to the second reading of a Bill which he had no doubt was intended, as on the face of it it purported to be, for the preservation of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects
1368
in many parts of Ireland: and so far was he from complaining of the noble Lord, or of the Government whom he represented on that occasion, for bringing forward the measure at so early a period of the Session, that he was ready to admit, that after the declaration of Her Majesty in Her Speech from the Throne—a declaration which was unhappily warranted by facts known to many of their Lordships, and still more warranted by facts known to the Government, and which had been stated by the noble Lord that night—every day after that declaration was, he thought, a day lost, in which an effectual remedy was not at least attempted to put an end to a state of society so horrible, so destructive, and so calculated to impede all advancement and all improvement in the country. It was, therefore, the duty of Government to call the attention of the House, at the earliest possible moment, to this most important subject. In saying this, however, he was anxious not to be understood to admit, and he hoped the noble Lord would not contend, that the Government were, by this necessity, relieved of the duty of considering what other measures—measures of a more satisfactory character, and which would accord better with their Lordships' feelings to adopt—should be proposed for the immediate amelioration and benefit of society in Ireland. But he so far agreed with the noble Earl, that he did consider, however expedient it might be for their Lordships, whether invited by the Government or not, to enter into the consideration at a future, and, he trusted, not far distant period, of measures calculated to give more universal satisfaction to that country than, perhaps, it was possible to expect that this Bill—necessary and urgent as he admitted it to be—could give; that they would be prepared to enter into the consideration of this Bill at the earliest possible period. He quite agreed with the noble Earl, that between this measure and measures of amelioration, there was no necessary connexion. There was, indeed, this much connexion, that, for the purpose of entertaining and accomplishing any measures intended to be conducive to the prosperity of Ireland, the measure which had just been introduced by the noble Earl must be the necessary precursor. He would ask any of their Lordships, anxious as he knew them all to be to see the condition of Ireland improved, and who wished to see measures with that view pressed on the early consideration of

1369
the Legislature, could they imagine any measure which would be attended with any beneficial result, if the system against which the present Bill was directed, had not been previously and completely removed? Of what use would measures be, intended for the benefit of Ireland — measures calculated to stimulate industry, or to extend local improvements; or, if their Lordships would have it, measures conferring additional privileges on the people—of what use would such measures be, if, as had been shown by the cases produced by the noble Earl, and as was well known to many of their Lordships, no man in Ireland could avail himself of their provisions without finding his industry or his enterprise arrested by the hand of the assassin? As things at present stood, no man would be permitted to practise the labour which it was the object of the Legislature to provide, without finding the exercise of that labour a crime in the eyes of those midnight legislators who presume to tell the poor man that his labour was not his property, but was to be exercised by their permission, and with no other sanction than that which might be derived from their midnight deliberations. But even if political privileges were to be extended—if the people were to be enabled to vote where they had not voted before—if they were to be permitted to take part in the municipal and deliberative business of their country—of what use would such privileges be, if there was a secret legislature behind, to dictate to them how their franchise was to be exercised, and inflicting on him the severest penalties of that unknown law which hung over him, if he presumed to exercise his privilege in the manner which he conceived most conducive to his own interests, and in accordance with his own feelings? He, therefore, felt fully justified in admitting that the present Bill was a Bill for the protection of the poor. The noble Earl had truly stated that, aimed as this species of crime was at every improvement, and at every state almost of society in which improvement could exist, the personal effects of this illicit law fell not so much on the rich man, who could guard himself against the consequences, and withdraw from the scene which was afflicted by this dire and systematic species of crime, as on the labouring man; who, answering to the call of the Legislature, which told him to improve, and to the call of his landlord, who, it was to be hoped, encouraged improvement, was, on the other hand, deterred
1370
by these lawless associations, and would be deterred until this system was put down by the law. Unless it was stopped, it would extend from one county to another, and proceed throughout the land, and the conseqences would be death, insecurity, famine, and the absence of capital (which would be repelled from Ireland to the countries whence it had come), the destruction of the mass of the population by the absence of everything like law, order, and security in the country. For these reasons he felt that he should be ill doing his duty to Ireland and their Lordships, if he did not express his concurrence in the necessity of passing such a Bill as the noble Earl had introduced; but, at the same time, he must reserve to himself the right. though he would not enter into the subject at present, of urging the Government at a future and no distant period, or of urging their Lordships, if the conduct of the Government should, render it necessary, to endeavour by other measures to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland. These, he admitted, would require caution; but he trusted that the Government were, in a great degree, prepared with them, and that no unnecessary delay would occur in bringing them forward. In the meantime, he thought that their Lordships would do right, if possible, to pass the present Bill; and he could only say that, with no unnecessary delay, he wished it to have all that consideration which the nature of all measures affecting the liberty and independence of the subject always obtained from their Lordships. Into the particular provisions of the Bill it was not his wish to enter at present; he trusted that they would be carefully considered, though he would not pledge himself as to any particular details. With respect to that provision which cast on the locality (and the smallest space possible, he hoped, for the purpose of making it more effectual) all the consequences of crime, in the shape of penalty, he must say that he thought that it would have a most advantageous effect.