Sitting of 26 January 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Ripon, v. The Right Hon. Thomas Berry Cusac Smith, Master of the Rolls in Ireland; For Lichfield, v. Viscount Leveson, now Earl Granville.
PUBLIC BILLS—1°. Drainage, etc., (Ireland).
PRIVATE BILLS. [See Tabular Synopsis at the end of the Session,]
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Leicester, and a great number of other Places, against, and from Milnathorp, and several other Places, in favour, of the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From London, for placing Wheat and Wheat Flour, imported from British India and the Australian Settlements, on the came Footing in respect to Duties, as the like Articles, the produce of Canada.

NAVAL RETIREMENT.
ADMIRAL DUNDASwished to know from the hon. Member (Mr. Corry) whether the arrangement contemplated some time ago with respect to the allowances to officers retiring from the navy had been carried out?
MR. CORRYsaid, that the number of officers signifying their willingness to retire on those allowances was not sufficiently great to enable the Admiralty to carry the plan into operation, but the Admiralty had the subject still under consideration.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
House in Committee on Public Works in Ireland.
SIR THOMAS FREMANTLEmoved—
"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be authorized to direct advances to be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the said United Kingdom to an amount not exceeding 50,000 l., to be applied for Public Works in Ireland."
SIR H. W. BARRONhoped that the House was not about to stop at such a grant as that. It would be but a drop of water in the ocean as compared with the wants of the country.
SIR T. FREMANTLEhad looked at the whole state of the country, and the sum would be found not to be so insignificant as the hon. Baronet imagined. He (Sir T. Fremantle) had stated on Friday night last the sum of 50,000 l. would not be expended unless a similar sum were raised either by levy from the counties or by subscriptions of private individuals. But he had also stated that he would bring in a Bill to facilitate the building of harbours to protect the fishermen along the coasts of Ireland, and other works of a public character, which would afford employment.
MR. WILLIAMSbegged to be informed whether it were proposed to take the usual securities for the return of the moneys so advanced, or was the sum to be a grant?
SIR T. FREMANTLEreplied that the sum of 50,000 l. was to be an absolute grant. There were to be sums also at the disposal of the Treasury, which would be lent on security as loans; but the 50,000 l. now moved for, was in the nature of a grant.
COLONEL SIBTHORPasserted that no man in the House was more anxious than he was to provide employment for, and alleviate the distress of the people of Ireland, consistently with his duty as a Member of that House. But he was anxious to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland—and he hoped that he would speak distinctly, for there were hon. Members near him (Colonel Sibthorp) who heard him as indistinctly as himself—he should like to know what was actually going to be proposed in the nature of Public Works in Ireland? He liked nothing to be done in the dark in these days of darkness. He held in his hand the Thirteenth Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and he found no less than eleven statements of different works there. He wanted to ask the right hon. Baronet whether that grant of 50,000 l. was to be given in addition to what had been before granted. Although he did not mean to say that the money would be actually wasted in jobs, yet he wished to know how it was to be laid out, for he could not but remark that the Report before him gave an account of many jobs, and amongst others that job of jobs, the Shannon Harbour job. That was what he called an important consideration. There

185
had been quite enough exhibited already to entitle him to ask the question whether the sum of 50,000 l. was proposed to be in addition to what had been already granted annually?
SIR T. FREMANTLEwas ready to give the hon. Gentleman every possible information; and he would endeavour to make himself audible. That vote was to be in addition to the sum before granted for Public Works in Ireland, and he had stated, when he was previously on his legs, that those other grants were nearly exhausted. And if the hon. Member had given him notice of his intention to ask the question, he should have been prepared to reply more fully.
MR. HUMEwished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he intended by that vote to admit the principle that the public money was to be applied for the employment of the people? He recollected that, on former occasions, the admission of such a principle had been most sedulously avoided. The question he had to ask the right hon. Baronet was, to what purpose the money was proposed to be applied? Was it to be to the employment of the people? What good, he would ask, had arisen heretofore from such grants? He thought it desirable that it should be shown by specific accounts what relief those votes had before given to the people, or whether they had not rather been made available to the purposes of the landed gentry, for the building of a bridge, or something of the like sort. In England and Scotland every man was employed, and there was no necessity for votes of public money. Why was it not so in Ireland? The state of that country was attributable to misgovernment and bad legislation; and he protested against that mode of finding employment for the people, whilst other causes, which prevented their employment, were suffered to exist. By so doing they would only lend their assistance to perpetuate the state of things which now exists. If such a principle were to be established, he did not see why they should not act similarly towards Stockport or Paisley, or other places where distress might reign. He thought they should be informed how former grants had been applied before they agreed to the one at present sought for. He should be the last man to stop a vote which should give employment to the people of Ireland; but he thought that before the Imperial Parliament gave its assent to such a principle, other steps should be taken to
186
remedy the causes of distress. He wanted to see the people of Ireland on a perfect equality with the people of England and Scotland. He wanted to see every part of the kingdom alike. If asked to give his vote on that question, he should object to give money to any portion of the community in preference to others. He thought the right hon. Baronet ought to pause before he pressed such a Motion.
SIR ROBERT PEELbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman that every information he should require upon the subject should be most freely given. Nothing could be further from the intention of Her Majesty's Government than to permit the interests of individuals to be attended to or promoted by the outlay of such votes as the one under consideration. If the hon. Gentleman would look into the case, he would find that Parliament had placed a discretionary power in the hands of the Government with regard to the expenditure of those grants. They were not called upon to make particular disclosures with respect to the manner in which they were expended. For several years past it had been customary to vote sums of money to be so placed at the disposal of Government; and he could say that the present would be the last year they would be called on. But there were reasons which he could not at present explain for not entering into detail on the present occasion.
MR. HUMEcould only say, that it was because he had in his possession reports that took away from him all dependence on the mode in which public money was expended, that he offered the remarks he had just made. When the Parliament and the British public had come forward with large subscriptions to aid the poor in Ireland, he was able to show that a large portion of that money had gone to pay rents to the landlords. He was aware that terrible as were the sufferings of the people at the period he was speaking of, the approaching time, there was reason to fear, would be more severe than was anticipated. He merely wished that they should not adopt a dangerous principle. However, after the assurances of the right hon. Baronet, be would not oppose the Motion.
SIR H. W. BARRONonly regretted that the vote was so very trifling. [Laughter.] Gentlemen might laugh, but the condition of the people was much too serious to be made a subject for laughter. When famine was staring people in the face, was it a time to be haggling about a paltry

187
50,000 l.? and when he commented on it, Gentlemen, who professed to be political economists, must meet him with a laugh. He called it a paltry sum under the present awful circumstances of Ireland; and he spoke of his own knowledge, when he said that thousands and hundreds of thousands of people would shortly he without any other resources on earth than the charity of the country. Before many weeks passed over their heads, that would be the state of those people. He spoke from his own personal knowledge and examination of four counties in the south of Ireland, when he said that hundreds of thousands would shortly have nothing to depend upon but the charity of that House; and was it proper to meet him with a laugh by false political economists, because the vote did not meet their views? He repeated, it was a false policy to haggle about so small a sum, and he hoped that ere long he would see Her Majesty's Ministers come down to that House to demand that the people of Ireland should not be allowed to starve.
MR. WILLIAMS: As the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, by looking in his face when speaking of the laughter with which he had been met, and the false political economists, appeared to direct his allusion to him, he would beg leave to offer a few observations. He should be sorry to think that he had appeared unwilling to give any assistance to the people of Ireland, or not to sympathize with their sufferings; but if the principle were admitted that the people of this country were to be taxed for the relief of the occasional distress that occurred in Ireland, the present was certainly not the time for withholding it. But he did say that there were means of avoiding that public expenditure by doing justice to Ireland, by giving protection to life and property such as existed in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and by such means enabling capital to flow into the country, to bring with it its necessary consequences. He hoped when a measure of the nature under discussion was proposed, a proposition to introduce confidence into the country would be brought forward; and he felt sure that there was not a Member of the House who would hesitate to come forward in support of it.
VISCOUNT CLEMENTSbegged leave to differ from one expression of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who appeared to forget or to have paid very little attention to facts when he spoke of taxing the
188
people of England for the relief of the people of Ireland. He seemed to have quite forgotten the vast number of Irish landed proprietors who were living in England, paying taxes, and spending their incomes which were drawn from Ireland; and it appeared to him (Lord Clements) very unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to complain of some small portion of those taxes being returned to the people of Ireland as a loan for relieving their distress. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the enormous sums of public money expended in ornamental works in this country which would not and could not be reproductive; whilst he (Lord Clements) apprehended that most of the works about to be commenced in Ireland would be reproductive. He should support the vote.
DR. BOWRINGdid not think that the objection of his hon. Friends had been properly understood. They did not object to the security to be given for the loans; they only wanted to know, would the mode proposed remove the amount of misery expected to arise in Ireland; and they offered their cordial assistance to any measure which would be productive of that effect.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RAILWAY BILLS.
SIR R. PEEL: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Government have felt it to be their duty to avail themselves of the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the large number of railway plans which will probably be brought under its consideration; in order to take its opinion as to the best mode of dealing during the present Session with the great question of railway legislation. The attention of the Government has been directed to this subject for some time past, and they have collected together all the information which they think at all likely to be advantageous in its investigation; but they have at the same time felt it their duty, in a matter affecting so many private interests, rather to appeal to the authority of a Committee of the House of Commons than to submit any plan of our own for solving the railway difficulty which must ensue during the Session. As the organ of the Government, therefore, it is my duty to propose that a Select Committee he appointed to consider the mode in which the House shall deal with the Railway Bills proposed to be submitted to the House during the present Session. The Government have been

189
making all the necessary inquiries, and are prepared to lay before that Committee all the information that shall enable it to come to a satisfactory judgment as to the course to be pursued. I wish in the first place to call the attention of the House to the number of Bills which have been passed dining the last two or three years, and the amount of capital authorized to be raised by them. In the year 1844, there were forty-eight Railway Bills authorizing the raising of capital to the amount of 14,780,000 l. In 1845, that is, last year, 118 Railway Bills received the sanction of Parliament, giving powers to raise a capital of not less than 56,000,000 l. It is generally computed that it requires three years for the completion of a railway. At least it is now a matter of experience, I believe, that the average time required for the formation of a railway in this part of the United Kingdom is three years. If that calculation be correct, we shall find that, for the completion of the railways which have already received the sanction of the Legislature, it will be necessary to levy a sum of nearly 70,000,000 l., sterling on the capital of the country during the next three years; that is to say, in the year 1846 an amount of 23,500,000 l. will be required to be drawn from that capital, which is now employed in the usual channels of commerce and trade for the completion of railways within that year. In the year 1847, there will be required a further sum of 23,500,000 l. sterling; and in the year 1848 the sum of 18,000,000 l. must be drawn from the money circulation of the country for the same purpose. In making this calculation, I of course deduct, in the last year, the Railway Bills which passed in the year 1844, as, with respect to those schemes, a portion of the capital proposed to be raised has been already expended—but, including the complement of capital required for the completion of the railways authorized during the last Session, and the years 1843 and 1844, the sum to be levied for the execution of railway projects already passed, during the next three years, is not a less sum than 70,000,000 l. Now the sum of 23,500,000 l., I think it will be allowed, is a very large sum to be diverted in one year from the ordinary circulation of the country; and that amount devoted to railway enterprise will occasion a large drain upon the available capital of the kingdom. Yet these are the sums which we may presume will have to be raised under enactments which have already received the
190
sanction of the Legislature. We now approach the consideration of the number of railway schemes which we may expect will be brought under consideration during the present year. In whatever proportion, as compared with the total number deposited, those schemes may receive the sanction of Parliament, when they are in course of execution, there will be a still larger demand upon the capital of the country than I have stated. The number of railway plans for England, which were deposited at the Board of Trade by the time required by the Act of Parliament was 606. The number of railway plans for Scotland deposited at this time at the Board of Trade is 121, and the number of railway plans for Ireland deposited is 83. There have been therefore deposited at the Board of Trade not less than 815 different railway plans—the Bills for which will require the consideration and sanction of Parliament. I am aware that many of them are rival schemes for providing railway accommodation to the same district of country, more than one of which, for the same purpose, it is probable Parliament will not sanction; and in respect to several others, there is every reason to apprehend that from other causes they will not be proceeded with. It cannot, however, be disputed that there will be a great number of railway schemes brought under the consideration of Parliament in the ensuing Session—a number far exceeding that which has been brought forward at any former period. The railway schemes, the plans for which are at this moment deposited with the Board of Trade, involve the construction of not less than 20,687 miles of new railway; and so far as a judgment can be formed from the public advertisements of the various companies—and judging from the analogy of the expense of other new lines—the total amount of expense which is contemplated to be raised for the completion of these new railways is not less than 350,000,000 l. sterling. Making all deductions for the failure of rival lines, it is impossible, I think, to contemplate the application of such an enormous amount of capital to these undertakings, without a material disarrangement of the general currency and trade of the country. I think it is most important, therefore, at the earliest period of the Session that the House of Commons should consider what principles ought to guide them in railway legislation. Now, no one can feel more strongly than I do the objections which there are to the interference

191
either of the Government or the House, to stop legitimate speculation in railway or other private undertakings; call them speculations if you will: the feeling ought to be that private speculation and private enterprise should, as a general rule, be left undisturbed. And with regard to railways also, I for one feel most favourably disposed towards the application of British capital to legitimate enterprise rather than to foreign undertakings, calculated, as such enterprizes are, to promote the convenience of the public and the general welfare of the people. The question then is, whether there are good and sufficient reasons for interfering at all with the progress of railway speculation; and, if so, what should be the principles which guide and govern that interference? In the first place, then, I must say that I think there is great probability, after making every deduction from the total amount of railway plans deposited at the Board of Trade, namely, 815, and from the 20,000 miles of new railway which they comprise; after making every deduction for the number of mere rival schemes, and for the number which will not stand examination of the Board, or will not pass the ordeal of the House of Commons, or that will fail from other causes, I think there will certainly be such a number of plans left, as to make it almost totally impossible for the usual Committees of this House, bearing in mind the other important business that will have to be considered, to devote that proper attention to them which their extent and importance demand. We all know how great was the pressure upon hon. Members last year from this cause; and there can be no question that this year it will be still more severe. That alone, however, may not be a conclusive objection; and it may be said, if the House of Commons cannot dispose of this part of its business, it must consider whether it should appoint some other tribunal to which it should be referred; but I think it is a great and important question whether or no you will permit, or rather whether you will encourage the application of so large a capital to railway undertakings. Will it be consistent with the public advantage—will it conduce to the best interests of society, and the satisfactory carrying on of the railway system? I repeat I should be more willing to encourage the application of capital to British railway enterprises rather than to foreign undertakings: but the question is, is it for the advantage of sound railway
192
enterprises, that such an enormous amount of capital should at once be absorbed by railways? I doubt it. I doubt whether it would not be discouraging, rather than holding out encouragement to legitimate railway schemes, for I think it is probable that in consequence of the severe competition which would be created by the great and extraordinary demand for labour, and the great rise of prices which the application of such an amount of capital would occasion, the progress of the railway system would be considerably retarded. I think too, that many of the estimates would be found from these causes, greatly inadequate for the completion of the undertakings, and some of them altogether delusive. If the railway schemes proposed, were about to be carried on under existing legislation, I admit there might be objections raised of the gravest kind against any interference; but the intervention of Parliament is called for: it has to decide whether it will suffer—not the absence of interference, because a law must pass giving the direct sanction and encouragement of the Legislature to each scheme, but—the whole number of schemes to be carried into effect. If there be 600 or 500, or treble the number of railway bills we had under consideration last year, I doubt whether it would be possible for the House satisfactorily to inquire into the merits of each; and I still more doubt whether it would be for the public benefit that so extraordinary a demand for railways should be encouraged, or that such an enormous application of capital to one branch of enterprise, diverting it from all others, should be sanctioned by Parliament. I say I doubt whether it would be for the public advantage to encourage it; but, as I said before, Her Majesty's Government have thought in such a matter they should not proceed without the sanction of Parliament; and for that purpose it is my intention to move that a Parliamentary Committee, composed of men whose opinions, from their authority, will be entitled to the highest respect, should be appointed—that they should have referred to them the information the Government have already collected on the subject, and consider of some plan by which our future proceedings, in regard to railway legislation, should be governed. Her Majesty's Government has caused a plan to be prepared, which will be given to the Committee, showing the extent and direction of all the railways existing and proposed. All the