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he so entirely concurred with his noble Friend who had just sat down in thinking that the measure ought not to be delayed for even the very smallest portion of time, which was not absolutely necessary for well considering the provisions of the Act, that he did not mean to act counter to the course of his noble Friend by offering any lengthened observations upon the Bill, reserving any comments which he might have to make for

1371
a future stage. He heartily deplored that such a state of things as that which had been described should exist in any part of the British dominions, but especially in so large a portion, and a portion so nearly situated to ourselves as Ireland—a state of things, topical, he would fain hope, and confined to particular districts; but a condition of society, nevertheless, which, if allowed to continue, and which, if they did not meet by the most vigorous and efficacious measures, it was in vain they might look for the improvement of Ireland, or an amelioration of the condition of her people. But if it were vain to look to the social improvement of Ireland in such circumstances, to look for her legislative improvement under such a state of anarchy was still more vain. Their first and paramount duty, with reference to it, was, in plain and short terms, to make Ireland a habitable country, in order that they might improve her condition. At present Ireland was not a habitable country. He had heard the details which were given in the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland with pain; he could not say it surprised him any more than those amongst their Lordships who were, like him, cognizant of the general features of the case, although they might not have been previously acquainted with its hideous details as they now were. They had heard those details from the noble Earl; and he was confident that, having heard them, their Lordships would agree with him that it was impossible to say certain districts in Ireland were not become uninhabitable for the peaceable and quiet subjects of the Crown. Their first duty, then, was to prevent the further growth and progress of crime in those districts; to put an end to a system under which all law was set at defiance in that country, and which had reduced portions of it to such a state that the denizens whom we had planted in the islands of the South Sea might consider that they occupied, by comparison, a far more enviable country. He lamented that the Bill before them was not accompanied by a measure which, in his deliberate opinion, would be found to be highly advantageous, and which he introduced, not yesterday to their Lordships, but in a Bill which he brought forward two years ago, and which he had been induced to withdraw by a noble Duke opposite, the expression of whose wish on such a subject operated upon him (Lord Brougham) as a command. The provision to which he alluded was one that would
1372
have the effect of rendering it possible to obtain convictions for crimes, by allowing the trial to come on in a distant part of the country from the spot where the crime was committed, when such a course was necessary, and where the jury who tried the case, and the witnesses who gave evidence, would not be subjected to the shot of the assassin, for the mere performance of their judicial duties. He did not think that the measure to which he alluded was one that should necessarily be confined to Ireland; and if it appearod less invidious that it should not be so, and that it should be general instead of particular, he would, without hesitation, consent to its general application; and he believed he had the authority of some of the most eminent lawyers of this country, and men of the soundest constitutional principles, of the chief criminal Judge certainly, at his side in that view—namely, in thinking that a power ought to be given in certain cases, at the option of the prosecutor, of trying a prisoner in a different county from that in which the offence was committed—in the capitals of Dublin or London, if necessary. That had been already done in England, when smugglers, could not otherwise be convicted: all revenue cases were tried in London, wherever the offences were charged to have been committed; and it had been the custom in Scotland, time out of mind, to admit of such a course; all offences whatever being triable in Edinburgh as well as in the county where alleged. There could be no greater delusion in general than to suppose that a prisoner obtained an advantage by being tried in a part of the country where he was well known. In nine cases out of ten, it would be better for the prisoner to be tried at a distance, and in ten cases it would be better for justice that such a course were adopted. A jury with their minds impregnated with all the reports and all the gossip of the neighbourhood, did not form the most favourable tribunal for a prisoner any more than for public justice. The old law required a trial in the vicinage; but it was only because the jury were to find a verdict on their own private knowledge. This barbarous practice had long ceased to prevail; and with it had ceased the other consequential practice of summoning juries from the hundred, that is, the neighbourhood. He was glad the Government had brought forward the measure which had been described in detail by the noble Earl; but he felt convinced that, in order to

1373
make it effectual, it ought to be accompanied with the measure which he had described.
LORD FARNHAMsaid, that as one who had been for many months recently resident in Ireland, he felt called upon to address a few observations to their Lordships. If he had been asked fourteen months ago which was the most quiet and the best conducted county in Ireland, he would have answered with pride, his own county of Cavan; but a great change had since taken place, he regretted to say, in that county. That change for the worse he dated from the murder of his lamented friend Captain Macleod. At the commencement of the last year, meetings were held in Cavan of a private and illegal nature; threatening notices were served on farmers and labourers; and these were followed by attacks on private houses; the sufferers being principally persons, so far as he could ascertain, of the lowest class in society—the attacks being generally committed for the purpose of taking arms. In the course of the spring a respectable person named James Gallagher, who was an under-agent or bailiff to Mr. Enery, was murdered, in the broad daylight, in the town of Ballyconnell; and no attempt appeared to have been made to prevent the escape of the murderer. In consequence of this disturbed state of the county, he felt it his duty to return home and to use his exertions in concert with the other magistrates, for the restoration of tranquillity. On his arrival at Dublin, the first thing he heard was, that on the day (Sunday) preceding, and on his return from church with two of his young children, a near neighbour of his own, Mr. Bell Booth, had been brutally murdered. There was one circumstance connected with that murder which he ought not to omit to mention, as throwing a light on the state in which the country was at that period. Numbers of persons were present on the occasion of the murder, or close at hand; and notwithstanding that they were so, no attempt was made to arrest the murderer, although he did not fly, but walked deliberately away from the spot after he had committed the deed. Another fact to which he felt it necessary to allude, and which was well worth the attention of their Lordships, was, that the murderer of Mr. Booth had been ever since in the country, and that the houses he visited daily were well known; but that up to that moment he had not been arrested. He (Lord Farnham) arrived in the county of Cavan on the day after Mr. Booth's funeral. The
1374
cause of that gentleman's murder had never been ascertained. He was a gentleman of small property, the whole of which he farmed himself; and his assassination was attributable to no rancorous party feeling, for he had not been a member of the Orange society for the last ten years. Indeed, Mr. Booth rendered him (Lord Farnham) most strenuous assistance in endeavouring to effect the dissolution of the Orange lodges in 1836; and on every occasion since, when he had felt it his duty, on public grounds, to endeavour to prevent party processions, Mr. Bell Booth had most actively co-operated with him in effecting that object. On his (Lord Farnham's) arrival in Cavan he found the public mind in a state of the greatest excitement. Matters had unfortunately begun to assume the appearance of a religious conflict. Mr. Bell Booth was a Protestant, and was very much respected by all the Protestants of the county. He had also formerly been an Orangeman; he was beloved by all the members of that body; and his funeral was attended by thousands of armed Protestants. Thousands of Roman Catholics also assembled, in arms, in various parts of the same portion of the county, and a religious collision was anticipated. The town of Killeshandra was for two days in the possession of the Roman Catholic party. This event occurred a few days before the 1st of July—one of the usual Orange anniversaries—and this circumstance increased the danger. He (Lord Farnham) and other magistrates obtained, however, the most solemn assurance that all individuals who were masters of Orange lodges in the county, would endeavour, as far as they could, to prevent the celebration of that anniversary by proceeding in processions; and he had the satisfaction to state that, with two exceptions, that promise was most faithfully kept. He fully agreed in the statement of the noble Marquess opposite, that the Bill now before them was a measure for the protection of the poor; for although landlords and men of property in Ireland who fulfilled their duties, and practically acknowledged that property had its duties as well as its rights, were threatened and their property destroyed, yet they were in a very different position from the farmers and persons in a lower rank of life; for, if they had reason to apprehend personal injury, they might, though poosibly at great inconvenience, quit the country—a course which the poor man was unable to take. In the county of

1375
Cavan the farmers almost invariably held but small portions of land—they called a holding of twenty acres a large farm. It was evident that a man situated as one of these farmers could not go away when he pleased. A man in such circumstances must sell his furniture and stock, if he wished to leave the country, in order to provide means for doing so. But who was to buy them? Who would dare to purchase them? Any individual who did purchase under such circumstances, would place his life in the greatest jeopardy. He believed that the state of things now existing in Ireland might be traced to the Ribbon societies—associations of the most dangerous character. If any man wished to attack another, those societies would furnish him with the means of effecting his object in every possible way. Those who lived in Ireland were well acquainted with the nature of those associations, though perhaps many noble Lords might not be aware of their constitution and objects. He might, however, be allowed to read the opinions of a noble and learned Friend of his, which, he was sure, would have considerable weight with their Lordships. The noble Lord read a long extract from a charge of Lord Plunket, in which that noble and learned Lord said—
"It was most satisfactory to him that no person of any consequence or consideration had been discovered to be connected with the Riband societies; but that they consisted only of men in the humblest classes of society—persons who, while they confined themselves to their proper stations, were entitled to the protection of the law, and were useful and respectable members of the community; but who possessed neither the taste nor the information necessary to qualify them for the conduct of political affairs. When such men madly rushed beyond that boundary which Providence in its wisdom had assigned them, they were utterly incapable of rendering service to their country, though they were unfortunately quite equal to the task of disturbing its peace and endangering its institutions."