193
different schemes, the plans of which have been deposited, and which will come under consideration, have been classified under different heads, and the plans referring to existing lines have also been arranged in like manner; for instance, under one head is described those lines between the metropolis and a distant part of the country which are now incomplete, either from their being a void or from some part of them not yet being finished. Under another head are classed those railways which appear to give the greatest facilities of communication to those parts of the country which stand most in need of it—and another head embraces those railways connected with the internal defence of the country, that is, the coast lines. These different classifications have been already made, and the Committee will, on its appointment, thus be spared much labour which might have been necessary were there no previous preparation. I trust, therefore, that the House will approve of the proposal with which I shall conclude, namely, that a Select Committee be appointed, for the purpose of considering what course shall be taken with railways proposed to be submitted to the House during the present Session. I have abstained from mentioning many matters connected with this subject, as Standing Orders, &c.; but I trust that the Committee will make reports to this House from time to time of the result of their labours, and the conclusions which they shall have arrived at, by which the decisions of the House may be regulated. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the mode in which the House shall deal with the Railway Bills proposed to be submitted to the House during the present Session."
The Question having been put,
MR. GISBORNEhad listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but he was sorry to say that he had not derived much information from it. It appeared to him that the intention of the right hon. Baronet was to throw on a Committee what last year was the duty of the Board of Trade, and that a certain number of these schemes should, on the authority of the Committee, be stopped in limine. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed them what grounds the Committee would have upon which to come to a decision whether they would hear the parties, or simply be guided by the infor-
194
mation laid before them. Without intending any disrespect to the Members who might compose the Committee, he must say that he did not think their decisions would deserve more respect than those of the Board of Trade last year, simply because they would not have the information necessary for coming to a satisfactory decision. On one point he differed from the right hon. Baronet: he doubted whether the amount of money for the purposes of making railways next year would depend on the decision of the Committee. Even if the Legislature should pass all the schemes, he doubted whether it would make much difference in the amount of the capital applied. He believed the labour market and the money market would control the amount of capital, whatever the decision of the House might be. Fourteen or fifteen years ago a railway from Manchester to Sheffield was applied for. It was vehemently contested, and was opposed by the Bridgwater Canal Company. Parliament, after having heard evidence, came to the decision that the railway ought to be made; but the public thought differently, and though the Bill was passed the railway was never made. That showed that railways could only be made in proportion to the amount of capital which the country could spare. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to interfere. He did not think the House could sanction the appointment of the Committee without having a more clear explanation of what were to be its functions, and of the questions to be submitted to its consideration. He had never heard so meagre an explanation for so large a demand as that made by the right hon. Gentleman. He could not conceive how the proposed Committee was to determine upon the merits of any branch lines that might be most advisable to have first examined into. It appeared to him also that while this Committee was sitting, the progress of every Railway Bill before Parliament would be retarded, and indeed all the operations of railway legislation suspended, until the Committee concluded its labours.
SIR R. PEELtrusted that the information which this Committee would be enabled to collect and convey to the House from time, to time, in its reports, would be found most advantageous. He considered it better to avoid going into any more particular details on the present occasion, as it might be more expedient not to express any more decided opinion, which might be

195
supposed to convey the judgment of the Committee.
SIR G. GREYhoped the Government would have some of its Members on the proposed Committee, as it was only proper that it should be represented on the proposed body, and the views of the Government known. The adoption of any principle upon which a selection was to be made, was, in his opinion, a most important function, and particularly with reference to such Bills, for which the time for going before the Standing Orders' Committee was now so limited. In respect of these Bills, he did not think the proposed Committee could act fairly, unless a greater amount of time were afforded them. There was one thing, however, which he hoped had not escaped the Government, and that was the consideration or adoption of the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Sheffield—namely, that it would be desirable, as far as possible, without touching the jurisdiction of Parliament, to carry on all inquiries as to matters of fact, traffic, local affairs, &c., before some tribunal out of that House. He would only remind the House of the length of time occupied during the past Session by the inquiry of the London and York Committee as a proof that some such course as that referred to would be most advisable and convenient. Beside, there were a great number of Irish and Scotch Railway Bills, the expenses of which would be considerably lightened by having some such tribunal, before which their witnesses might be examined, and thereby prevent the necessity which now existed of summoning them here before a Parliamentary Committee. All the work connected with such business would be, by the adoption of some such plan, not only done with greater convenience to the House, but greater advantage to the public.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, it was morally and physically impossible for the House of Commons to attend to railway legislation alone, even if they had nothing else to occupy their attention, if the same system were to be pursued which was followed up last year. Under any circumstances they would, at least, have three times as much railway legislation during the present Session as they had during the last; and they might have six times as much if all the projects before Parliament were proceeded with. He agreed with the right hon. Member who spoke last, that it was quite possible to establish a tribunal to which
196
matters of fact might be referred, and that such tribunal should be independent of both Houses of Parliament, and ambulatory. The appointment of such a tribunal would save the promoters of all railway bills nearly 3l. out of every 4l. which they now spend in procuring the testimony of witnesses. For his own part he had but to say, in conclusion, that he would be very glad if such a tribunal as that referred to were established, independent, not only of Parliament, but of the Government also.
MR. CHARLES BULLERsaid, he looked upon this matter as one of so great importance, that he would make no apology, even at this period of the evening, for addressing a few observations to the House upon the subject. He trusted that the question of the railway management would be brought under the consideration of the House at a period when a comprehensive plan for a more perfect system could be taken into consideration. It must be borne in mind that the appointment of railway tribunals out of the House was, in fact, transferring their powers to another body; and he hold that it was a proceeding of great importance, and that the House ought to look with the greatest deliberation at all the bearings of such an appointment, before they consented to part with any portion of their jurisdiction. He could not, at the same time, with every desire to preserve the jurisdiction of Parliament, come to any other conclusion than that the proposal of the two hon. Members who had preceded him might be adopted, though it would materially affect the authority of Parliament. The mode of forming election committees was a very different matter, and bore no analogy to this; but with regard to railway committees, he would say, that if the House were to give up its authority to the Government on the question, it would be depriving the people of England of their legitimate rights, and he, as a Member of that House, of his local authority. He recollected last Session that some of his constituents waited upon him, and as he did not trouble himself much in these matters—for, in fact, he took no trouble in any thing he could avoid—well, these gentlemen requested that he would interest himself in behalf of the Cornish Railway, which was about being made in the neighbourhood of Liskeard; but he told them, that he could not interest himself, as there was no chance of his having any thing to do with

197
the matter, in consequence of his being Member for the town; as every question in which local interests were concerned, instead of being examined by the local representative were taken away by the present system, and transferred to a body of gentlemen who were quite strangers to the county, and who had little or nothing to do with its interests. When the House delegated a matter to a committee of its own body, they said, "We cannot make an inquiry into the circumstances of this cause; but you must do it and report to us." The House, however, was not bound by this report; but they took the suggestions it contained and weighed them well, and, if thought advisable, adopted them. The House would always pay great attention to the proceedings of any committee to whom they delegated their powers; and such a body would, no doubt, be very useful, in the way of giving information, and enlightening the minds of the Members of either House. Such a body were particularly able to take into consideration all questions of the expediency of the measures which must be considered before they were passed. There were many instances in which two inquiries had been instituted before Committees of the House of Lords, and of the Commons also. These were not different kinds of tribunals, but the same evidence twice repeated. This he considered preposterous. What was the effect last Session? The Commons' Committee upon the London and York Railway sat no less than eighty-four days, and when the matter went to the Lords, there was a prospect of its occupying eighty-four days more there; but the Bill was dropped from an absolute impossibility of the promoters being able to get it through before the conclusion of the Session. The present system of going over the same case before two committees was, he considered, a waste of time. A number of Gentlemen were put upon a committee, they went into the whole nature of railway matters, and in fact, learnt the A, B, C of them; they heard the speeches of counsel, the evidence of engineers and other information, as in the case of the London and York; and then, with their accumulated knowledge, the instant they had decided upon the matter they were turned loose upon society. Another and another committee had to be instructed in railway affairs; and much time was lost between the wrangling of counsel and their lengthened addresses, lasting for thirty or forty
198
days, at fifteen guineas a day, which was a strong stimulant for the learned gentlemen to go on and instruct committee after committee, by stating the same facts and arguments for their respective guidance. Now, a tribunal sitting exclusively to examine railway schemes, would say to the counsel, when they were commencing their oft-told tale — "We don't want to hear that again; we have heard it before; and we have made up our minds upon the subject." Still this was necessary to be gone through by each different committee; and his opinion was, that so long as these committees went on, they would never be able to get through with the business; but if they had a permanent body, there would be no such trifling with time as there was at present. There was another topic which it would be just as well for the House to recollect; viz., that in all their inquiries it was above all things most desirable that the Members of that House ran no risk of being charged with partiality, or of having their motives misunderstood. Before the commencement of last Session, the House had a very considerable idea with regard to the railway business that was likely to come before them. That was, however, now taken away from them; and no inquiries had, it appeared, been made by the Board of Trade. It had been objected, that the inquiries by the Board of Trade had only reported upon one-third of the schemes which were brought before them; they had no power to hear objections, but could only form their judgment upon the engineers' report, and the quality of the lines proposed. It was quite clear, therefore, that the reports of that body could not be taken as authority by the House; he did not know whether or not this arose from any feeling that too much power ought not to be given to the Board of Trade in these cases; and herein he thought the great objection to the Board of Trade lay—in not having sufficient power delegated to them to discharge their duty. With regard to the question of a commission out of the House, it should be composed of gentlemen who possessed a practical knowledge of matters, who had got the habit of deciding quickly on them, who would possess such a mass of information which could never be got in the Houses of Parliament. He would give the handsomest salaries that could be given to any commissioner or public functionary whatever. If Parliament were to do so at the expense of the

199
promoters of the various schemes that were to come before them, those promoters would take care to economise the public time, as they would thereby save themselves expense. It was the first business of a magistrate to administer justice cheaply but efficiently; this, in reference to railway matters, according to the present system, could not be done. He hoped that a commission would be appointed.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad a great distaste for what were called commissions; and he still retained that distaste for such enormous sums of the public money to be paid away for these commissions. His humble opinion was, that they were nothing more or less than Government jobs. It was evident, from the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, that he purposed paying by the job, and not by the day; so that after this commission had concluded its sittings, it would be necessary for another committee to be appointed to inquire how far the commission had usefully employed their time before they received one sixpence of the public money. Far be it from him to entertain any unfavourable feeling against any of the Gentlemen who had been proposed by the right hon. Baronet to form this Committee; but what he had done on a former occasion, he felt it to be his duty to do again. Individually, he cared nothing about it; but he stood there to represent a great body of the people, and on their behalf he claimed the right of demanding that neither of the members of the proposed Committee for the investigation of the important schemes to be brought before them, should be directly or indirectly interested in them. Parliament should not sanction measures which would tend to destroy industry. Some hon. Members talked of the public good; but they only meant one word for the public, and two for themselves; and he hoped they should not again see such measures discussed in a House of twelve or fifteen Members. He was a protectionist; and he believed the right hon. Baronet was not. He wished to protect our native industry; and he repeated that he hoped no hon. Gentleman who might be interested would be placed on the Committee, but that each Member of it should be called to the bar of the House, and made to declare that he had no interest in any railway whatever.
MR. HUDSONsaid: I am afraid I am not one of those very disinterested indi-
200
viduals whom the hon. and gallant Colonel has described as the only proper persons to sit on the proposed Committee; but I feel it due to myself and the interest I represent to make a few observations on what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He proposes that a Committee shall be appointed to consider, and that immediately, what schemes ought to be submitted to Parliament and receive the sanction of the Legislature. I would suggest to the right hon. Baronet, that there are two ordeals through which those schemes ought to pass before that Committee enters upon the performance of its duties. We ought to know of the different schemes lodged at the Board of Trade, whether they are in a proper position to be carried out from a sufficient deposit of money; and, in the next place, whether they are able to pass through the Standing Orders' Committee, or not? Unless these points are attended to, the Committee might recommend many schemes which the promoters may not be in a position to carry out; in consequence of which, other schemes which may not be open to such an objection, and which, perhaps, on the whole would be as beneficial to the districts through which it is proposed they should pass, may be rejected, and such localities lose the benefit of them. And, therefore, I would suggest that, until the Bills are brought into the House, the deposit lodged, and some progress has been made before the Standing Orders' Committee, that the Committee proposed by the right hon. Baronet should not proceed to report to the House. I am not alarmed, as the right hon. Baronet seems to be, as to the amount of money which would be required for the execution of the works before the public. This money is not going out of the country. One-fifth of all railway projects, if executed, goes, in the first instance, into the pockets of the landowner, and very likely he invests it in undertakings that pass through his district; perhaps he pays off some mortgage, or perchance he embarks it in some other railway schemes. In the next place, it must be remembered that a very large proportion of the money goes to the iron-masters and others, who have to supply materials; and then the amount expended in labour must not be forgotten; and I may remark that perhaps the best way to alleviate the distress in Ireland is by affording employment in the execution of great public works. The right hon. Baronet proposes that the amount of money shall be limited;

201
but who is to determine what the sum shall be? I will imagine a case: in fact I can cite one from my own district—a large district: I mean Yorkshire. A line has been projected, of which I happen to be the promoter, for 70 miles. The district is in great want of railway communication to get their produce to market; and it will be so more particularly, when the right hon. Baronet brings forward measures which the farmers and others will have to contend with; and why should you deny to those persons the execution of the proposed works, if the money and everything else is ready for the purpose? It seems giving to the proposed Committee a power which they ought not to possess. It is said that they are only to report to this House; but I have learned sufficient to know that the report of a Committee is very paramount, and it is of little use for any individual Member to contend against it. The great point to determine is, first, whether the proposed works are of national importance, and then whether they are laid out in such a manner as to secure advantages to the districts through which it is intended they should pass. If they present these recommendations, I doubt not that money will be found for the execution of all useful projects. Moreover, I have no doubt that long before they have passed through the Standing Orders of the House—long before the time has arrived for the money to be wanted, these schemes will be considerably cut down, and if they are spread over three years, they can be accomplished without any derangement of the monetary affairs of this country; if our money is not called out for other purposes—for South American bonds—and provided it does not go out to buy corn. I do not wonder that there should be some alarm at the derangement of the currency. If the prospect be that we shall have large importations of foreign grain, it will behove us to button up our pockets, and deal with the results; but the time has not arrived yet. I am, however, quite certain, that if the House will apply themselves fairly and carefully to the consideration of the different measures that will be submitted to them, this House is competent to deal with them in a manner satisfactory to the country. It is true there are defects in this tribunal, and I have myself, at times, been greatly aggrieved by some of the decisions which this House has come to; at the same time, I have, upon cool reflection, considered the decisions of the committees to be right; and
202
I have always respected the decisions of this House; and although I am largely connected with measures that may come before Parliament, I am quite prepared to abide by the decisions of this tribunal. The principal reason for my rising, was to make the suggestions which I have thrown out; namely, that until parties were in a position to go on with their Bills in the manner in which I have pointed out, until they have deposited their plans and complied with all the Standing Orders—and it is well known that many of the plans are imperfect, and others mere duplicates—I say, until the House is satisfied of all this, it will be useless for the Committee to consider any such schemes with a view to report to the House those which are most eligible. I am, however, satisfied that the business may be got through with to the satisfaction of the public and the honour of the House.
MR. F. MAULEhad readily given way to the hon. Gentleman opposite; and although the House would not be able to command his services on committees, yet, from the speech which he had just delivered, the House would see that they had gained a valuable Member in the person of the hon. Gentleman, whose experience and advice on such matters would be most important. He believed that there never had been a more important committee than that which the right hon. Baronet had proposed, and he thought it should have been selected with great care, because the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that questions of a vast deal greater importance were to be referred to the proposed Committee than ever had been referred to a committee before; and, in fact, of greater importance than ought to be submitted to a committee at all. The right hon. Baronet proposed to submit to a committee the decision of the amount of capital which should be limited for making railways. Now this, he thought, should have come in a direct way from the Government—from the Financial Minister of the Crown, and he thought it of the greatest importance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be placed in his official capacity on such an inquiry. He was of opinion that all portions of the Empire where railways were going on should be fairly and equally represented in that Committee. Now, he did not find that that part of the country to which he belonged was so fairly represented as it ought to be. This had, personally, no influence with him, as he had

203
great confidence in the names generally on that Committee; but it would have great influence with the people resident in that country. He found that the only Member on the Committee from Scotland was the hon. Member for Dumfries—a Gentleman not a native of Scotland, and non-resident in that country; and therefore, whatever confidence the people of Scotland might have in that Gentleman, he was not so well qualified as others might be to represent that country. Had the Members for Glasgow, or Dundee, or Edinburgh, been on the Committee, it would have given it that confidence which it was in the highest degree desirable such a committee should possess. He concurred with the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir G. Grey) that a commission should have the power of entering upon inquiry into matters of fact, and of discharging a great part of its heavy business; a committee made up from both Houses of Parliament, with power to make a report, which should be final, so far as all evidence was concerned. With these observations, and trusting that if the Committee was to be named, the right hon. Baronet would name such a committee as would have the fullest confidence of the country, he would leave the matter in the hands of the House; but he thought it better to protest now, rather than afterwards, against the omission of a proper representation of the country from which he came.
MR. C. RUSSELLdid not anticipate, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, the evil effects from the proposed Committee which had resulted last year from the decisions of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. As he understood the right hon. Baronet, there was no similarity at all in the line of investigation. It was the duty of the Board of Trade to investigate the merits of different lines, and although they devoted vast labour and ability to it, and although he was not one of those who imputed improper motives to them in the opinions which they gave, still he thought they had undertaken a task which it was impossible for men to encounter; and they could not arrive at safe and sound conclusions upon the matters under their consideration. The object of the Committee now proposed, as he understood it, was not to investigate the merits of any particular line, but to ascertain whether it were not possible to postpone some of the measures, and to consider whether some large general, just, and universal principle might not be devised, by which
204
they should select a certain portion of the projected railways to proceed with. Such a duty he thought it was possible for them to execute with great justice to all parties, and great advantage to the country. In such an investigation, if a preference was to be given, he trusted it would be shown to the railways of Ireland—believing as he did, that the great evils of that country resulted not so much from religious dissension or political variance, as from the destitution of the people. It would be most useful, therefore, to give them employment, especially under their present circumstances, when they were threatened with so great a calamity. He thought, in fact, they were bound to distribute some of the superabundant British capital which would be applied to the formation of railways amongst that necessitous people. He, for one, would say to the Committee—postpone as long as you can many of the proposed railways, or spread them over as wide a space of time as may be practicable; and, above all, expose and discountenance every bubble scheme which may come under your consideration.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it seemed to him that some very important questions had been raised in this discussion. In the first place, there was the question raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir G. Grey), whether the same business which was now done by their Committees might not be done out of the House. That view had been supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), who appeared to him to give the proposition a very strong support; but, at the same time, his hon. Friend said, he must say that it was a question which required much deliberation; and he thought that no measure could be beneficially adopted in conformity with it without taking further time for consideration. Then there was another question raised, on which the House had heard the opinion of two hon. Members, both very well qualified to give an opinion on this subject, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. G. Hudson), and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. C. Russell). The opinions of those hon. Members differed very widely. The hon. Member for Sunderland said, that it would be a very strong interference on the part of Parliament to limit the amount of capital to be laid out in railways. He thought the very same thing; and that when all the landlords owning land along a line were