Lord Plunket then referred to the objects of the Ribbon societies, and after enumerating some of them, observed, that there was nothing revolting to the feelings of human nature to which persons once linked in illegal societies were not liable to lend themselves; and concluded by stating, that it was their duty to those blind and deluded persons to expose their insane attempts, while it was still more important to society at large to prevent the evil from spreading through the heart of the country, and infecting the mass of the population with a relish for mischief and insubordination. Addresses
1376
had been presented to the Lord Lieutenant from numerous counties in Ireland, relative to the disturbed state of the various districts; and these addresses invariably set forth the fact that the laws of the land were insufficient to meet the evil. He was glad, therefore, that the Government had brought forward this measure, and he would give it his most cordial assent, for he thought it calculated to give security to life and property in Ireland, which at present were not secure.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwould give the same vote on the present measure as the noble Lord who had just sat down. He should not, indeed, have deemed it necessary to address their Lordships on the subject at this stage of the Bill, if the observations made by himself and his noble Friend near him, on a former occasion, had not been made the subject of comment out of doors, and had not he and other noble Lords been made the subject of gross calumny and abuse, because they merely called upon the Government to interfere, and to take some measures for protecting life and property in Ireland. He considered that the Government were bringing forward the present measure on their own responsibility—on their own statement that the law as it stood in Ireland, was insufficient to protect the peaceable inhabitants of that country. If such was the fact, he would give the Bill his ready assent. He did not understand that by passing such a measure the Legislature meant to preclude all inquiry into the evils which affected Ireland, nor that it would stop the endeavours made by the present or any future Ministry to devise means for remedying those evils, but, on the contrary, that it would promote and assist them. The Bill, therefore, in his view, had no connexion with any other measures which might have been in view for promoting the good of Ireland, and he was extremly sorry if anything he had said on a former occasion of this kind had given offence to those who had thought it worth while to notice what had fallen from him. If, however, he had had the misfortune to differ from the great arbiter of the people in Ireland, he had done so in exercise of his own right, and acting upon his own judgment. The individual to whom he referred stated that the Irish people demanded equality in religion, equality in political rights, and equality in social, matters. He (Lord Clanricarde) might also think that the people of Ireland were entitled to these privileges; but that

1377
question had nothing to do with the Bill before their Lordships. Could anything, for instance, be more absurd than to allege such reasons for refusing to pass the measure? According to that reasoning, the Irish farmer might tell them, "I do not possess that franchise to which I am entitled;" and their Lordships were supposed to turn round, and say, "No, we know you don't, and we will take care you shall be still worse off." But the farmer might then say, "If you do not give me those equal rights, at all events protect my life and property, and enable me to follow my calling honestly and securely." To which their Lordships were supposed to reply, "No; because you have not the franchise, you shall not have protection; because you have not those rights to which you think you are entitled, your property shall be exposed, and your life endangered." If the ordinary law was not sufficiently strong to insure tranquillity in Ireland, certainly such a measure as this was necessary before any man in the disturbed districts of that country could venture to exercise these constitutional rights which it was alleged he ought to enjoy. There were, however, some parts of this Bill in which he did not concur. For instance, he understood that this measure was intended to be the permanent law of the county—to such a course he decidedly objected. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill had told them that he hoped at an early period Government would be enabled to call upon Parliament to repeal the measure. Now, he thought it would be far better to limit the operation of the Bill. He should despair of the tranquillity of Ireland if he thought such a measure was always to be in force, for it conferred most arbitrary powers. He did not object to those powers being granted: all that he stipulated was, that they should be given for a stated time. Fix their duration to a certain period, and then if necessary call upon Parliament to renew them. He had also another objection to the provisions of the Bill—namely, to the mode of punishing districts by fines and mulcts. He agreed with noble Lords who had spoken on his own side of the House, that it was most just that some punishment should fall upon those who were indirectly, if not directly, parties to the commission of the grave crimes now perpetrated; and he considered it right that some fine should be imposed on those districts where the crimes were committed. He thought, however, that
1378
there ought to be some relaxation of this punishment where a conviction took place. A lunatic, for instance, might take away a life, or even commit several murders; he would be convicted immediately; but it would be excessively hard that a quiet district, where no combination existed, and where none of the crimes against which this Bill was directed had been committed, should be saddled with compensation in the way of a pension, or a sum of money to the widow or relatives of the deceased. But he would go still further, and would take the case even of a deliberate murder, such as those which had been referred to to-night. Now if, in such a case, the inhabitants of the place rose, detected the criminal, and dragged him to condign punishment, they certainly ought not to be subjected to the penalty which would have been imposed upon them if they had connived at the crime, or at the escape of the offender. It had been proved, over and over again, that this class of offences in Ireland was generally committed by strangers; but he thought that if the people of the district where a crime of this nature was committed gave such information, or used such exertions, as brought the offender to justice, the fine contemplated by this measure ouught not to be enforced. He considered, also, that the punishment of transportation was rather too lightly dealt with in this measure. He thought no man ought to be transported—certainly not sentenced to transportation for life—without the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, after the crime and its punishment had been under the consideration of the Irish Government. He fully agreed in the remarks of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) as to the change of venue; and he concurred in the correctness of the noble and learned Lord's observation, that it was often a disadvantage to a man to be tried in his own immediate neighbourhood; for, if a man of bad character—although he might not be guilty of the offence with which he was charged—he might be convicted, while by an impartial jury he would probably have been acquitted. These were, however, matters of detail, which might be considered hereafter. He certainly would not oppose the Bill in its present stage, for he considered a great necessity existed for such a measure. Although he considered that the Government had been tardy in doing their duty, and in protecting life and property in Ireland, he would not on this occasion withhold from them his support.