205
agreed to it, and the money was all ready, and everything prepared for Parliament to interfere and place a veto upon the construction of the railway, and declare the project should not be carried into effect, would be a very great interference with the disposition of capital. The hon. Member for Reading, however, said, that if so much money as would be necessary for the deposits were withdrawn from the circulation, a great derangement of the money market would take place, and much inconvenience in the labour market would be felt from making so many railways all at once; and he owned, that if that should be the case, the question became so grave a one, that he thought it ought not to be referred to this Committee in the first place, but that the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer should first come forward and say what were the inconveniences of this nature which they apprehended from this course, and what were the limits of it; and that then the question should be referred to this Committee. But the question, he must own, was too great, in his opinion, to be referred, in the first instance, to this Committee, consisting of a small number of Members; they ought not to be called upon to say what ought to be done, without some previous statement of this kind. Parliament did not interfere to prevent the application of capital in other directions: loans for the construction of public works in Germany, America, and other countries, were continually making by the capitalists of this country, and Parliament had not interfered. There might be some necessity for this; but he owned he thought that some strong case ought to be made before a question of such magnitude was referred to the decision of a Select Committee. If the right hon. Baronet thought that a Committee should be appointed in the first instance, he hoped at least that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a member of the Committee, and then he could state to the Committee what measures he thought ought to be adopted, on which the Committee would report to the House. Really the question was of the greatest importance to the country.
MR. H. HINDEconcurred in thinking the question was one of the greatest importance to the country; but he did not look on the Committee as an executive committee, but simply as one appointed to receive information, and report to the House, and he should not have thought it
206
necessary to address the House had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Baronet; for he felt that if the public understood that speech as he did, and as he believed the House did, great alarm was likely to arise. He understood that the right hon. Baronet proposed the Committee should, in the first place, divide the railways now before the public into certain classes, that a map should be formed, and that the railways marked red in the map should be passed, and the railways marked blue not passed. But it must be remembered that Parliament had said this to parties out of doors, "We have laid down certain conditions; we call on you to lay down a certain amount of deposits, and that having been done, you are to consider that Parliament will be prepared to consider your projects." This being the case, he said, that Parliament could not dispose of these projects, the promoters of which had acted on the faith of this declaration without giving in each individual case to the members of it an opportunity of making out a case for themselves. He would say, prescribe the greatest strictness to the Committee in the investigations they are to institute, and let the Standing Orders' Committee be not lax in allowing companies to pass the Standing Orders; but he was opposed to so wide a departure from the system at present in force. With regard to the difficulty of dealing with this great number of railway schemes in committee, he confessed he did not feel it, for he believed that it would be found that the number of lines coming out of the Standing Orders' Committee would not so greatly exceed those of last Session as many Members supposed. The House must remember that a much greater number of railway committees might have been formed last Session than were formed. There was one other subject on which he would say a word. They would in vain try to limit the expenditure of the money of the public by saying that only a certain number of railway projects should pass; for unless they prevented persons from embarking their money in foreign railways, and other such undertakings, the only effect of the new arrangement would be to prevent the sums thus driven abroad from fructifying in this country. Although these opinions might be contrary to those of the majority of the House, he was conscious that he represented and reechoed opinions which were widely extended out of doors.
MR. P. M. STEWARTcould not wonder, after the experience of last year, at the apprehensions which some hon. Members entertained as to the possibility of getting through their business. Last year they had had a preliminary inquiry of that House, assisted by the Board of Trade, whose proceedings ran to such a length that the 20th of April arrived before a single line got into committee, and the consequence was, that, using all the despatch of which they were capable, it was impossible to get through the business. Immense as the business was which threatened them at present, he had no doubt, if they applied themselves with despatch to it, that they could get through it better than they did through the limited business of last year. He was anxious that no time should be lost, and that the right hon. Baronet should urge his Committee not to make a number of reports from time to time, but to come forth at once with their final report, that the parties before the House might know what the course of business was to be; and he must say that it was a little reflection on them as men of business, that at that time they should still be deciding upon what course they should have to take. As, however, they had not yet resolved upon a course, they must now decide what they should do; and they must remember that whatever they determined on this Session would be applicable to the Bills of next year; for they might depend upon it that next Session as many Bills would be presented for their consideration as would be brought before them this year. Were they not intersecting the country from the north to the south, and from the east to the west? The extent of turnpike roads in England and Wales was immense; and if those roads were to be replaced by railroads, it was quite clear that every succeeding Session of Parliament for a long period would bring before the House additional and necessary plans of railway lines of communication. They would require this railway communication instead of the communication by turnpike roads; and therefore he thought that they ought not to disparage this desire to provide lines of railway communication, but to hail it as a source of national wealth and power. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, that the House ought not to be deterred by figures; and for his part he thought the expenditure named by the right hon. Baronet would not meet the exigencies of the case. The addition to
208
the disposable capital of the country was 50,000,000 l.; and how much better would it be that the investment of that capital should be in our own country than that it should be directed to other countries. He doubted much as to whether the duties which would devolve on the Committee could be discharged in such a manner, and with so little delay or consumption of time, as the right hon. Baronet anticipated. He should approve of the appointment of the Committee, if he thought that it would lead to a greater facility of proceeding with railway business by the House; but he very much doubted whether that result would follow from its appointment. He hoped that, seeing the great necessity for speed, and the avoidance of delay, which existed as regarded railway matters, the right hon. Baronet would urge upon the Committee the necessity of facilitating that despatch as far as such was possible. The House would be further convinced of this fact, by recollecting that, on Monday next, there would be upwards of thirty Railway Bills before the Standing Orders' Committee.
MR. PLUMPTREexpressed his regret that the 30th of November, the last day for depositing the plans, should have fallen on a Sunday. If it were in the power of the Board of Trade to have prolonged the time even for one day, they ought certainly to have done so, and thereby avoided those numerous violations of the Sabbath of which they were all aware.
MR. RICARDOregretted that none of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had thought fit to answer the question of the noble Lord the Member for London. They (the Government) had said to many railway companies, "If you comply with the conditions which we propose, we will take care that your case shall be considered." Several companies had complied with those conditions, and it was now proposed to put those companies in the same position with those which had not complied with the conditions as they had been required. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of a map which he was to lay before the Committee; but the effect of that proposal on his mind would be, that if he (Mr: Ricardo) was concerned in a railway line, he should write to his engineer, telling him not to mind in the line which he projected tunnelling, or anything else of that nature, but to draw a straight line on the map, and the straightest line would be likely to be considered the best. The result of the course proposed would be

209
to encourage companies to proceed, which, in other circumstances, would have no chance of proceeding, as those which had not complied with the necessary preliminaries might proceed, with the hope of being enabled to go before the House with better chance of success in the ensuing year. He looked upon the proposal as a clumsy contrivance, and he would remark, with respect to the amount of deposits and mode of requiring them, that it would have been a great deal better if, when every project was registered, a certain small deposit were required, as in that case the deposits would be paid by the projectors of the railway companies, whereas, in the present case, they are paid by the companies. The right hon. Baronet had come before the House at the eleventh hour—[laughter from the Ministerial Benches]—yes, at the eleventh hour. They had made certain special arrangements last year for the guidance of those proceedings, and when those who were concerned complied with all the conditions which were required, or were prepared to comply with them, the right hon. Baronet, at the eleventh hour, came down to the House of Commons, and told them they were to make new arrangements. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not leave so much capital in suspense, or cause any unnecessary delay or inconvenience to those great national undertakings; for, however it might be the fashion to decry them, they were great national undertakings, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would distinctly tell the House what he meant to do.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, as well as the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gisborne), appeared to think that the Committee which his right hon. Friend had recommended was merely to perform the same duties as the Board of Trade had performed last year, with reference to the subject of railways. But such was not the case. With respect to the map, the hon. Member had stated that the effect of its introduction would be to induce the Committee to approve of the straightest line, without reference to other considerations. Now the object of the map was this, and the object he should remark was one which had been distinctly described by his right hon. Friend;—the map was to have three descriptions of lines traced upon it, and distinguished by three different colours: the lines in operation to be of one colour; the lines which had been
210
sanctioned by Parliament, but were not as yet in operation, to be coloured differently; and the lines which were projected, but had not as yet received the sanction of Parliament, to be of a third colour, to distinguish them from the two former classes. With respect to the amount of capital to which the operations should be limited, the question did not rest with the Government, but it was to be brought before the Committee, and considered by them. But, in order that the fullest opportunity for coming to a proper decision might be afforded to the Committee, the Government were prepared to lay before them the conclusion to which they had arrived as to the amount of capital which ought to be named as the limit. The Government, he ought to add, would not only lay before the Committee their conclusion on that subject, but also upon other important questions connected with the matter, for their consideration. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. P. M. Stewart), appeared to doubt the expediency of any restrictions to the amount of capital to be invested in those operations; but when they considered the number of projects—when they considered the number of Bills deposited in the Private Bill Office, he was sure that the majority of the House would agree with him in thinking that some limitation was necessary. The hon. Member appeared to think the sum of 23,000,000 l. was insufficient. That subject would receive the consideration of the Committee; and he could only repeat, that looking at the number of projects, and recollecting the great sums which the outlay with reference to other interests would require, he thought there ought to be some limit agreed upon. Another subject which the Committee would have to consider was, as to the payment of deposits by the various companies, previously to their going before the Standing Orders' Committee; and he was sure that the Committee would dispose of it in the most satisfactory manner. He thought that these points ought very properly to be brought before the Committee. It was not the intention of the Government to throw those subjects loosely before the Committee. On the contrary, the Government would lay before the Committee the conclusions at which they had arrived with respect to them.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that irrespective of other questions, the Committee would be called on to decide no less a question than what was the maximum sum which the Legislature would allow to be

211
invested in railways, in the ensuing Session of Parliament; and, he must say, that a graver question could not be presented to any assembly. That, he would say, was a question which ought not to be referred to any Committee, but which ought to be proposed by the Government to the House of Commons. It was a question upon which, if the Government had made up their minds, they ought, at the beginning of the Session, to come down, not for the proposal of a Committee, but to lay the subject directly before the House of Commons. If the Government acted in that manner, the House of Commons would be found to be the best tribunal to decide on what course to take. The right hon. Baronet opposite had done him (Mr. Labouchere) the honour of proposing him as a member of the Committee; but he would say, that, when he first heard of the appointment of the Committee, he thought that the Government would come forward with a matured scheme to facilitate the despatch of the great mass of railway business which was to come before the House in the ensuing Session. He was of opinion that, with the experience of last Session before them, they might have taken steps which would facilitate the progress of railway business in this Session. That was quite a different question from the one to which he alluded at the commencement; and he regretted very much that the question of what was to be the maximum of capital was to be brought before the Committee; for it was a question that peculiarly required to be brought by the Government before the House of Commons. The Government ought to make a proposal, and let the House of Commons judge of it. He agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard in thinking that immense sums of money had been thrown away during the last Session of Parliament, in consequence of the want of arrangement; and that ought to form another reason for inducing them to avail themselves of the experience of last year, in order to frame a matured plan of arrangement for this Session of Parliament. There was one expression which had been used by the hon. Member, and which would lead to the idea that all the decisions come to last year were not free from suspicion out of doors. When he considered the manner in which the committees of last Session had discharged their onerous and invidious duties, he could not but hope that the impression out of doors was that they had discharged them with as clear a character
212
as it was possible for the members of any assembly to possess. He should, indeed, be sorry if there was any impression out of doors that the Members of that House had lowered themselves, as, on questions affecting property, their decisions deserved to be looked on with jealousy; and he should regret, indeed, if Members of that House did not stand with all persons as high as their conduct had shown them to deserve. During the last Session they had to deal with questions in which the interests often of their friends or constituents were deeply concerned; and he should much regret if any party differed from him in thinking that they discharged their duties in a manner which could not be excelled by any other assembly. He should rejoice if the Committee about to be appointed would do any thing to facilitate the progress of railways in the present Session of Parliament; but if so great a question was to be involved as the discussion of the merits of particular lines, there could be little advantage or propriety in referring it to a committee.
MR. W. R. COLLETTthought that the House had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government what was the exact proposition which they were going to submit to the Committee. He did not mean to say that he expected the Government to explain the details of the proposition; but they ought to acquaint the House with its general nature. The hon. Member for London (Mr. Masterman) had said in a former debate, on Friday last, that great inconvenience would arise in consequence of the determination of the Government to adhere to the Standing Orders with regard to deposits. He had already felt great inconvenience himself from this source, not as a railway projector, but as an humble banker; and he was quite sure that the same inconvenience must have been felt elsewhere. He wished to know whether the country was to go on much longer in the same way, as he was satisfied that every day would add to the inconvenience which had already been suffered. He should feel it his humble duty to oppose the appointment of the Committee, unless he knew the exact object for which it was to be appointed. He was still of opinion that a commission out of the House would satisfy the public more than any of the railway committees consisting of Members of the House, which sat last year; although he was sure that those Gentlemen had done their duty to the best of their ability. A commission

213
had already been appointed by the Government to determine the question of the gauges; and he did not see that a commission to determine the merit of the several railway projects would go much further. He hoped that if the Committee proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were appointed, they would report in a very short time, and before the time for paying in the deposits had expired. If that were done quickly, no great harm would arise; but if delay were permitted, much inconvenience must ensue.
MR. FRENCHexpressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no intention existed on the part of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the progress of the different railway bodies, and that they would be permitted, after doing every thing in their power to comply with the Standing Orders, to proceed in the ordinary course. It would manifestly he a great act of injustice to prevent the promoters of such Bills from going before Committees of the House. Notwithstanding the very great number of plans and sections which had been deposited with the Board of Trade, he entertained no fear that those projects which would come before the Committee would be too much for the strength of the House; but of the eight hundred and odd railway schemes which had complied with this branch of the Standing Orders, he was sure that nothing like one hundred would eventually be proceeded with. When the House took into consideration the very late period of the Session when they began with the Railway Bills last year, having been obliged as they were to wait for the Report of the Board of Trade, and when they reflected that they could now begin business at a comparatively early period, he did not think there was any reason to apprehend that the House would be unequal to the task imposed upon it.
COLONEL ANSONwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that his Committee should take evidence, in order to enable them to decide on the merits of different lines? If so, where would be the end of their labours? The Session of Parliament would be at an end before the Committee could finish what they had to do. What he would propose was, to allow the different railway schemes to proceed as before, and pay their deposits. They should also be allowed to go before the Standing Orders' Committee, and be thoroughly sifted and drafted
214
through the ordeal there prepared for them. If they did that it would then be in the power of the House to deal with them as they thought fit. He would recommend that the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint should have the power merely of grouping these railways. They could not go into the merits of each individual line, which must be decided by select committees of the House of Commons, or by a commission out of the House, which he (Colonel Anson) for one should prefer. He certainly had a very strong opinion himself on the question of interference with railways. The checks already imposed upon them would reduce the number so considerably that those which at last found themselves in a position to come before the committees would not be found too many to deal with. With respect to the railway committees themselves, he believed that the general opinion out of doors about them was, that they had performed their duties, not only with great patience, but with great ability.
MR. PARKERsaid, that the question really was, whether any plan could be devised for the disposal of the private business in a satisfactory manner, or whether they were to leave a greater number of remanets at the end of this Session than at the termination of the last Session of Parliament. He believed that persons interested in the success of railway projects would be much better satisfied if the House would tell them to go home and save their money, when there was no reasonable prospect of the schemes being taken into consideration, than if they were to keep them dancing attendance till July or August at an enormous expense, and after all send them home with the uncertainty whether they would ever be allowed to appear again. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a very wise course in proposing the appointment of a Committee, and he trusted that he would have the fortitude to persevere. There would be a great advantage in the present year in appealing from the railway world drunk to the railway world sober. He was quite sure that a great number of persons who had embarked in these schemes would not be dissatisfied by their postponement for a time. His view of the matter was this—that parties had planned a great number of schemes, because they knew that if they did not, others would take the ground from them. He agreed with the right hon.

215
Baronet the Member for Devonport, in thinking that a great deal might be done to simplify the proceedings before railway committees. His (Mr. Parker's) opinion was that a great part of the time occupied was wasted, as it was spent in proving what nobody cared anything at all about; namely, the amount of traffic on the projected line. He, for his own part, did not believe that any railway was backed because there was such traffic, or that any railway had been thrown out because the requisite amount of traffic had not been proved. It appeared to him that if the proposed Committee were to look narrowly into that branch of evidence which was now required to be proved before a railway committee, a great deal of time might be saved. He took it for granted that the first thing which the Committee would do would be to lay down some general rule for the guidance of the select committees, and he hoped that there would be some rule upon the subject of traffic. It ought not to be forgotten that the House did not sit there merely for railway purposes, as they did, in a manner, last Session. He had spent more time himself upon them than he ever meant to spend again. He did not think that there would be the smallest breach of faith committed by the House, if they did not attempt to do that which was impossible. Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia. Let the Committee do what was necessary to be done, and let them do it quickly.
MR. POULETT SCROPEexpressed his concurrence in the views taken of this subject by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. J. Parker); and, adverting to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), thought it was well worthy of consideration whether it would not be advisable to supersede altogether Committees of that House as tribunals on Railway Bills, and to appoint a Government Commission for that purpose—a Commission to be composed of men who, from their experience, skill, and capacity, coupled with the position in which they would be placed, would be above all suspicion, and at the same time most competent to deal with the subject-matters which would be brought before them. He had himself been one of those patriots to whom allusion had been made, who had sacrificed eighty-four days of the last Session in a Committee on one group of Railway Bills; and hence he could fully appreciate the necessity which existed for some different
216
arrangements. At present, if a line running to A, B, or C, stood referred to a committee, from the beginning to the end of the inquiry, all the parties who appeared before the committee addressed themselves to that body, with a view to confuse and confound the ideas of its members, and to make them incompetent to discriminate between the sound and false opinions which might be submitted to them by either side. If the same questions were submitted to a Government Commission, composed of practical and experienced persons, he had not the least hesitation in saying that such inquiries, instead of occupying eighty-four days, might be determined in a just, proper, and equitable manner in eight hours, especially if the traffic tables were deposed to by experienced and competent witnesses. Throughout the country, it was well known that the great object of the parties who appeared before railway committees was, to confuse the members. This was the practice both of promoters and opponents, and to it was to be attributed those delays which were extremely painful to all persons concerned. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee intended by the present Motion to be appointed would, amongst the other points referred to, consider the propriety of appointing a Government Commission to supersede the Parliamentary Committees, to whom the jurisdiction on Railway Bills was now, in some degree, delegated. And he would ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in what way a Parliamentary Committee, consisting of five gentlemen, was superior on such subjects to other men to be found outside the walls of Parliament? On what ground could it be supposed that any committee could be superior to such a commission as could readily be constituted of men of talent and scientific experience in the country? It had been observed, that the decisions of the committees of last Session had been satisfactory to the country, and that they were above all suspicion; and the House had been reminded that, when a Member was called upon to serve upon such a committee, he was bound to declare that he was not interested in any one of the Bills which would stand referred to the committee on which he was about to serve. Still, he might be a shareholder in or a director of a railway company in another part of the kingdom, which might more or less be a rival to one of the lines upon which he was called to adjudicate; and therefore he thought that,

217
if the committees on railways were to continue to exercise the functions vested in them, it would be but fair, in limine, to exclude from serving upon them any Member who was interested in any railway whatsoever. If so, he much doubted whether a sufficient number of Members could be found who would be competent to serve. On the whole, he wished to impress upon the House that the result of his experience during the last Session was, that a committee—from want of experience, of scientific knowledge, and practical skill — was a very incompetent tribunal, and for the continuance of the system no sufficient reason had yet been given.
MR. MORRISONsaid, that the principal complaint was, that if the whole of the capital which would be required was to be invested in the construction of railways which were projected, that then this Committee proposed by the Government would be wholly unnecessary; but that if only a certain amount of capital was to be so applied, it was said there would be no difficulty in the matter, and that the appointment of the Committee was superfluous. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson), whom he rejoiced to see in the House, had stated that this country could well spare 70,000,000 l. to be applied in the construction of railways, because the whole of that amount would be spent in the country. The argument much resembled that which had been advanced in the discussion of the Bank Charter, when it had been stated that the Bank of England could not issue too much bank paper, so long as it only discounted good bills. To that doctrine he could not assent. At present, they could not construct even the good lines projected without interfering with the application of the capital of the country to other purposes. There was too great a speculation existing as to railways, and the only way to meet the spirit of speculation which prevailed was, to bring down the profits of the capital so applied to an ordinary level; and this only could be effected by fixing a much lower rate of charges upon the different lines to be constructed. If this were done, there would be found no difficulty in dealing with the numerous lines which had been put forth to the public. The development of railway traffic during the past year would, he ventured to state, show that the railroads now constructed abroad conveyed the traffic at one-half less than the lowest scale of
218
charges on any of the English lines. For instance, the fare from London to Dover was fifteen shillings; but cross to Ostend, and it would be found that from Ostend a distance equal to that between Dover and London could be travelled by railroad for a fare of seven shillings and sixpence. With respect to committees, he was of opinion that the information now furnished to them by the railway promoters themselves, ought to be supplied by independent persons. If a line was sought to be constructed from A to B, the committee ought to have nothing to do but to secure as much advantage to the public as was possible; whereas the practice now seemed to be, solely to protect the railway projectors; for the committee had not only to report upon the nature and extent of the traffic expected, upon the nature of the line, and on other points, but also that upon the capital to be expended there would be a dividend for the proprietors. Surely it ought to be left to the railway people themselves to take care of that. As well might it be proposed that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether or not the contractor for the building of the new Houses of Parliament had made a good bargain. Such a proposition would be absurd; and equally so, in his judgment, was the requirements from a railway committee to report as to whether a dividend would accrue to the shareholders on the capital subscribed. As to the amount of capital to be invested, he was of opinion that 20,000,000 l. was quite as much as could be each year safely applied to such purposes. The money market last year would have fallen in consequence of these outlays, had it not been that it was a year of extraordinary profits. But if it should fall this year, from a bad harvest or any other cause—if the country should be overtaken with difficulties, in what situation would the railways be placed? They would be unable to borrow money to complete their works; and they might probably be obliged to suspend their operations for two or three years, until the money market again revived and came round. These were difficulties to which no wise Government would lend itself. One word as to the required deposit of 10 per cent. So long as that amount was paid up, plenty of engineers, solicitors, and others, would go to work, knowing that their bills would be paid; and hence it was that a vast number of Bills had been brought forward, which, under any other circumstances, would never have existed. He threw these points

219
out as matter for grave consideration at present.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, nothing which had passed in that debate had tended to shake his conviction, that Her Majesty's Government had pursued a proper course in availing themselves of the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the possible difficulties in which they might become involved, unless they took immediate notice of the immense amount of railway legislation which was now impending over them. He thought it was the clear duty of Government to submit the matter to the House, without, however, proposing any final plan upon the subject. They would remember that it was one of grave import—one which involved the privileges of Parliament, and one upon which Government could not, consistently with their sense of duty, submit any elaborate scheme, without referring the matter to the consideration of the House. He conceived that the duty of Government with reference to the matter was to suggest some course, by means of which the practicability of respective schemes could be discussed; and as that course could not be pursued with advantage in a Committee of the whole House, he proposed the formation of a Committee of those hon. Members whose attention had been directed to the subject, and who would be thus the most competent authority for discussing and reporting upon it. He was quite certain, that had he brought forward a scheme on the part of Government, objections would have been raised to the discussion by the whole House on its merits. He would have been told that he should rather have referred the matter to a Select Committee. He had anticipated this recommendation, at the same time he had thought it best not to prejudice the consideration of the Committee by stating the views of Government as to what ought to be its decision. Objections had been urged as to the appointment of such a tribunal. They had been told to wait—that they need not interfere—and that the crisis would pass away as it had arisen. But what were the facts of the case? It had been said, that no interference was necessary; for that not more than 100 or 200 Bills would be proceeded with. There were, however, 710 Bills deposited, involving capital to the amount of 300,000,000 l. Of these it was possible that many would fail before the Committee on the Standing Orders. Others might fail in consequence of the necessary
220
deposits not having been made; but he thought that, whatever might be the result of a little further delay, it was the duty of the House to apply itself early to the consideration of the subject, and not to wait, as last year was the case, until the end of the Session. The question now was, whether or not they should devolve this duty upon a Committee—and whether that Committee should at once enter upon its functions? He had been asked to postpone the labours of the Committee until it was ascertained whether or no the promoters of the schemes destined to go before them had complied with the Standing Orders. To this course he, for one, could not consent. True, it might be the feeling of the Committee to suspend its judgment upon schemes, until it was known whether or no they had successfully gone through the ordeal of the Standing Orders. But there were many points which the Committee could at once proceed to discuss. It would be in fact the master of its own proceedings, and would determine the points to be at once gone into, and the points to be postponed. He, therefore, saw no reason for any delay in the appointment of the Committee. On the contrary he saw every reason why its inquiries should be immediately commenced. It was true, that in some quarters and by some parties, all interference was blamed. But let them recollect how the matter stood. Last Session they had not passed the Bills before them; they had not been able to perform the functions they had undertaken. The companies had, in many cases, complied with the rules which the House had laid down; but such was the pressure of public business that Bills involving 11,000,000 l. of capital were obliged to stand over, because no time was left for their discussion. That was one reason why they should take into early consideration the principles upon which they were to act during this Session. A cry was no doubt raised against interference with private enterprise—about the expediency of capital being allowed to be applied under the law as it at present stood. It was said, "Do not interfere with private enterprise." His reply was, "By no means; let every man apply his capital as he pleases." But the question was not as to the application of capital, but whether or not particular parties should have the right to take other persons' property on which to construct a railway, and upon it to raise a certain amount of toll. Why that was quite a different species of

221
interference from that which would subject to its conditions the ordinary application of capital not seeking for any peculiar privileges. Supposing the case of 300 Bills, requiring a pledge for the subscription of capital to the amount of 150,000,000 l. to be immediately laid out; he did think that it became a matter of grave consideration, whether the House should or should not refer these 300 Bills at once to distinct committees—who would not take a preliminary view of the question, a question of such immense importance—and who would not consider to what extent privileges so immense in their nature ought, with advantage to the community, to be conceded by the Legislature. For what was the species of inquiry they delegated to the ordinary committees of the House? Why, they referred each Bill to the consideration of five gentlemen. No reference was made by the tribunal so constituted to the general interests of the country. They merely considered the probable amount of traffic on the projected line—whether in all respects the expectations of its promoters would be probably realized, whether the estimates of expense would or would not be probably exceeded. They thus reviewed only the individual merits and prospects of each scheme. They might come to the conclusion that such and such a plan deserved encouragement—that its estimates were correct—its traffic moderately calculated—that the speculation, in short, was a good one—and that there could be no objection to it. Well, all this would, in each case, be submitted to the House of Commons; but then the time would come when they ought to consider whether, after all, these Bills, advantageous as individually they might be, ought to be allowed simultaneously to pass. Already a sum of 23,000,000 l. must, under existing legislation, be applied within the next three years; and certainly it was now open to consideration whether, by limiting the number—by deferring the consideration of some of the schemes now pressing on them—they could not apply a limitation to the amount of that capital, which, in addition to the sum already needed, would shortly be applied for. He had, therefore, felt it to be his duty to direct the attention of the House to this subject; but for the reasons which he had already alluded to, he had abstained from propounding on the part of Government any particular plan. But seeing the enormous amount of capital required, un-
222
certain to what extent the system might be carried, they had felt it to be their duty to lay the matter before the House, with a view to any alterations in the system which it might think fit to adopt. He hoped, however, that the House would not, in any case, part with its virtual jurisdiction. Whether it might be right to devolve some portion of the inquiry necessary in each case, on some particular impartial body, he would not stop to inquire; but he did renew the expression of his hope that the House would not part with its jurisdiction in the matter—that the interference of select committees would not be done away with. He believed that the conduct of the House last Session as to railway business was greatly in its honour, and showed that the determination was deeply felt—that however great might be the press of business, the House would not and did not neglect the functions which devolved upon it with respect to private legislation. And he believed that he might say too, that though its decisions were sometimes found fault with at first by those to whom they had been adverse, the public voice was generally in favour of the integrity and justice of its votes. He should be sorry, therefore, to see the House part with or delegate its railway jurisdiction, because he feared that should the House of Lords choose to take up the functions in respect to private legislation which the House of Commons chose to abandon, the dignity of the latter could not fail to be impaired, nor its authority to be weakened. Another word as to a suggestion which had been made—that of referring certain questions of detail respecting each scheme to a Commission to be formed of men of science and practical experience and skill, competent to decide upon such points of engineering or probable traffic as might arise. Now let them recollect the immense amount of business which such a tribunal would have to undertake. There were, say 700 Bills to adjudicate upon. To do them justice, instead of one commission, twenty or thirty would be requisite, while it would be found that they could hardly repose the same confidence in so many examining bodies as they could do in one, the satisfactory composition of which would be so much more under their control. But in saying this, he was not offering any objections to the suggestion, should it be found practicable for the establishment of some tribunal to lighten the labour of committees; these commit-

223
tees, however, always to retain their independence, always to maintain their right to judge in a last resort, but referring to the auxiliary body the investigation of mere matters of detail. As to the general Committee, he repeated that, although there were many matters to come before it, which it might find convenient to postpone the conisderation of, yet there were many other important considerations which he trusted the body in question would be enabled immediately to proceed with.
MR. J. COLLETTinquired whether the Committee was to be an open one—whether it would be competent for hon. Members to attend without taking part in the Committee's deliberations?
SIR R. PEELwas understood to reply, that the Committee would be a select and secret one.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed to consist of the following Members:—Lord G. Somerset, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Greene, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, Mr. Pakington, Sir G. Clark, Mr. F. Baring, The O'Connor Don, Lord H. Vane, and Mr. Shaw.

DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
SIR THOMAS FREMANTLErose to move for leave to amend the Drainage Acts in Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the course of last Session he submitted certain Amendments of that Act; and he stated at that time that he was not prepared to go into the whole question, not having sufficient experience upon the subject; but having had one or two points brought under his immediate consideration, he submitted them to the House, and which were adopted. He was now prepared to submit still further Amendments to the Bill, which he hoped the House would sanction. He had thought it his duty at an early period of the present Session to bring before the House measures of this nature. He had thought that the most effectual way for improving the condition of the people of Ireland, both socially and morally, was promoting measures for their education and their employment. For these objects the Legislature had already passed various measures; it was not necessary, therefore, that he should bring forward any new measure; all that was required to effect this purpose was to extend the law already in existence. This extension might be very
224
beneficially done. The existing Drainage Act empowered the Government to expend money for the promotion of public works in Ireland; but the grant which had been made by Parliament for that purpose was exhausted. He therefore proposed that a further sum should be paid out of the Exchequer, by which certain public works might be carried forward, public companies might be stimulated, and very considerable employment afforded to the people. He also proposed to provide for the further drainage of the land, and the rendering the rivers navigable throughout the country. He found that although the present Act was a very popular one, and that there existed a general desire that its provisions should be carried into operation, yet there were various reasons why a large number of projects brought under the consideration of the Board of Works had failed of being prosecuted. One great difficulty was in the want of sufficient security to parties who might be disposed to advance money for carrying out the works; and another difficulty consisted in the restricted nature of the powers of the Board of Works. These and other difficulties he proposed to remedy. He hoped also to take up the question of building fishery piers. This was by no means a new proposition. It had already been entertained, and he trusted the House would aid him in carrying out the object. By these various ways, in addition to the great number of railroads that were now already being constructed in Ireland, he hoped to give such a stimulus to the execution of great works of public utility in that country as should afford ample employment to the great mass of the people. If that should be the result of the labours he had undertaken, he should be gratified and rewarded. The reason why loans could at present be easily obtained for these works was, that the security had hitherto been considered incomplete. He attempted to improve it last year, and succeeded to a certain extent; he was now prepared to submit further Amendments, and to render the security most ample and complete. He proposed to adopt the provisions contained in the English Drainage Bill, which was introduced by the Duke of Richmond last Session, by which the money lent became a charge on the land prior to other incumbrances; at the same time care would be taken that the interests of mortgagees should not be interfered with. If the Commissioners under the Act were satisfied

225
that a certain amount of improved value would arise from these works from the drainage of them to the extent of that improved value, the lenders of the money for carrying out the drainage would have the right from year to year to receive their remuneration, while the security thus afforded by this improved value would, on the other hand, prevent any injury to any person who had a claim upon the property. It was also provided that power should be given to the party to pay off the whole advance at once if he had the means to do so. A difficulty had been experienced in finding sufficient money for the deposits required for the preliminary expenses arising from surveys, valuations, and so on. Frequently very excellent projects fell to the ground for want of sufficient public spirit to advance the money required for these preliminary proceedings; and considering the extent of the works often projected, no one could wonder at this. It was therefore proposed, in order to obviate this difficulty, that the grand jury should have the power to present a sum of money for the deposit to meet these preliminary expenses. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Ferguson) objected to this; but when he reminded the hon. Baronet that this advance of deposit would be in the nature of a loan, he thought the objection of the hon. Baronet would cease. Because, when the works, having been assented to by the landowners, had proceeded, the deposits would be repaid to the country. [Sir R. FERGUSON: If the assents were not obtained, what then?] Why then, indeed, there would be some risk; but he thought sufficient interest would be adduced to encourage the parties to enter upon these works. Besides, it was not probable that the Board of Works would sanction any undertaking that would not be of sufficient value to repay the deposits, which were merely for the preliminary expenses. There was another provision in this amended Bill. It often happened that the amount of the deposits, as estimated by the Board of Works, was expended, and the works came to a stand-still for want of a further small sum to complete the preliminary proceedings. It was therefore provided by this Bill that the Board of Works should have the power, in such case, to advance a sum sufficient for that purpose. Then came a very important alteration of the present law, upon which he might fairly expect some opposition. At present the assent of two-thirds of the proprietors was required to authorize the undertaking. Now,
226
although the recorded assent of two-thirds could not, on many occasions, be obtained, yet it by no means followed that there was a large proportion of dissents, because a large number of proprietors would not give themselves the trouble to consider the proposal, neither assenting nor dissenting; but many of them would never oppose the project. The consequence was, that a majority of proprietors might be in favour of the work; and yet, because there was not the number required by law actually assenting, that majority was of no avail. To correct this it was provided that if the positive assent of one half of the proprietors could be obtained, the work should proceed. There was another provision with respect to navigation. Lands were often drained, the water being carried into the neighbouring rivers; and a very small additional expense might render those rivers navigable and useful for the purposes of internal communication; a power was therefore given for parties to unite themselves into a company to improve the navigation of those rivers by means of drainage. There was also one other provision. By the draining of bogs, waste lands, and moors, it might often happen that land hitherto of no value might become capable of cultivation. If so, then in case the land was untenanted, some difficulty might arise as to the parishes entitled to the reclaimed land. It was therefore proposed to give a power to the Commissioners to sell certain portions of such land, in order to reimburse the expense of draining the rest. He trusted the House would agree to these propositions, which, if adopted, must considerably improve the land and afford employment to a large portion of the population of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a Bill—
"To amend the Acts for promoting the Drainage of Lands and Improvement of Navigation and Water Power, in connexion with such Drainage in Ireland, and to afford facilities for increased employment for the Labouring Classes in Works of Drainage during the present year;"
but again rose, and said there was one very important part of the Bill to which he had quite forgot to allude. It contained a provision by which he had endeavoured to make these works more immediately applicable to the present state of Ireland. He had introduced a clause enabling proprietors to apply for the summary operation of the Bill, by which means certain preliminary forms would be dispensed with, and, by consent, improvements might be carried into effect within a few weeks, instead of