The EARL of WICKLOWwould support the Bill. Its object was to prevent crime; and he thought it well framed for that purpose. There was another object which the Bill did not touch, namely, that of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the outrages committed in Ireland. He thought it just as necessary to devise means for securing the perpetrators of crime as to prevent its commission. As long as trials of criminals continued to be conducted in Ireland as they now were, there was no chance of convicting the guilty parties. In the Coercion Bill of Earl Grey's Government both of these two most essential objects were provided for: not only was crime prevented, but the real criminals were convicted and punished. He hoped the Government would turn its attention to this important subject, and if, by the introduction of some clauses into the present Bill, it could be attained, so much the better; if not, there ought to be a Bill brought in for that special purpose, as it is was the most desirable object that could achieved.
The EARL of CLANCARTY: My Lords, my noble Friend the noble Marquis opposite, who so strongly objects to the power which it is proposed in the Bill to give to magistrates of sentencing to transportation persons convicted of misdemeanours under this Act, seems to forget that magistrates already exercise, at quarter-sessions, a like power for the punishment of offences of a much more venial character than those which have called for the enactment of this Bill. Fully concurring in the necessity of some such measure, I would wish to take the present opportunity of calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government to some of its provisions. The Bill purports to be an Act not only for the better protection of life, but also to facilitate the apprehension and detection of offenders; and for this purpose the first Clause of the Bill confers a power upon the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district where a murder shall have been committed or attempted, and to send into it as many stipendiary magistrates and additional constables as he shall think proper. Now, my Lords, however useful in a case of open insurrection such a power might be, I must say it does not appear to me to be a provision exactly the best suited to facilitate the detection and apprehension of the guilty parties who may have committed or attempted to commit a murder. This object I should have thought might
1380
be better promoted by giving to magistrates a greater power than they at present possess, of compelling persons to give evidence. Many of your Lordships may not be aware, that although a magistrate could name twenty different persons who could give evidence, and by their evidence convict a murderer, he has no power of calling upon them to give evidence, unless against some one already charged with the offence. An amendment of the law in this respect might be of great value. Then with respect to the functionaries whom the Lord Lieutenant is to send into the proclaimed districts, I should think that local knowledge rather than numbers would, whether in regard of the magistrates or of the police who are to act under their orders, be the more important consideration. Moreover these stipendiary, or as they are termed in the Bill "resident" magistrates; (why called "resident" it is not very easy to understand, inasmuch as they are liable to be continually moved from place to place;) but these so-called resident magistrates, unless they are to be a permanent burden upon the country (which God forbid!) would, it appears to me, feel it their interest rather to prolong than to put an end to that state of things which occasioned their appointment: their interest would be clearly opposed to their duty. Surely, in such an emergency, it would be more advantageous to rely upon the unpaid magistracy. These could and would, without remuneration or other reward than what they would look for in the restoration of peace and security to the country, act, if called upon, much more efficiently than could any police magistrate necessarily possessed of less knowledge of the district, less interested in its well-being, and of less consideration among its inhabitants. If the police were placed duly in relation with them, none could have so much access to information as the local magistracy; for to none would secret information be so freely afforded as to a resident country gentleman, if looked upon as the accredited officer of the Government for preserving the peace of the country. I do not allude, my Lords, to that hateful species of information—hateful and revolting beyond all things to the feelings of Irishmen—by which a man, for pecuniary reward, betrays his partner in guilt; but I allude to that kind of information which, without any betrayal of confidence, a poor man might, from a sense of duty and of a mutual interest, impart to his landlord, who, as a

1381
magistrate, with the police under his orders, might turn it to account for the prevention—an object in my mind of much greater importance than the punishment—of crime. My views of the greater efficiency of the local than of the paid magistracy, is, I think, justified by the fact, that at no period prior to the institution of the stipendiary magistracy, was the country in so disgraceful and lawless a state as it has since been. Your Lordships have this evening heard from the noble Earl who opened this debate, a catalogue of crime committed within the last year in Ireland, unexampled in number and atrocity at any anterior period, or in any other country; and you have heard the noble Earl compare it with the previous year, as with one of comparative peace and security. Let me ask your Lordships whether the best of these two periods was not such as any Government should take shame to acknowledge. Look also at the official lists of rewards offered for the apprehension and conviction of offenders, and the remarkable paucity of instances in which the law has been vindicated, and all this, notwithstanding a greatly increased expense in the administration of justice, and a police force twice as numerous, much better disciplined, and much more expensive to the country than formerly. I think from these facts it may at leat be questioned, whether the law is better upheld by a paid than by an unpaid magistracy. And consider, my Lords, that the circumstances of the country are in this respect changed; that the penal Statutes on account of religious opinions have been repealed; that Protestants and Roman Catholics enjoy equal civil rights; that there is no longer a struggle for privileges, the privation of which, however it may have been justified in former times, had become a ground, and I must add a very sufficient ground, of discontent. And further, consider that since the Act of 1829, we have now had seventeen years of the policy of conciliation—of continual concessions made for the purpose of giving contentment to the majority of the Irish people; and so far in aid of the civil magistrate for the preservation of the peace. Not to mention the Reform Bill, there have been Protestant municipal corporations abolished, tithes extinguished, and a rent-charge payable in lieu of them by the landlords; vestry cess swept away altogether; all public money withdrawn from the support of Protestant schools under the clergy, and transferred to the