227
having to wait many months. Where parties were willing to apply for that power, they would have it; and by that means he considered that in the next spring and summer a very considerable extent of improvement might be effected. Those were distinct provisions, which were put at the end of the Bill, and it was in the power of proprietors to adopt them if they thought proper.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that to meet the views of the right hon. Baronet, he would abstain from discussing the merits of this Bill before he saw it in print; but there were a few remarks he might make in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. In the first place, this appeared to him to be the Bill of the Commissioners of Public Works, and not the Bill of the Government; and, had the right hon. Baronet turned his attention a little more to the subject, he would have found that it was very undesirable to entrust the working of such a measure to the Board of Works. The right hon. Baronet had stated that very numerous applications had been made, under the Drainage Bill of 1842, to the Board of Public Works, which, owing to certain accidental circumstances, had not been attended to. In this he was perfectly correct. No doubt, many such applications had been made; but the right hon. Baronet had not drawn the right conclusion from this fact. On the contrary, he knew that very beneficial drainages had been executed in King's County, in the county of Westmeath, and one in which his hon. Friend the Member for Kildare was concerned. These had been executed under the provisions of the Act of 1842, and in the most beneficial manner possible. Indeed, the greatest possible benefit had been derived from this measure; and he would state, from his own experience, as well as from conversations he had had with other proprietors, that it was a great mistake to suppose that the measure had been comparatively inoperative. In the case of one drainage in the county which he had the honour of representing, the requisite deposit was paid, and application was made to the Board of Public Works to put the provisions of the Act in force in that district. They sent down their surveyors and other officers: large sums had to be paid in the shape of fees; and the estimated expense of draining the district came to a sum over 6,000 l. There were three very large proprietors in the district, and it appeared to their men
228
of business to be so considerable a sum that it was thought advisable to employ the surveyors of the district to revalue the works. They were ordered to follow the lines laid out by the Commissioners; and the result was, that the proprietors themselves were now about to undertake this work; and the entire expense, as estimated by their own surveyors, who were fully competent to the task, was under 3,000 l. As to the boon to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, in those cases where the expense was greater than had been estimated in the preliminary survey, and which the Commissioners were empowered to grant in one way or the other, that was very questionable, for the Commissioners had the power of stating what sum they would call upon the preliminary survey, and that sum had to be made up; and it would be a much fairer way for that sum to be made up by the parties interested in the improvement than by the grand juries. He did not see what the grand juries could have to say to the improvement of those districts. The right hon. Baronet would find some difficulty in levying this sum. How was it to be levied? On the county, on the barony, or on the town lands? If in either of these ways, the expense would fall on the occupying tenant; and he did not suppose it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet that these improvements should be carried out at the expense of the tenants. The right hon. Baronet said, he was prepared to afford facilities to the landlords of Ireland for carrying on improvements of this nature by giving greater facilities for raising the money, and by conducting the preliminary surveys. The right hon. Baronet said, he had taken for his model the Bill brought in last Session; but he must be aware that the facilities afforded by that Act were more apparent than real. That Act provided that certain works might be effected, and the expense of them charged to the heritors, provided those works were approved by the Chancellor or the Chief Baron of the district. The Chancellor referred the case to one of the Masters in Chancery, who reported whether the thing was fairly done; and the same process was gone through in the other cases. But no power was given to raise the money until the works were executed; so that no proprietor could avail himself of the provisions of this Act unless he had the money in hand which it might be necessary to expend. If the object of the Act was really to afford such facilities, power ought to be

229
given to raise the money in the first instance, and this might be done in various ways. He called the attention of the right hon. Baronet to this matter, to show that though the Bill apparently gave power at once to effect improvements, in reality this would not be done, unless the proprietors actually had the money ready to lay out, which, he was sorry to say, in many instances was not the case, so that it would be productive of no real benefit. Then the proposal to reduce the proportion of assents required from two-thirds to one-half was a very doubtful matter. It must be recollected that this provision would give a very extensive power to a certain body of men; it would, in fact, enable one-third of the proprietors of a district to check all improvement in it. Some might deny the necessity of it altogether; and others might differ much as to what was prudent, and what was not. Some might complain of the water being taken from them, and others might urge that as the land had not been meddled with from time immemorial, neither should it now. On the other hand, if they gave one-half the proprietors the power of incurring a certain expense, and compelling the others to contribute their money for the progress of such works, great dissatisfaction would necessarily arise. There might be cases of great public importance, in which it was advisable that such a power should be vested in a body, and where it was not proper that individuals should be allowed to stop the improvement of a district; but it was a power which ought to be strictly guarded; and it was a question of great difficulty how far one person should have the right to say to another, "You shall join in this work, whether you will or not." In the committee on the Bill of 1842, he believed it had been debated whether the proportion of assents required should not be three-fourths. The proposal for charging all the lands within a certain district, and putting a receiver over them, until the whole of the expense was defrayed, was also objectionable. The subject of waste lands was one of very great importance. There were nearly three millions of acres of bog-land in Ireland. In 1834, a scheme had been set on foot for reclaiming them; plans, sections, and estimates had been prepared; but everything had been lying a dead letter nearly since that time; and he should be exceedingly glad if the right hon. Baronet would turn his attention to this point, for the greatest possible advantage might be
230
anticipated from any facilities which were afforded the proprietors for improving this enormous mass of waste land. The whole of it, he believed, was improvable; and, in one district, he had gone over the land, and had taken some trouble to check the estimates of the Commissioners, who reported that 50,000 English acres might be put in a state so as to let to tenants, by an expenditure of about 50,000 l., so far as drainage was concerned; and he had no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. But he very much doubted whether the right hon. Baronet was correct in placing the entire management of this matter in the Board of Works. He had no other tribunal to suggest; but he had hoped that the right hon. Baronet was about to bring forward, as a part of his scheme, some other plan for managing these improvements. He did not think the Board of Works was very popular, either with the grand juries or with the proprietors in Ireland. He did not believe that they would facilitate an improvement, which was at this moment so desirable; and he thought it advisable that some other tribunal should be constituted, which was better approved of, and would be more generally acceptable.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid he was also very sorry to find the measure of the Government gave the management of these improvements to the Board of Works; and this was his greatest objection to the Bill. The board was insufficient in numbers for a work of this nature; their surveys were too expensive; and instead of obliging and accommodating the landed proprietors, they undertook drainage whether the proprietors approved of it or not. Now, surely, drainage ought not to be forced upon the proprietors; especially when power was given to the grand juries to levy the money. He trusted that these points would be reconsidered. But he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether, when he talked of securing the money upon the land, he meant that it was to be chargeable on the whole estate, and whether a man's entire estate was to be dealt with in this way, to pay for an improvement on a small part of it?
SIR T. FREMANTLEsaid, in reply, he certainly did not think it at all requisite to depart from that security which they already had. Where parties had lent money to a landlord, or anybody else, for the improvement of his estates, it was a debt due by him; and it was certainly no

231
great hardship upon him to make any part of his property which was so near as to benefit by the improvement, liable to a portion of the charge. He should propose, as he had already stated, that the amount of the first charge to be levied from the land should not, in any case, exceed the amount of actual improved value which was likely to arise, and by calculation would arise, from the drainage.
SIR R. FERGUSON: There may be a great difference between what is likely to arise, and what is calculated to arise, from the improvement.
SIR T. FREMANTLEsaid, there might be a difference, but they must trust to the Board of Works to make proper calculations. The hon. Member opposite said that the Board of Works had too much to do, and that they could not undertake the drainage of the whole of Ireland. He quite approved of that; he did not wish them to undertake all the drainage; he should be much better pleased if the country gentlemen of Ireland would undertake the drainage of their own lands. Nothing would please him better than that. The machinery at present in existence did not work well; he should be happy if he would improve it; and if the hon. Member could devise any better plan, nothing would satisfy him more than to abandon this proposal altogether.
Leave given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WEDNESDAYS).
MR. CARDWELLsaid he did not think it necessary to say a single word in bringing forward the Resolutions of which he had given notice, except to state that he believed it would not be necessary to persevere in moving the Fourth Resolution, namely, that if a House was not formed by a quarter past twelve, it should stand adjourned. With this exception, the Resolutions he had put on the Notice were, with a few verbal alterations, precisely those he would now move:—
"That the House do meet every Wednesday at twelve o'clock at noon, for Private Business, Petitions, and Orders of the Day, and do continue to sit until six o'clock, unless previously adjourned."
MR. W. R. COLLETTsaid, he thought the course now proposed would be found in some respects a very inconvenient practice; he alluded to the difficulty of procuring a proper attendance of Members. The generality of the Members of this House had some kind of occupation of their own; they were persons not likely, on many occasions,
232
to make a full attendance; and where the attendance was very small, the possibility or the probability of jobs was still greater. A second objection was—every one had expected that the right hon. Baronet would have given some information as to whether or not he intended that the committees, of which there would be a great number, should sit on Wednesday, as well as on other days. But whether the committees met or not on that day, there would be a difficulty in either case. If they did not meet, the parties interested in the different cases, and the witnesses attending there, would be put to additional and unnecessary expense. On the contrary, if the committees met on Wednesdays, hon. Members would be put to great inconvenience; they would not know whether to attend the House or the committees. He thought this would be an unconstitutional course. It was in direct opposition to one of the Sessional Orders passed on Friday night,—that the Sergeant-at-Arms should, when the House was going to prayers, give notice thereof to all the committees, and that all the proceedings of the committees, after such notice, should be declared null and void. Now, he considered it unconstitutional to require the attendance of hon. Members in two places at once. If he were appointed on any committee, whether a railway committee, an election committee, or any other, he would not attend that committee if the House was sitting: and the question before the Speaker then would probably be whether he should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to Newgate, for not attending. But he should certainly consider that the duty of attending the committees was merged in the superior duty of attending the House. He had asked the right hon. Baronet this question pointedly, and had received no answer; and he wished to know whether these committees were to sit on Wednesday or not.
MR. CARDWELLbelieved the subject explained itself. He believed a very general feeling had been expressed, on both sides of the House, that such an experiment should be tried. The hon. Member opposite had admitted that the resolutions were good in theory, but he feared they would be bad in practice. He only hoped he should be allowed to try the experiment; and if it did not answer, let it be abandoned. With regard to the latter objection about the sitting of committees, he

233
believed the hon. Member knew enough, from his attendance last Session, to know that, from the pressure of business, the House sat regularly in the morning; and it would be recollected that they began their proceedings by a resolution, passed every day, that the committees should have leave to sit during the sitting of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, in deference to the experience of Members on both sides of the House, would consent to the experiment being tried.
MR. COLLETTwished to know from the hon. Gentleman whether the committees were to sit by permission of the House, or in spite of the House. Suppose the House met, and there was not a sufficient number of Members to constitute a House, were the committees also then to adjourn, because the usual resolution would not be passed, giving them leave to sit during the sitting of the House?
No answer was given to this question.
MR. HUMErose and said, he had been in a difficult position sometimes, through not knowing whether there was to be a House or not; but the difficulty started by the hon. Member was a real difficulty, and they ought to know what was to be done. It ought to be understood whether, on all Wednesdays, the committees were to sit or not. Government ought to state the view they had, and not leave it, as it was now, open to daily discussions. It was highly desirable that they should come to some understanding.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the committees might obtain leave to sit, as before, during the sitting of the House. If there was any objection to that course, it might be stated when the difficulty arose.
MR. HUMEsaid, there was this one difficulty. A Member might be on a committee, and might not be allowed to leave that committee; there might be a question before the House in which he was particularly interested; either as proposing or promoting it; and he might not be able to attend in the House to promote it. In such a case, he hoped hon. Members would be assisted as much as possible by questions being postponed, for the purpose of admitting of the attendance of those who had particular business.
Resolution agreed to, as were the following:—
"Resolved—That when such business has been disposed of, or at six o'clock precisely, notwithstanding there may be Business under discussion,
234
Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any question.
"Resolved—That whenever the House shall be in Committee at six o'clock, the Chairman do immediately report progress, and Mr. Speaker do resume the Chair, and adjourn the House without putting any Question.
"Resolved—That the business under discussion, and any business not disposed of at the time of such adjournment, do stand as Orders of the Day for the next day on which the House shall sit."
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Chelsea Pensioners; Factories.
2o Buck Wheat. &c. Importation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Hyde, and several other places, for Limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories.— From Leeds, for Repeal or Amendment of Poor Removal Act.—From Shipowners of the Ports of Llanelly and Carmarthen, for carrying into effect the Recommendations of the Select Committee with regard to Lighthouses.—From Glasgow, for Abolition of Arrestment of Wages (Scotland).

CONVEYANCE OF CORN BY THE NAVY.
SIR C. NAPIERsaid, he understood that there were seven or eight sail of the line at Lisbon, and two in the Channel; and he wished to know whether there were any intention to take out the guns and marines, and to employ the vessels to import food into this country on merchants' account?
MR. H. G. WARDremarked, that the question belonged to the Government in general, rather than to the department of the Admiralty in particular. No application had been made to the Admiralty for assistance of the kind; but the subject having been brought under the notice of Ministers on the general principle, it had been thought that if 3,000 or 4,000 tons of shipping were lent for the purpose, it would throw as many tons belonging to private individuals out of the market. It had, therefore, been decided that it was unadvisable to interfere.

TRANSPORTATION.
MR. G. BANKESrose to put two questions to the Secretary for the Home Department. The first related to the circular issued from the Home Office last autumn, adressed to magistrates in quarter-sessions, respecting the relinquishment of punishment by transportation: in future it was stated to be the intention of Government to provide punishment at home. His first question was, whether the plan was matured, and if so, when it would be laid before the House?
SIR G. GREYsaid, the subject of suspending transportation as a punishment had undergone much deliberation; and he hoped in a few days to lay before the House papers showing what were the intentions of Ministers: they would convey to Members a knowledge of the principle but not of the details. The intention was to make all spare accommodation in prisons available; and it would be necessary to bring in a Bill on an early day.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
MR. BANKESobserved, that his second question related to juvenile offenders, and he was desirous of knowing whether Government had formed any plan for amending the mode of conducting proceedings against juvenile offenders, and for their treatment as well before as after conviction, in a manner more suitable to their age, and less hurtful to their morals?
SIR G. GREYhad no definite plan to lay before the House on that subject. The disposal of juvenile offenders after conviction, would be included in the papers which, he hoped, would be in the hands of Members in a few days.

SUGAR IN DISTILLERIES.
MR. MILESwished for some information on the proposed plan for allowing sugar and molasses to be used in breweries and distilleries. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the Bill, for the purpose, to be read a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee to sit upon it de dic in diem? He apprehended that a Committee ought to sit on the equalization of the duties on rum. The precedent of the Bonded Corn Bill was analogous: the Select Committee upon it had sat only seven or eight days, and then made its report; the consequence was, that the arrangement was entirely satisfactory, and such might very likely be the issue in the present instance.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think such a course would be expedient, and having conferred with the other Members of Government, he was enabled to state that such was their opinion. He was sure, however, that the hon. Member did not intend to interpose any delay; but when once the door of inquiry was opened, it was impossible to say when it could be closed. The question in the case of bonded corn was much narrower, yet the inquiry had been carried to a considerable length before the report was agreed to. The subject of the use of sugar in distilleries and breweries had been fully investigated in 1831, and since there had been no new experience, because the law had been unchanged: sugar and molasses during that period had not been allowed to be used. He had that morning communicated with the Chairman of the Board of Excise, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to make this proposal—that a reasonable time should be allowed, after the second reading, which would not, as he understood, be opposed; and he would undertake, on Thursday next, to lay upon the Table a full report of all the experience of the Board of Excise, both as applied to breweries and distilleries. The House would thus be in possession of all the information it could obtain, in order to enable it to arrive at a decision. As to the question regarding the duty on rum, he did not

485
know what information there was that could hear upon the subject: the real point was, whether there could be any justification for putting the Irish and Scotch distiller on a more favourable footing than the English distillers? He thought not.