1382
support of schools approved of by the Roman Catholic clergy; the Protestant Church cut down, and a legal recognition given to the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland; and, though last, not least, Maynooth enlarged, endowed, and perpetuated, upon the nation. My Lords, I certainly do not consider that these concessions were either wise or expedient, even in reference to any temporary object. Many of them were utterly unjustifiable, but they at least indicated the disposition that existed in the Government to give to those said said officers to whom they confided the preservation of the peace, a degree of support that never was given in former years to the local magistracy. Earnestly would I press upon Her Majesty's Government the expediency of recurring to the local magistracy. And I do so, I beg to be understood, without meaning to convey the slightest imputation upon the paid magistrates: they are, I believe, in general, a very respectable, laborious, and deserving body, although for the reasons I have suggested, less efficient than many of the local magistrates. And, in some districts where there are no resident gentry fit to be entrusted with the commission of the peace, stipendiary magistrates would always be required. But looking at the general interests of the country, at the importance of casting upon the upper classes of society the performance of public duties, and of accustoming the occupiers of the soil to look upon their landlords not as mere proprietors, but as persons charged with duties and responsibilities, in which they, the occupiers, have a direct interest, I think the suggestion I have thrown out is not undeserving of the consideration of the Government. The next provision of the Bill to which I would call your Lordships' attention is that contained in the 7th Clause: it empowers the Lord Lieutenant to make compensation to the personal representative, wife, parent, child, or other relative, of any person who shall be murdered within any proclaimed district; but it would appear from the terms of this clause, that the relatives of the person whose murder was the immediate occasion of the district being proclaimed, are excluded from the benefit of that provision. This, I think, would be manifestly an injustice; and I hope the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill, will consider of the propriety of making such alterations in the wording of the clause as will secure a like rule of compensation in both cases. The last provision of the Bill that I will at

1383
present notice is that contained in the 9th Clause, which provides the source from whence the advances made from the Consolidated Fund, under this Act, are to be repaid, viz. the poor rate. Now, I must entreat of the noble Earl to consider that the poor rate is already a very unpopular tax, and that to make it the medium of inflicting a penalty upon a district, would, therefore, be an act most impolitic, and add immeasurably to the danger that already attends the collection of the rate, and to the difficulty of poor-law administration in Ireland. I will not anticipate the result of the inquiry now proceeding into the operation of the Poor Law; but I will, without hesitation, say, that if the poor rate, instead of being turned to the account proposed in this Bill, were applied solely but fully to its legitimate purpose, of relieving the country from a vagrant and mendicant population, it would do much more to remedy the present state of crime in Ireland than would the Bill under your consideration; and I am decidedly of opinion that had the Poor Relief Act been duly carried out, and the masses of the population relieved from the pressure of destitution which leads so much to demoralize, alike by the effect of want, and by the contamination of bad associates, much of that crime which has called for this Bill might have been prevented. But so long as you have infesting the country a number of persons without any stake, without any interest in upholding the law, having nothing to lose and every thing to gain by its destruction—men otherwise destitute, but who prefer the craft of mendicancy, or even the wages of crime, to accepting the relief upon the terms that the State offers it; so long as you have such a vagrant population, and do not dare to meet an evil which, from its very nature, must be one of increasing magnitude—the longer a remedy is postponed, so long will one chief cause of the bloodshed that desolates Ireland continue in full operation, and the punishment of any district in which a crime occurs, may be as little deserved as if it were inflicted upon the most distant part of the country. The Amendment that I would beg to suggest for this clause of the noble Earl's Bill is, that the county cess should be substituted for the poor rate, as the source from whence advances from the Consolidated Fund should be repaid. I shall not at present make any further remarks upon the provisions of the Bill. I confess that upon the whole it does not appear to me quite what is required to meet
1384
the case: however, as it is brought in upon the responsibility of the Government as a measure necessary for the peace of the country, I shall, as a Member of this House, give it my support, but, as an Irishman, I must, at the same time, be permitted to express the pain and mortification with which I find the case of Ireland, year after year, dragged before the public in some manner or other, calculated to give a very unfavourable impression of the Irish character, and one, I must say, the very reverse of what nationally is true concerning my countrymen. The state of the country is indeed undeniable and most lamentable; but that it is referable to anything peculiarly bad in the Irish character I emphatically deny. Frightful as the state of crime is, that has grown up by a continuance of misrule, and by the operation of causes which no steps have been taken to remove. I will, nevertheless, refer even to the organization of disaffection and crime which has been this night described. I will refer to that implicit obedience which is yielded to the mandates of an usurped authority, as in itself conclusive proof that there exists in the Irish population a spirit of subordination, which a Government capable of duly fulfilling its functions should secure on the side of lawful authority. My Lords, I earnestly hope that this Bill may be productive of the good intended; but I also hope that the Government will consider of other measures also for the permanent amelioration of the condition of Ireland. I do not mean such measures as have been this evening hinted at, calculated only to catch a passing popularity by the infliction of some permanent injury to the institutions of the country; but I allude to measures that may be of lasting and essential advantage to the country, and tend to order, civilization, and happiness.
LORD CAMPBELLhad very readily given way to the noble Earl (Clancarty) whose observations, from his great information and his weight in the House, were much more deserving of attention than anything which he could offer. But at the same time he would have been sorry had the debate closed without his having had an opportunity of addressing them. He did not then wish to enter into the merits of the Bill. The state of Ireland was most deplorable: what the proper remedy for the evil might be, it was very difficult to determine; but as those who were more competent to form an opinion than he was, thought that the present was an experiment fit to be tried, he would

1385
not presume to offer it any opposition. He rose more for the purpose of entering a protest against the sentiments which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), with respect to giving a power to the prosecutor in every case to try the defendant at any distance from his place of abode. He agreed that there might be a state of things to render such a power necessary; and if it could be shown that the country was in such a deplorable state that witnesses were deterred from giving their evidence, and the jurors intimidated, he agreed that there wonld be some necessity of abridging the liberties of the people; and a power might be given to the Executive Government to change the place of trial until a better time should be restored to the country. But he had no difficulty in stating, from his study of the law and constitution, that that would be an encroachment on the just rights and privileges of the people of England and of Ireland. He admired, and he should continue to defend, the maxim of the common law of England, that a man was to be tried in the neighbourhood of the place where the offence had been committed. It was both for the advantage of the individual, and for the advantage of the public. If a man was innocent of the crime with which he was charged, he would be much better prepared to establish his innocence amongst his neighbours and those who knew his character and his habits. Besides, the expenses of carrying the witnesses to another place, perhaps at a great distance, were very great; but he said, for the sake of the public, it was most important that the trial, the sentence, and the punishment, should take place on the spot where the crime had been committed; and if a conviction resulted, and there were in the place others who had participated in the crime, it would undoubtedly have much more influence than if it had taken place at a distant part. A man innocently accused in his own neighbourhood, might be moved to a place where opinions, religious or political, contrary to those he himself entertained, were professed; and he might be convicted of the crime which he had not committed. Should they apply that principle to Ireland, would they give a power to move a man to be tried from the north to the south of Ireland, or vice versâ from the south to the north of Ireland? He thought that that was not a power to be given to the Government. He did not mean to insinuate that the power would be
1386
abused by the present Government; but it was a power which ought not to be intrusted to any one; and he would not allow it to exist for a moment in any part of the country, unless a real case of necessity were made out. [Lord BROUGHAM: That is the law of England.] His noble and learned Friend said, and he (Lord Campbell) was surprised to hear him say it, that that was the law of England. He (Lord Campbell) deemed it was not the law of England. The law of England permitted a change in the venue, but it was always subject to the decision of the supreme Court of Queen's Bench, who could change the venue on its being shown that a fair trial could not be had in the county where the offence had been committed, and who, upon that, would change the venue to the next adjoining county, or any other county where a fair trial could be had. [Earl of WICKLOW: It is the law of Scotland.] It was the law of Scotland, certainly; and he regretted to say that the criminal law of his native country was by no means so favourable to liberty as that of England: in Scotland, until lately, the Judges selected the jury; but he thought that would hardly be recommended as an example worthy of imitation. But, further, it had been laid down by the Scotch Judges, that the Court of Justiciary had power to create a new offence, some said short of life, others said capital. He hoped, therefore, the Scotch criminal law would not be urged as a precedent to be followed. If the Government could make out a case of necessity, the measure would be justified; and as their means of information were greater than his, he would not oppose the Bill, but content himself with entering the protest he had done, and saying, that it ought to be confined to two or three years at the most.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained, that he had only said that it was the law of England in cases similar in this respect, that convictions could not be obtained, viz., smuggling cases.