THE POOR (IRELAND).
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that one point only of the very able statement of the noble Lord last night was not quite clear: it respected the permanent system of increased relief to the poor of Ireland; and he wished to know distinctly whether any security would be introduced into the Bill that the relief might in all cases be effectually afforded?—whether, for example, a board of guardians, like that of Castlebar, would be able to refuse relief at discretion? Was a right of relief to be introduced in any practical way? A second question he wished to put was, whether the new law was intended to be accompanied by any act to prevent mendicancy and vagrancy in Ireland?
LORD J. RUSSELLanswered, that according to the provisions of the Bill introduced last night, those paupers who were unable to work from age, from permanent infirmity, or bodily defect, would be entitled to relief from boards of guardians. For other classes of paupers, provision was made for particular cases. As to enforcing relief, supposing the guardians to refuse to carry the law into effect, he believed some further power would be required; and if that opinion were confirmed, it would be introduced into the Bill. On the subject of vagrancy, the hon. Member was aware that it was a very important one; and he (Lord J. Russell) thought that further legislation would be necessary, but no Bill for the purpose was now ready.

CHELSEA PENSIONS.
MR. FOX MAULErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish poundage now deducted from Chelsea pensioners. He observed, that it would not be necessary to occupy the attention of the House for more than a short time. What was called poundage, was paid by every man in Chelsea Hospital who was entitled to a reward for long service, wounds, or decrepitude: they had been deprived of it nearly one hundred years ago, and he was disposed to think that it was at that time just and equitable to deduct it. Previous to the year 1754, discharged soldiers had pensions allotted to them on the 1st of
486
January, and no part of the money was paid to them until the 31st December following: the pensions were then paid annually and in arrear. The consequence was, that the pensioner constantly found at his elbow money-lenders ready to take advantage of him; but in 1754 Government thought it absolutely necessary, in justice to the pensioner, to check the practice, and a law was then passed, that thenceforward all payments of the kind should be made in advance: it was also made penal for any person to lend himself to the forestalling of a pension. In order to make up to the public the payment of this sum in advance, the pensioner was charged five per cent; and he was at that time very glad to submit to the deduction. This course was continued until 1833, and up to this moment five per cent was taken from nearly all the pensions to men belonging to Chelsea College, except in the cases of men enlisted since 1833. On looking into the matter, he also found that no deduction was made from pensions granted to the navy; and as it had been the practice to pay artillerymen through the Ordnance Department, and as the Act of 1754 had been overlooked, they too escaped the payment of poundage. Attention had been directed to the subject of this irregularity, and to the general injustice of poundage, last year, by his hon. Friend behind him (Captain Layard), and at his instance the subject was deliberately considered during the recess. The result had been that Ministers had determined to ask the House to sanction the abolition of poundage. They had arrived at this conclusion not only on account of the anomalous nature of the charge, but on account of the very inconvenient system it introduced with reference to the public service. The sum deducted might seem small to those who heard him, but it was by no means small to the veterans who were called upon to make the sacrifice. It was but an act of justice to the men that the old soldier should enjoy the whole sum awarded to him by his grateful country, and for these reasons he moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
CAPTAIN LAYARDshould belie his feelings if he did not express his satisfaction and delight at the course Ministers had taken. These gallant and worn-out warriors had the highest claim, and it was fit that those claims should in every way be acknowledged, and to the fullest extent.
SIR DE LACY EVANSexpressed his

487
acknowledgments to the Government for this act of justice. He much doubted whether the deduction was at all just in 1754, and he was quite certain that it was most unjust at present.
SIR H. DOUGLASalso stated his entire satisfaction at the proposed change.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

FACTORIES.
MR. FIELDENrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to labour in factories, and spoke as follows: Sir, I propose to bring in a Bill with regard to the hours of labour in factories, similar, as regards persons between thirteen and eighteen years of age, in its provisions to one which the late Sir Robert Peel proposed to the House nearly thirty-two years ago—that is, I propose to limit the labour of young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen to twelve hours a day, allowing two hours out of the twelve for meals—that is, to ten hours actual work per day for five days in the week, and eight hours on Saturdays; and I propose to carry out this alteration by restricting the hours of actual labour to sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May, 1848; and after that period to fifty-eight hours in the week; and I propose, further, that the same restrictions shall apply to females above eighteen years of age. My reason for proposing this measure is, that the time of working young persons and females in factories is far too long, has been very mischievous, and, if persevered in, will become the cause of great national evils. I ask for it, also, because the people employed in factories have wished for it, and have long petitioned the Legislature to concede it to them; and because the ministers of religion, medical practitioners, and, indeed, all classes who have opportunities of observing the consequences of the present system, deprecate it as destructive of the moral and physical condition of a vast and most important class of the community. It is a question which involves the very existence of thousands who are, I am afraid, sacrificed annually for the want of those due and sufficient regulations without which the late Sir Robert Peel asserted that our improved machinery would become our bitterest curse. I will at once call the attention of the House to a document of authority on this subject, one which, I confess, startled me, though I have long been accustomed to fear the
488
effects of the system we have been pursuing. I refer to "A Table of Deaths registered in 115 districts of England, during the quarter ending September 30, 1846"—that is, the autumn of the last year. In page 3 of this document, which is published by authority of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, it is said, "The population of the extra-metropolitan district of Surrey was, in 1841, 187,868, and the population of the town sub-districts of Manchester was 163,856;" and that "in Manchester with this less population, the deaths registered in seven years—1838–44—were 39,992, and those in Surrey only 23,777, making a difference of 16,145." He then says—
"The population of Surrey exceeded that of Manchester; yet, in seven years 16,000 persons died in Manchester over and above the deaths in Surrey; the mortality in which, from the poverty of the labourer and slighter degrees of the influences so fatal in Manchester, is higher than it should be. There were 23,523 children under five years of age in Surrey, and the deaths of children of that age were 7,364; the children in Manchester were 21,152, the deaths 20,726! In the seven years 13,362 children in Manchester alone fell a sacrifice to known causes, which it is believed may be removed to a great extent, and the victims in Liverpool were not less numerous. Other parts, and particularly the towns of England, are similarly afflicted."
In the same page follow these remarks:—
"The returns of the past quarter prove that nothing effectual has been done to put a stop to the disease, suffering, and death in which so many thousands perish. The improvements, chiefly of a showy, superficial, outside character, have not reached the homes and habits of the people. The house and children of a labouring man can only be kept clean and healthy by the assiduous labour of a well-trained, industrious wife, as any one who has paid the least attention to the subject is aware. This is overlooked in Lancashire, where the woman is often engaged in labour from home. The consequence is that thousands, not only of the children, but of the men and women themselves, perished of the diseases formerly so fatal for the same reasons in barracks, camps, gaols, and ships."
In the same page an extract, given from a report of the registrar of Heaton Norris, Stockport, says—
"Of the 121 persons, 53 were children of one year and under; and of these deaths of infants, the causes were certified by a medical attendant in only 28 cases. It is to be feared that many at this age are lost for want of medical assistance and care of the mother, who is soon obliged to leave her child in other hands, and go further to engage in constant and unwholesome toil. The child sickens, and is soothed by opiates."
In the same page, a quotation of a similar nature is given from the registrar of

489
Deansgate, Manchester, who concludes thus:—
"In all Manchester there is but one children's dispensary, and this has but two medical officers. Such institutions should be numerous in large towns, and much good might be effected; but the unfortunate out-door occupation of the women, by causing the withholding of nature's nutriment from the children is terribly destructive of the latter."
In page 4, the Registrar General sums up this appalling picture by stating that—
"In Manchester 13,362 children perished in seven years over and above the mortality natural to mankind. These 'little children,' brought up in unclean dwellings and impure streets, were left alone long days by their mothers to breathe the subtle sickly vapours, soothed by opium—a more 'cursed' distillation than 'hebenon'—and when assailed by mortal diseases, their stomachs torn, their bodies convulsed, their brains bewildered, left to die without medical aid, which, like hope, should 'come to all,' the skilled medical man never being called in at all, or only summoned to witness the death and sanction the funeral."
Sir, I cannot quote these official reports without recalling to the attention of the House, that for many, many years, statements of a similar nature, though perhaps not so shocking in degree, have been brought before it by the late Mr. Sadler, by Mr. Oastler, and, more recently, by Lord Ashley; but always so strenuously denied by the manufacturing body that the Parliament had remained incredulous. You are now told, from authority, and in figures not to be disputed, how awful is the destruction of human life in our principal manufacturing towns; you are told distinctly that one of its chief causes is the "constant and unwholesome toil" of mothers, who are compelled to leave their offspring "long days alone to breathe sickly vapours soothed by opiates," "withholding nature's nutriment," to their destruction. I agree, Sir, with the Registrar General, that the "house and children of a labouring man can only be kept clean and healthy by the assiduous labour of a well-trained industrious wife." I agree with him, also, in his just but severe remark, that "this is overlooked in Lancashire, where the woman is often engaged in labour from home." Agreeing with him, and knowing well the truth of his remarks, I have framed this Bill, with the hope that this House will no longer overlook the fruitful cause of such wide-spread death as the Registrar General has recorded; but that it will sanction at once the restriction which I propose with regard to females, in order to stop this frightful state of things. I hear men talk
490
very glibly of the "horrors of war;" and I believe there is in this country a "Peace-preservation Society," whose object is to show mankind that nations, to avoid such horrors, should always remain at peace. I applaud their efforts; but let me ask what are the "horrors of war," but a wholesale sacrifice of human life now and then occurring? They are "horrors," and I respect those who bestow the energy of their minds in endeavours to convince the world of their futility and wickedness; but when the Registrar General, in the document I have quoted, notifies to us the horrible sacrifice of human life that is annually perpetrated in our manufacturing towns, far exceeding the average sacrifice of life by war, I think we should give an earnest of our sincere desire to avoid such horrors by immediately setting to work, in every practical form, to effect the object at home. As to the young persons between thirteen and eighteen, whom I call children, no one, I should think, can, in the abstract, object to their labour being curtailed to ten hours per day. It is the most critical period of life; it was well ascertained that they have not now the opportunities of healthful recreation and of moral instruction that they absolutely require, and that their physical powers are, in many cases, destroyed. The only argument that I anticipate against it is "the tyrant's plea," the plea of necessity. I expect to hear that to reduce the hours of work of the child to such as is compatible with his strength and his necessary moral training, will indirectly curtail the hours of labour of the adult workman with whom the child performs his labour; that this is a legislative interference between master and man; and it is contrary to the principles of political economy. I understand the words "political economy" to mean the mode of rightly governing a State; and my opponents have always asserted that any interference, by legislative enactment, between master and man, is a violation of the proper mode of governing. Let them recollect that they have all, whether as ministers or manufacturers, defined the labourer and the master to be two dealers—the first a man who sells the commodity called "labour," and the other, a man who buys that same commodity. They have defined them to be two dealers in one commodity. I ask my opponents to take their own definition, and tell me why it is contrary to the principles of political economy to interfere between these two dealers in the commodity called

491
labour, any more than between any other dealers? If they show that it is contrary to the principles of political economy to interfere between two adult dealers in labour, then they will show that the same principle prevails when the dealings between those two persons involves the sacrifice of helpless children of both sexes. For my part, Sir, I think that a leading principle of political economy is, the care of the lives, the health, and the morals of the people; and it is upon the ground that the life, health, and morality of the young persons, and of women, are sacrificed by too long hours work in our factories, that I ask leave to bring in this Bill. I must remind the House that, in 1833, it passed an Act for emancipating the black slaves of our West Indian colonies, in which a clause was inserted restricting the labour of the emancipated adult negro to forty-five hours in a week—a shorter period by thirteen hours than the English factory child claims at our hands, many of whom have to work in rooms of as high a temperature as that of the colonies. Sir, I wish to assure the House that the working people are now as anxious as ever for the abridgment of labour that this Bill would enact. I remember a remarkable saying, put forward by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), in the factory debate on the 22nd of May last, and reported thus:—
"If this measure were staved off for but one twelvemonth, he was assured that the admissions that had been made upon this subject would change the views of the working classes, and, instead of seeking for a law to compel short hours for their labour, they would see the superior advantages of leaving the question to be settled by the mutual arrangement of master and man, under such circumstances as would not cause a diminution of the wages."
Now, more than two-thirds of the twelvemonths have passed away, and I have gained much instruction on the feelings of the working people in factories in that time. I have attended all their meetings that I could with convenience, and I have carefully watched the reported proceedings of others; and I can safely say that not one word of this prophecy has been fulfilled, but just the contrary. The factory hands are more determined than ever to have a Ten Hours Bill. They have entreated the masters to shorten the hours of work voluntarily, and sustain wages. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) has been assisting them, but their efforts have failed, and now some are working twelve hours, some eight hours, some
492
six hours, some a less number, and some mills are altogether closed. Nothing like ten hours a day, on an average, are now being worked in the factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and yet there is no "mutual arrangement of masters and men" in regard to working their mills an uniform number of hours. While some children are being overworked, others have no work at all, and have to starve for want of the necessaries of life. If the Ten Hours Bill had passed last Session, I believe that much of the suffering now going on, and to be expected, would have been avoided, and the hands at the factories would have been working ten hours a day. Short time, such as now prevails, disturbs all things; puts workpeople on less wages, and manufacturers take advantage of the state of things to reduce wages, which do not rise again so readily as they fall. But the evil does not stop here. As regards the spinners and manufacturers themselves, the weaker and poorer manufacturers suffer by it the most. Of necessity they sell their goods as they are produced, and almost invariably at a loss in seasons of bad trade. The wealthier lay up stocks of goods in those times of depression, if materials and labour are low, and when the demand revives, and prices of materials and wages rise, they bring their stocks into the market, undersell their poorer competitors, and prevent them from recovering their losses for a longer time than would otherwise be the case, and an increase of insolvencies and bankruptcies follow, all of which would have been prevented by proper regulation. When the employers are ruined, their workpeople are thrown out of work, and have to suffer the evils of excessive poverty. What justification can be urged for working young children and women to death in factories, to promote a system which tends to so much suffering both amongst employers and the employed? In conclusion I beg to state, that it is a ten and not an eleven hours Bill that those employed in factories supplicate this House to grant. An eleven hours bill would not remedy the evils complained of; it would not give satisfaction, nor stop the agitation on this question; and, as I know from long experience that what they seek is reasonable and ought to be conceded, I implore the House to pass a Ten Hours Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYremarked that the Bill which the hon. Gentleman had just introduced was similar to that which had been introduced last Session, with the ex-

493
ception of slightly varying in form from that Bill. The first clause proposed to abridge the hours of labour in the case of young persons only, in which class are ranked all from thirteen to eighteen years of age, from twelve to eleven hours. The second clause proposed, after a given time, further to reduce the hours of labour to ten hours a day; and the third clause proposed that these two restrictions in reference to young persons should be extended to the case of female labourers. He hoped that there would be no discussion upon the Bill upon the present occasion, as the House would undoubtedly consent to the introduction of the Bill, reserving all discussion upon it until it was brought up for a second reading. He deemed it proper, however, on the present occasion, to guard himself against being supposed to acquiesce in the construction put upon, or rather upon the inference drawn from, the last report of the Registrar General—a very remarkable document, and one very well worthy the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that a strong proof was afforded in that document of an increased mortality amongst those who were engaged in factory labour, as compared with the population of the rural districts. So far as he recollected, his impression of that document was, that it afforded evidence of an increased mortality in crowded cities, where population had rapidly increased, as compared with the rural population. He believed that the hon. Gentleman would find that the mortality was greater, in proportion to its population, in Liverpool than it was in Manchester. The document referred to was well worthy the attention of the House, with reference to the necessity which existed for stringent sanatory regulations, particularly in the case of large towns. He would not at present enter further into the question, but would give his consent to the introduction of the Bill.
MR. TRELAWNYopposed the introduction of the Bill. He said he admitted the evil which existed, still he thought it right to protest against a measure which would militate so much against the interests of commerce without being advantageous to any class. If they legislated for those employed in factories, they should also take into consideration the hundred thousand female servants in London, who were most severely used by their masters and mistresses. An hon. Member beside him said they had not petitioned; but he
494
considered it was the duty of that House to remedy a grievance whether it was petitioned against or not. He thought that the adoption of the present measure would tend to a reduction of the rate of wages; persons employed in factories would be thrown out of employment, and thereby increase the amount of competition in the other branches of labour. In his opinion the principles of non-interference were those which should be adopted by the State, and the adoption of any other principle would lead only to great harm and inextricable confusion. And it lay on the supporters of the measure to make out an exception from this great principle of political economy. This, he conceived, they had not, however, done, and it was safer to abide by these principles. He should divide the House on the subject.
MR. FERRANDdid not wish to enter into the discussion of the subject. He rose merely to remark, that the object of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, seemed to be to show that the Legislature had no right to interfere with him in walloping his own ass. He begged to remind that hon. Member, however, that the Legislature had passed a Bill for the protection of animals; and he (Mr. Ferrand) did not see, when they prevented harshness and cruelty to animals, upon what ground the poor factory workers should not have the same protection extended to them. It was said two or three Sessions ago, by an hon. Member who was now in the Cabinet, that there was no strike among the operatives in favour of the Ten Hours Bill. The fact was, that the workmen were anxious to obtain protection, if possible, without a strike. They came to that House year after year asking them to grant protection to their wives and daughters; and he thought, with the First Minister of the Crown, that that protection ought to be given. Nay, more, he thought that it would be a disgrace to the world to allow the present system to continue any longer; and he was glad that the hon. Member for Oldham had brought the question again before the House. He was delighted also to hear that it was probable that the Bill which his hon. Friend introduced, would receive some support from Her Majesty's Government; at least, so he understood from a speech that had been made by the Secretary of the Admiralty to his constituents at Sheffield. If this were the case, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would excite a feeling of grati-