EARL GREYsaid, that though he regretted the necessity for this measure, and thought that some of its provisions required modification, yet, in his opinion, the noble Lord who introduced it had sufficiently established a case for arming the executive Government with some additional powers. But, at the same time, he could not think the question of passing this Bill so entirely unconnected with the question of the general policy to be

1387
pursued towards Ireland as several noble Lords seemed to imagine. Let it not be for a moment forgotten that this was not the first Bill of this description which the Imperial Parliament had been called upon to pass. On the contrary, though nearly half a century had elapsed since the Union with Ireland, it would be difficult to point out any consecutive five years in which the ordinary criminal law of the country had been alone in force in Ireland. There had been a series of extraordinary laws called for and passed, giving the Executive additional powers to secure peace and tranquillity to Ireland; with what effect, the dreadful statements made by the noble Earl opposite fully showed. The result, in fact, of all this extraordinary legislation had been merely to put down acts of outrage for the time, leaving the spirit of insubordination still in operation under the surface. So, with regard to the other measure announced in reference to Ireland, and which went to provide pecuniary relief for the immediate and deplorable distress in that country; measures of this kind, also, had been repeatedly passed by the Imperial Parliament, and, as clearly appeared from the statement of the noble Earl, without effecting any permanent improvement in the condition of the Irish people. In his opinion, these very statements of the result of past measures, proved that Parliament ought not now to content itself with merely passing similar measures to those which had been formerly passed under similar emergencies. He approved of passing the required measures under the circumstances; but he held that Parliament would not do its duty to the country unless it immediately followed up these temporary measures by others which should go to the root of the evil. What those ulterior measures ought to be, the second reading of the present Bill, he would fully admit, was not the fitting moment to discuss. But this he would say, at the same time, that if before this Bill left their Lordships' House—if, before its third reading there, they did not hear from Her Majesty's Government some account of their views and intentions on this all-important subject of future Irish policy; if Her Majesty's Government were not by that time prepared to lay before their Lordships some general plan of a comprehensive and statesmanlike policy—of a measure calculated to meet the real evil and go to its very root, then, he would say, it would be, in his opinion, the duty of that
1388
House—not to delay passing the present measure, not to refuse to the Government the powers which it said were necessary, but—to come to some solemn vote which should record their opinion of the necessity of adding to this measure, other measures of a broad and comprehensive description, calculated to prevent a recurrence of the evils now sought to be remedied. So strongly was he impressed with this conviction, that if no noble Lord of longer standing in that House than himself, and with greater claims to its confidence, took the matter up, he himself, unequal as he felt he was to the task, would, on the evening when this Bill should be read a third time, feel it his duty to submit to their Lordships in some shape or other—he was not prepared at the moment to say what—a Resolution or a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty, pledging the House not to rest satisfied with this measure, or with the other measure, however good in itself, for supplying relief to the immediate distress in Ireland, but to proceed further—to look more thoroughly and deeply into the source of the many evils afflicting Ireland, and to apply, with the least possible delay, remedies commensurate with the inveteracy of the malady. With reference to the details of the Bill before them, he highly approved of that part of it which threw on the various districts in which these offences took place the burden of providing for the sufferers or their families and of providing rewards for the apprehension of the offenders. This was a happy application of a part of the social policy of the wisest of our Saxon kings. He considered it, however, most important that a measure of this kind, good and expedient though it might be, should not be passed without a limitation of its duration. With reference to the clause respectng persons being out between sunset and sunrise, he thought that ought to receive some modification.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, in reference to the observations of the noble Marquess (Clanricarde) about the powers of local magistrates, that he was old enough to remember former Coercion Acts. When proposals were made for their renewal, charges were brought against the magistrates of Ireland by the parties who were opposed to the measure, that they availed themselves of the power of transportation conferred by these Acts, to get rid of persons whose lives were in leases, by the dropping of which the magistrates would benefit. Now, he wished to say, on

1389
behalf of the magistrates, that he was certain they would be well pleased to be relieved of these extraordinary powers altogether; and that the power of putting the law in force should be left altogether in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive. With these observations he cordially concurred in the provisions of the measure.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.