495
tude in the manufacturing districts, which would not be forgotten during the lives of the present generation of factory workers. He implored the House, on bended knees, to carry this Bill. If, however, they should refuse to grant the protection which was asked to the women and children of the factory districts—if they said they would not legislate for the happiness and comfort of their homes, they might depend upon it that ere long a spirit would be aroused in the north of England, which would convince them that it was a foolish assertion on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had taunted them that they were not striking on the subject, and, therefore, there was no use in acceding to the claims which were urged on their behalf before the House. He trusted that no Member would be found to second the Motion of the hon. Member who had last addressed the House; and that, at least, they would show they had sufficient sympathy with the claims of the poor, to allow the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham to pass without a division.
SIR G. STRICKLANDexpressed his satisfaction that the hon. Member for Oldham had brought forward this measure at so early a period of the Session, so as to give them the fullest opportunity of calmly and fairly considering a question of so much importance to the working classes of this country. For himself, he must say that he considered the Ten Hours Bill a just measure. The only arguments he had heard against the interference of the Legislature upon this most important subject, were those which were usually urged by those who emphatically called themselves political economists. Now, he thought that, rightly understood, political economy afforded the rules of sound reasoning for the government of legislation; but there was a certain sort of political economists who never listened to reason on this subject, and who carried their argument to an extreme that did not apply to the question now under discussion. The argument of the hon. Member for Tavistock, for instance, just amounted to this: he said, "Don't interfere with the labour of the young people working in the factories, because if you do, why don't you also legislate for the female servants throughout the city of London?" The hon. Member did not seem to see that the two cases were utterly dissimilar. The Legislature was called upon to interfere on behalf of young persons who could not protect themselves,
496
according to the rules of political economy. They were not called upon to interfere with female servants, because they were all supposed to be persons who were able to make a bargain with their masters; whereas most of the persons to whom this Bill applied were unable to make a bargain for themselves—the power of capital was so overwhelming — and they, therefore, asked that House, as a matter of humanity, to assist them in their difficulty. He most cordially seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham; and he thought the House was much indebted to him for the calm and temperate manner in which he had stated his case.
SIR R. PEEL: Sir, I regret that the hon. Member for Tavistock has intimated his intention of resisting the first reading of this Bill. I retain the opinions which I have held heretofore on this question. I retain those opinions, not because I am indifferent to the interests of those who are employed in factory labour, but because I entertain a sincere and conscientious conviction that we are not promoting their permanent interest by interfering in the manner they would wish us; and yet it is, as I think, perfectly consistent with the maintenance of those opinions that I should express regret at the present opposition of the hon. Member. In discussions of this kind, feeling enters as well as reason. To reject the Bill at this stage, would not be respectful to that great class of society whose welfare it is our duty to attend to. I thought there was a general impression at the commencement of this discussion, that leave would be given to bring in this Bill; that, in short, the same course would be followed this year as was followed the last year; that we should wait until after having seen the Bill, when we could apply ourselves to its discussion in a way in which the merits of the question could be entered into more fully than we can possibly do now. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, abstained from entering into the discussion, in the expectation that leave would be given to bring in the Bill. That was my own impression; and I think that, if ultimately the House should come to a decision on it adverse to the wishes of the parties, it would still be most desirable that that opinion should be taken after due consideration of the matter, and in a manner which would conciliate their feelings. I am, therefore, although entertaining the opinions I expressed last year,

497
not prepared to take the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman, in imperatively refusing an opportunity of considering the matter more fully than it is possible it can be just now.
MR. HUMEwould only add, to what had been said by the right hon. Baronet, that to act in the way recommended by the hon. Member for Tavistock, would not be doing justice to his own principles, because what he, as one of the supporters of the same views as the hon. Member, asked for was, that the subject should receive the fullest investigation. He held the opinion, which he had formed after the most mature consideration of the question, that masters and labourers should be at liberty to make what agreements they thought fit with respect both to hours and to wages. It was upon this principle that the House had swept away seventy or eighty Bills which had interfered with labour. He asked the House, then, to allow the subject to be fully discussed. He was perfectly satisfied that out of the discussion they would receive a great deal of information, even from those who conscientiously believed that the Bill would do good. In his opinion, it would do great injury even to the parties who were seeking it. He had received a great number of communications from different persons, all wishing that the subject should have the fairest and fullest discussion, and he hoped it would not be refused.
MR. B. ESCOTTheartily agreed in the suggestions which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman; but there was a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and not denied on the Ministerial side of the House, upon which he (Mr. Escott) wished to have a distinct understanding. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Knaresborough had rightly interpreted the intention of Government to support the Bill, or whether the Government intended at some future stage to exert themselves in opposition to it, or whether, as was perhaps the more probable case, it was not to be made a Government question at all? He was aware that some Members of the Government had expressed an opinion in favour of a measure of this kind, and others of them against it; and he presumed, therefore, that it would be made an open question, on which the Members of Government would take that side which each deemed most essential to the public interest. He felt quite sure that he would receive a dis-
498
tinct answer to the question he now put, as it would be satisfactory to the great interests concerned to know the decision of Government on this subject.
MR. TRELAWNYbegged to withdraw his opposition to the first reading, in deference to the opinion of the House.
MR. ESCOTT, having received no answer to his question, begged to repeat it. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I am not aware that I am out of order in putting a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] I appeal to you, Sir, if I am out of order?
MR. SPEAKER: You are out of order in speaking twice.
MR. ESCOTT: I hope, Sir, without meaning any discourtesy to you, I may be allowed to repeat the question which I put a little while ago, as to the future intentions of Government with respect to their support or opposition to this Bill?
LORD J. RUSSELL: I may just say that it seems agreed on all hands that the Bill should be read a first time without opposition; when we come to a future stage, I shall be prepared to state what course the Government will take.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
MR. HUMEmoved an Address to Her Majesty—
"For a Copy of the Minutes of the Trustees of the National Gallery during the years 1845 and 1846, with the names of all the Trustees present at each Meeting: Also for Copies of the Orders and Instructions to the Keeper of the Gallery respecting the Cleaning of the Pictures, and any directions in respect to their arrangement; and of any other Documents relating thereto."
SIR R. PEELbegged leave to second the Motion. The trustees had no other object than to give the fullest information to the House of Commons, who had always behaved so liberally and generously to them. He thought the hon. Member had pursued a proper course in refraining from comments until he was in possession of the papers. The Motion, he believed, was for a copy of the minutes for the last two years. As he had already said, there could, of course, be no objection on the part of the trustees to supply the fullest information. There had been a meeting of the trustees the other day, and in consequence of the observations which had been made elsewhere, they had called upon the gentleman under whose imme-

499
diate charge the institution was placed, to make the fullest report to them on the subject; and he hoped, in consideration of that gentleman's high character, his great eminence as an artist, and his consummate knowledge of that art of which he was so distinguished an ornament, hon. Members would suspend their judgment for a short time, until that report and the other documents were laid before the House, which he hoped would be in a few days.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERentirely concurred in what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet opposite. He assured the House that the fullest information would be laid before them.
Motion agreed to.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
SIR G. GREYmoved that the following Gentlemen be appointed as the Select Committee on the Law of Settlement: Mr. C. Buller, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Bankes, Mr. J. E. Denison, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Hindley, Mr. T. Duncombe, Lord H. Vane, Mr. P. Scrope, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. C. Round, Mr. Aldam, and Mr. Bodkin.
MR. FERRANDobjected to this list, as not being a fair representation of the sentiments of the House. He found that out of fifteen names, it contained nine of Gentlemen of Liberal opinions, and only six of Conservatives, or Tories, or some other name; for he really did not know what the Gentlemen attached to the late First Lord of the Treasury called themselves. If he only knew what were their principles, he would know better what to call them. But, at all events, he did not think it was fair to have so large a majority of persons holding one class of opinions. There was another fatal objection to the list. It contained the name of Mr. Hindley in place of Mr. Henley, and he considered that the right hon. Gentleman could not proceed with it without giving a fresh notice.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was competent to agree to all the names, except that of Mr. Henley.
MR. FERRANDsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon adhering to this Committee, he had nothing more to say; but he must protest against it as being an unfair selection.
SIR G. GREYremarked, that he had taken pains, as he thought, to make as near as possible a fair representation of
500
the feelings of the House. The proportions were not exactly as the hon. Member had stated. There were seven Members from one side of the House, and eight from the other; and in selecting them he had been anxious to have Gentlemen from different parts of the country, so as to include as fair a representation as possible of the large towns and the counties. Not being able to suggest any amendment in the composition of the Committee, he must persist in proposing the list of names as it stood upon the Paper, with the omission of the name of Mr. Hindley.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Real Property Deeds Registration.
PRIVATE BILLS. [See Tabular Synopsis at the end of the Session.]
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Directors of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures at Manchester, and Inhabitants of Whitburn, for Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of the Isle of Thanet Farmers' Club, and a great number of other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From Scorton, and several other places, for the adoption of a Measure to prevent the unconstitutional proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League in relation to the Corn Laws.

THE ADDRESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen read the following reply from Her Majesty, in answer to their Lordships' Address:—
My LORDS,
I thank you for the renewed Assurance of your Loyalty and Attachment to My Crown and Person.
You may rely on My constant Desire to co-operate with you in promoting the Happiness and Contentment of My People.

THE CORN LAWS
The DUKE of RICHMOND, in presenting petitions from several places, praying for the continuance of protection to agriculture, said: In presenting these petitions

165
to your Lordships, and in stating my intention to support their prayer to the utmost of my power, I beg to say that these petitioners express their hope and trust that your Lordships will not consent to any alteration of the present Corn Law; and that, at all events, happen what may, your Lordships will not consent to any alteration without an appeal to the constituencies of the country, that it may be seen whether their opinions on this important question have undergone any change. I, as one of those who cannot conscientiously give my vote in violation of the compact made with the agricultural interest in the year 1842, and as one who cannot look without serious alarm upon the abandonment of the principle of protection, would call upon your Lordships to pause and hesitate before you teach those persons in every part of Her Majesty's extensive dominions who have been peaceable, quiet, and orderly, that to be unobtrusive is to be defenceless; and that systems which have been tested and approved by the experience of ages are to be abandoned in consequence of combination, intimidation, and the manifestation of party rancour. Till I find your Lordships giving your assent to any measure for altering the Corn Laws, I shall feel that it is impossible you can suffer yourselves to be intimidated by the Anti-Corn-Law League and their hired advocates and emissaries. I may add that, in presenting these petitions to your Lordships, I can answer for the respectability of a great many of the persons by whom they are signed.

MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: I beg to ask the noble Duke whether he has received Her Majesty's permission to state to your Lordships' House those reasons which induced the Government to resign office, and afterwards to re-accept office?
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, I have received Her Majesty's permission to state what may be necessary to this House upon the subject which has been referred to by my noble Friend. I wish to know whether my noble Friend intends to ask any further question?
The DUKE of RICHMOND: I consider that it would be most convenient to the House that I should not make a speech, but that I should merely ask a question of the noble Duke. I think we are all anxious to know the grounds which led to the resignation of Her Majesty's Government;
166
and in my opinion we ought also to know how a Cabinet which could not form a Government on one day, was enabled to form one on another.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: I rise, my Lords, to give an answer to the question which has been put to me by my noble Friend. But, my Lords, in doing so, although I can answer only for myself and my own motives, yet I must, in order to explain myself to the House, speak generally of what passed in Her Majesty's Councils; and I do feel myself under the necessity of detaining your Lordships for a few minutes on this subject; and you may rely upon it, I will detain you for as short a time as possible. My Lords, when the accounts were received from Ireland, and from different parts of Great Britain, in the course of the last autumn, of the state of the potato crop, and of the inconveniences which were likely to result from it, my right hon. Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government felt it to be his duty to call his Colleagues together, in order to give them the opportunity of considering the Reports which were received. He accordingly did so; and he laid these Reports before his Colleagues. My right hon. Friend then stated to his Colleagues certain propositions for the adoption of measures which he felt it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to sanction, in order to avoid or to remedy the unlimited evils which, in his opinion, were likely to occur in consequence of this misfortune. One of the measures which was suggested by my right hon. Friend was, that Her Majesty's servants should recommend to Her Majesty, by an Order in Council, to suspend the operation of the existing Corn Law, so as to open the ports for the admission of foreign corn duty free. My Lords, it is not necessary that I should here discuss the motives stated, or the grounds on which this recommendation was founded. I, however, was one of those who considered that it was a measure which was not necessary to be adopted at that time. I considered that, although the misfortune to which I have referred, would undoubtedly have the effect of depriving millions, I may say, of our fellow creatures of a large part of the provision which they had made for their food for the year, yet, that misfortune did not exactly amount to a deficiency of food. There was no insufficiency of corn, according to all the accounts, in the country; and the opinion of others, as well as my own, was, that such arrangements should

167
be made as had been made heretofore to meet the evil, by finding the means of employment, and the means of procuring food as the reward of that labour. It appeared to me, besides, that under the provisions of the existing Corn Law, if it was desirable that the ports should be opened, Parliament had provided for such an emergency; and that if ever the price of the particular article of grain should reach such an amount as would manifest a deficiency or want, that the law had provided that foreign grain should be admitted at a nominal duty. Under these circumstances, my Lords, it appeared to me to be unnecessary to suspend that law; and on these grounds, I certainly was one of those who objected to the proposition of my right hon. Friend. At the same time, I was most anxious, and the Government unanimously concurred in the desire, to meet the difficulty, and accordingly, they proceeded to adopt all such measures as seemed to them calculated to meet the apprehended misfortune. They framed a Commission in Ireland, and took care to instruct it in respect to those measures which were to be adopted for giving employment to the people, and thereby procuring food for them as a reward and in payment of their labour, and for carrying out those measures which on former occasions have been found to be so beneficial, and to work so effectually. I believe that all those plans have been resorted to. They are not new to the public servants of this country. I believe, I say, that they have been effectually adopted; and that it may be hoped, therefore, that the great inconveniences and great misery which appeared likely to arise from this misfortune will be avoided. My Lords, in the course of the discussion upon these measures, it certainly was intimated that the suspension of the Corn Law might render the renewal of it at a future period very difficult; and it undoubtedly was intimated that it might be necessary to make an essential alteration in the law. Subsequently, my Lords, when the instructions were agreed upon, to be given to the Commissioners appointed to visit in Ireland (as I before stated), my right hon. Friend intimated his opinion of the absolute necessity of making an essential alteration in the Corn Laws. I believe that everybody admitted that some alteration was necessary—that an alteration, that is to say in some points, was called for. There is no doubt that that was admitted by all. But, my Lords, in the opinion of my right hon.
168
Friend, it was necessary to make an essential alteration in the existing Corn Law. Many members of Her Majesty's Cabinet objected to this suggested alteration, and there was a strong difference of opinion upon the subject. As for my part, I certainly was of opinion that it was desirable to avoid making any alteration which was essential in the present Corn Law. But, my Lords, I confess that in my individual position, I considered the consequences of a division of opinion in the Cabinet, as affecting the stability and safety of the Government itself; and I thought it essential that the differences of opinion should, if possible, be reconciled. Having served the Crown of England for above fifty years in high public situations, I consider it my duty on all occasions to endeavour to promote its service; and I did everything in my power to reconcile the differences of opinions among my Colleagues, and to preserve in union a Government which enjoyed the confidence of the Sovereign, of the public, of both Houses of Parliament. I considered it my duty to make every effort to maintain union in the Cabinet, and to reconcile differences of opinion, as the best services I could render to my Sovereign in the circumstances in which the Cabinet was placed upon the subject. I, nevertheless, my Lords, was unfortunate in those efforts—I did not succeed: and the result was, a declaration on the part of my right hon. Friend, that he would submit to Her Majesty his resignation of office, and that he would recommend to Her Majesty to endeavour to form another Government. My Lords, this course was adopted, after a discussion whether it was most advisable that my right hon. Friend should come down to Parliament and make a proposition for an alteration of the Corn Laws, having at the time, a divided Cabinet, of which the majority were against the proposition; or whether it was not best, and more to the interest and convenience of Her Majesty, that my right hon. Friend should proceed at once to Her Majesty and intimate to Her Majesty the position in which he stood, and express his desire that Her Majesty should permit him to resign his office, and that Her Majesty should form another Government. That course was discussed, and I certainly was one who thought that it was desirable my right hon. Friend should resign his office rather than go into Parliament with a divided Cabinet; and I certainly believe that all the Members of the Cabinet were of the same opinion.

169
Accordingly that was the course which my right hon. Friend took. He waited upon Her Majesty, and informed Her of the situation in which he found himself, and he recommended to Her Majesty to form another Administration. Her Majesty sent for another noble Lord, and that noble Lord, I understand—indeed I know—did make an endeavour to form an Administration. In that endeavour the noble Lord did not succeed; and Her Majesty, thereupon, thought proper to write to my right hon. Friend, and to desire him to resume his situation which he still held until another Administration should be formed. My right hon. Friend wrote to me, (I was in the country at the time,) and informed me that he had been sent for, and that Her Majesty had desired him to resume his situation, and that he had determined, happen what might, that he would, even if he stood alone, as Minister of the Crown, enable Her Majesty to meet Her Parliament. This being the resolution of my right hon. Friend, I highly applauded his decision, and I determined that I for one would stand by him. I felt it my duty. I was of opinion that the formation of a Government in which Her Majesty would have confidence, was of much greater importance than the opinions of any individual on the Corn Laws, or on any other law. My Lords, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend desiring me to attend a Cabinet Council that evening, which I did. I applauded the conduct of my right hon. Friend. I was delighted with it; it was exactly the course which I should have followed myself under similar circumstances; and I, therefore, determined, my Lords, to stand by him. My Lords, at the same time that I did this, I well knew the position in which my right hon. Friend stood in relation to the Corn Laws. I knew well that in consequence of my right hon. Friend having resigned office into Her Majesty's hands, because he could not prevail on his Cabinet to support him in a material alteration of the Corn Laws, those whom Her Majesty employed to form a new Government must have had a full knowledge of the particular circumstances under which my right hon. Friend resigned office. The noble Lord the Member for London knew that my right hon. Friend, under the particular circumstances of the case, could not go into the House of Commons and again defend the Corn Laws in the same way which he had done in the preceding July. My right hon. Friend could not go into the
170
House of Commons and defend the Corn Laws against those Gentlemen who were informed of the alteration in my right hon. Friend's opinion, and who, of course, in such an event, would have reproached him with the alteration in his opinion. I knew well, therefore, when I told my right hon. Friend that I would stand by him on his resumption of government, I knew well that in so doing I must be a party to a proposition for a material alteration in the Corn Laws. I knew it, and I admit I knew it. So far my Lords, I have accounted for my own conduct. I agreed to stand by my right hon. Friend, and to support his proposition; and I acted on that night, my Lords, in the full confidence with which I here state this evening, that although the proposition of my right hon. Friend may be found to involve a material alteration in the Corn Laws, yet that it will also be found satisfactory to the country, and satisfactory to the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposition, my Lords, with the alteration it contemplates, will, at the same time, give such advantages to the landed interest as the landed interest have a right to expect in the general arrangements of the country. Now, my Lords, I beg you to recollect my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is a great landed proprietor: his interests are those of agriculture; he is connected in friendship and association with most of your Lordships; and, therefore, it cannot be supposed for a moment that he would betray the interests of a body of such importance as the agricultural interest. No, my Lords, I repeat, that when your Lordships see my right hon. Friend's proposition, which will be laid before yon in the course of the next few days, you will then find that my right hon. Friend has not betrayed his duty in the measure which he recommends to your adoption. At all events, whatever that measure may be, I must say this, that, situated as I am in this country—highly rewarded as I have been by the Sovereign and the people of England—I could not refuse that Sovereign to aid Her, when called upon, to form a Government, in order to enable Her Majesty to meet Her Parliament and to carry on the business of the country. Upon that ground, my Lords, I present myself to your Lordships; and I claim from you an acquiescence in the principle I have laid down, that I positively could not refuse to serve my Sovereign when thus called upon. I have no doubt, when the measure is laid

171
before your Lordships, it will meet satisfaction here, and general approbation throughout the country.
The DUKE of BUCKINGHAMsaid, as the noble and gallant Duke had given their Lordships an account of the late movement in the Cabinet as far as he had been personally concerned, it was desirable that their Lordships should know from some noble Lord on the other side of the House, why those who had been called upon by Her Majesty to form a Government, on the occasion of the resignation of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, had not succeeded in doing so. After having listened to his noble Friend, the noble Duke who had just sat down, he must confess that the explanation given by his noble Friend did not appear satisfactory to him. It appeared that the Government, as now constituted, had become almost entirely a free-trade Government; and he would wish, therefore, to know why, when the Government had found noble Lords in that House ready to come forward and form a Government on those principles, they, professing an altered opinion on the subject of free trade, were not ready to support and assist those noble Lords in carrying out the principle which, for so many years, they had advocated with consistency and principle? That was a question which he thought the country had a right to have answered. How, again, was it that the noble Lord and those who were ready to join him, were unable to perfect the object of which they had so long been the champions? He could not but lament deeply to hear of the change of opinion which had taken place in the present Government, recollecting, as he did, the principles which they had formerly professed. He only wished that the proposition which the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government was to bring forward next evening would, as the noble Duke had promised, prove satisfactory; but, for his own part, he could not bring himself to believe that it would be found so in that House, or by the agricultural interests of the country generally. Should his apprehensions be well founded, he, for one, would be ready to assist his noble Friend at his right hand (the Duke of Richmond) in resisting any measure injurious to the agricultural interests, no matter by what Government it should be brought forward.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: I don't know what the meaning of a free-trade
172
Government is. Will the noble Duke state what he means by a free-trade Government?
The DUKE of BUCKINGHAMbegged to claim the attention of the House for a moment longer. No doubt his noble and gallant Friend was as much staggered at the accusation made against him of being a Member of a free-trade Government, as he (the Duke of Buckingham) was to find his noble and gallant Friend in a Cabinet approving of such principles. He could understand noble Lords opposite belonging to such a Government, because they had always professed such principles. Those noble Lords had been prepared to form a Government on free-trade principles; but the noble Duke, and those with whom he acted, had turned out the Government of those noble Lords on account of the principles which they professed with regard to the Corn Laws. He could not help, therefore, feeling, when the Government of his noble Friend, with whom he had acted in 1831, had since then so completely changed their opinions on this subject, that they were now, if not a free-trade Government, at least as nearly approaching that title as possible.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had on a former day declared himself perfectly prepared to state, perhaps at some length, the circumstances under which he, in common with his noble Friend the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and others, had been called upon to form a Government, which would unquestionably have been such a one as the noble Duke who had just sat down had described, namely, a Government formed on the principles of free trade. But all the circumstances connected with these occurrences had now been so fully stated, and were so generally before the public, that it must have reached their Lordships in common with every other person in the country, and he really did not, therefore, feel himself called upon to detain the House by entering into all the occurrences that had then taken place. If he did not find himself so circumstanced, he certainly should, of his own part, have availed himself of any opportunity that might have offered to state the particular grounds on which he had given his adhesion to the principles of the total abolition of the present Corn Law, in connexion with what he should deem an indispensable accompaniment of such a course, namely, the bringing forward of other measures of justice for the alleviation of the

173
burdens that peculiarly affected the agricultural interests, and the continuance of which he would regard as unfair towards those interests, the protection duty on corn being taken off. Having been formerly an advocate for a fixed duty on corn, he felt that he ought to have some good reason for abandoning that principle at the present moment, after his former public declarations in favour of it. But when he had the high authority of his right hon. Friend at the head of the present and of the former Government, that the substitution of a fixed duty for the existing Corn Law was one to which he never would con sent, and when he found that to this high authority was added that of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London, who now declared himself in favour of the abolition of all protective duties, retaining his opinion that a fixed duty would have been the most satisfactory arrangement that could be made of this question, and one which, if it had been adopted earlier, would have prevented the agitation that had taken place on this subject—he, nevertheless — having never maintained that a fixed duty ought to be adopted on the principle that a Corn Law should be an exception to the ordinary laws of commerce, but, on the contrary, having advocated it on the ground that he thought it ought not to be an exception to these laws, but that, while other protective duties were continued, a duty on the importation of foreign corn ought to be continued also—he did think, if it were not practicable to bring a fixed duty before the consideration of Parliament with a chance of its being adopted, that the entire abolition of the Corn Law was to be preferred, either to the sliding scale, which had been for some time the law of this country, but which, as he thought, had been mischievously the law of this country, or in comparison with any alteration of that sliding scale, or in comparison with what was called an evanescent duty, the tendency of which must be to perpetuate the feeling of insecurity which had for sometime operated so mischievously among both the agricultural and the commercial interests. With these feelings, the result of his deliberations with those who had been waited upon by his noble Friend to form a Government was, that the entire abolition of all interference with the corn trade, accompanied with the removal or alteration, as far as was consistent with the public duty, of every burden bearing on the landed interest, was the only practicable course open their adoption. Having been
174
called upon by the noble Duke, he thought himself bound to state thus fully the particular grounds which had led him to concur in the general opinion entertained by those with whom he had consulted on the occasion, and the grounds which had induced him to state that opinion to Her Majesty when he had been honoured with Her Majesty's commands to attend Her more than once on this subject. Not closing his eyes to the difficulty which the new Government would have to encounter in meeting Parliament as at present constituted, he felt that no circumstances, even the most favourable in other respects, ought to have induced his noble Friend the Member for the city of London, and others who had not the confidence of Parliament, not possessing a majority in either House, to undertake or contemplate the undertaking of any such duty, unless they had been assured that the right hon. Baronet then at the head of Her Majesty's Government should find himself incapable of carrying on the public business; and secondly, unless it could also be ascertained whether those who differed from the right hon. Baronet in the Cabinet, on the question of an alteration of the Corn Law, did or did not think themselves capable of carrying on that law. It was only on the information so obtained that the project of forming a Government was entertained. Their Lordships were aware that it had been stated elsewhere to what extent the question had been entertained, and how it had ultimately been abandoned. All he could add was, that it was his fervent hope and wish that this great question might be dealt with in Parliament in such a way as to ensure an improved commerce in corn, in a manner consistent with justice to the occupiers of land; and above all, in a manner calculated to procure and ensure that which had not hitherto existed, namely, something like a certainty in the pursuit of these transactions. He was anxious that the merchant-importer, the consumer, and the farmer, should have something like a certainty of the prices which the article was to bring. The question as to the manner in which the Act to be brought before their Lordships should be passed was, he thought, one of much greater magnitude at the present moment than the question in whose hands the government of the country should for the moment be placed. He should not, therefore, enter into any details on this latter subject, more especially as he thought it had been sufficiently explained elsewhere. The facts had already appeared before the public, and their Lordships must

175
therefore be perfectly cognizant of them. He trusted the consideration would press itself on their Lordships, what was the most just and the most satisfactory mode of dealing with this question, in whatever hands the Government should be placed. He for one had been throughout of opinion that the facility which the present Government possessed of inducing noble Lords to carry this question was greater than any that others could have, and that, as the matter could only be passed through the House by effecting conversions in some quarter or another—not on his (the Opposition) side of the House, but among noble Lords opposite—a much greater facility was possessed by Her Majesty's present Government for effecting that result than would be at the disposal of another Government. He was therefore sanguine enough to hope that, under the influence of noble Lords opposite, this great question may be brought to a final and satisfactory settlement.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: I wish to add a few words to my explanation to your Lordships, relating to the question proposed to me whether I would undertake to form another Government on the principle of maintaining the present Corn Law. It is perfectly true, as stated by the noble Marquess, that in the course of the discussions which took place (after the resignation of my right hon. Friend, and before his resumption of office) between Her Majesty and the noble Lord in another place, and the noble Marquess—it is perfectly true that I, and I believe others, were called upon to state whether any one of us was disposed to form a Government on the principle of maintaining the existing Com Law. My Lords, what others answered, I cannot pretend to say. I answered immediately that I was not—that I could not undertake to form such a Government. I do not recollect that during the discussions previous to the resignation of my right hon. Friend, any one had talked of the formation of a Government on such principles; but as soon as I was appealed to, I made that answer. But, my Lords, when I made that answer, I did it not only out of diffidence in my own ability to undertake such a charge, but likewise, my Lords, because I felt that it would be absolutely impossible, according to my knowledge of the opinions of the House of Commons, to form a Government in which the public could have confidence, which should be formed on the principle of supporting that measure. Under those circumstances, my Lords, I certainly, when called upon to say whether I
176
would or no form a Government on that principle, declared that I could not and would not.
The EARL of RADNORsaid, amongst the variety of questions there was one which had not been put—a most important one, because it related to the people and to the general state of this country. The question he should like to ask would be, what precautions had been taken to counteract the misfortune and calamity which had fallen on the country? The noble Duke had told them in his first speech that many millions of the people of this country were deprived of their food. They knew that the alarm on this subject was so great that the First Lord of the Treasury, on the 31st of October, was prepared to propose to the Cabinet to proceed at once to issue an Order in Council to open the ports for the admission of foreign corn duty free. Divers Cabinet Councils were held, as the public knew, upon that subject; and, after meeting several times, Her Majesty's Government parted on the 6th of November without having come to any other resolution but that of appointing a Commission to inquire into the state of the potato crop in Ireland. Everything that was done on that 31st of October was calculated to excite alarm and apprehension in the country; but they separated on the 6th of November, and never came together again until the 25th. It appeared to him to be rather an extraordinary proceeding, that when the country was in a state of apprehension, and well-founded apprehension too, of famine, the Government, after meeting and consulting upon a variety of occasions upon that subject, should part without doing anything to relieve the anxiety of the country, or to obviate the evils that were apprehended. Then, on the 25th of November, they met again; and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, still entertaining the same opinion, and wishing to introduce the same measure, found himself precluded from doing so, because his noble Friend the noble Lord the Member for London had published a letter in which he said, that the very thing ought to be done which the Premier proposed to do. That appeared to him to be an inconceivable thing, that because a man thought that a certain thing ought to be done, yet it was not to be done because another was of the same opinion. It seemed to him not to be the conduct of rational men, but rather very much like that of a spoiled child, who said, "I want to do this; but you tell me

177
I ought to do it, and therefore I won't do it." Yet that was precisely the conduct of the Government. Now, he wanted to know what had been done on behalf of the people. On the 31st of October those apprehensions were felt by the Cabinet, and they were felt up to the present moment; for no longer ago than Friday last, if he were rightly informed, they were talking in another place of mouldy potatoes; but the Prime Minister told them it was no subject for a joke, for in two months they would find it was a serious calamity. Had anything been done, then, to provide against that state of things? Could anything he more calculated to excite apprehension than the proceedings of the Government? They met, consulted, quarrelled, and separated without doing anything, and that too at a time when, as the noble Duke said, many millions of people were deprived of their accustomed food—for they knew how many people in Ireland lived on potatoes. He wanted, then, to know whether anything had been done? and, if not, whether anything was to be done? And when? for if they were to wait for the settlement of the Corn Law question, he feared that the distress would be much aggravated before that time. As for the proposed alteration in the Corn Laws, he feared very much, after what had fallen from the noble Duke, that it was not likely to be what he should very much approve of. Whilst he was on his legs he would say one word only with respect to what had fallen from the noble Marquess below him. Now he, for one, could not understand what were the exclusive burdens that were felt by the landed interest, and for which compensation was to be given to them. He hoped that that would not be given without inquiry into the subject, and, when that inquiry was taken, he very much doubted whether any such compensation would be given.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, the noble Earl who had just spoken could not have attended to what he (the Duke of Wellington) had stated to their Lordships; for, if he recollected right, he stated to their Lordships, that a Commission had been issued, and Commissioners were sent over, and the Commission formed, and instructions given in every respect as to the mode of providing work for the people, and of finding them food as the reward of their labour. He thought the noble Earl was mistaken, if his recollection did not fail him; for he thought that the Cabinet met often between the 6th and the 25th of
178
November, and that Parliament was prorogued in that interval, and that must have been done under the advice of the Cabinet.
The DUKE of RICHMONDthen presented a petition from the landowners, tenant-farmers, labourers, and other persons interested in the prosperity of agriculture, at Wareham, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. With reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) as to the peculiar burdens upon land, he joined him in the hope that before any change was made in the present law, there would be an inquiry into that subject; and, if there were, he (the Duke of Richmond) pledged himself to prove that a farmer paying 300 l. a year rent paid treble the taxes that Mr. Cobden paid, although he made 30,000 l. a year. The members of the League, both in that House and out of it, were always making assertions, but were never proving them.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that if the noble Duke was so desirous of having an inquiry into the peculiar burdens on land, the fault of his not yet having procured it rested not with the public, but with the Friends of the noble Duke himself: because, year after year, his hon. Friend Mr. Cobden—as their Lordships might know by the Votes of the other House—had moved for a Committee to inquire into the peculiar burdens upon land; and however unable the Friends of the noble Duke had been to meet the arguments of his hon. Friend on this subject, either in the House or out of it, he having converted almost all persons out of the House, and he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) trusted a very large majority, as well as their leader, within; yet they had always defeated that inquiry. The reason for suggesting that inquiry now, might possibly be delay; but, if that reason could possibly be set aside, he should be most happy to go into it; because he was in precisely the same position as the noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) near him; because, although he had always heard, on both sides of the House, that there were peculiar burdens upon land, yet he had been unable to understand what they were. He certainly had heard tithes mentioned; but they were not peculiar burdens upon land, any more than were the quit-rents or head-rents of an English copyhold estate. Anything else he had never heard of; but, he did say, that if that inquiry could be gone into without delay, he, for one, should be most happy to consent to it, really and

179
truly, for the purpose of acquiring information upon the subject.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that an attack had been made upon his Friends the agriculturists in the House of Commons; he, therefore, got up in their defence. Why was it that they had not agreed to the Motion for a Committee to inquire into burdens upon lands? Because Mr. Cobden prefaced his Motion for that inquiry by avowing that it was with the intention of getting rid of the Corn Laws altogether; and every one who was used to the proceedings of Parliament knew that it was usual to resist a Motion brought forward with any other than the avowed object. His Friends were always ready for a fair inquiry. He supposed that the highway rates and the poor rates were not burdens upon land. He should like to know whether one of his tenants did not pay more poor rates than the whole League put together? He was quite ready to go into the inquiry. His noble Friend said, he should oppose it, if it were for the purpose of delay; but he was sorry to hear his noble Friend say, that this measure was to be pushed through Parliament without inquiry. His noble Friend said, that Mr. Cobden had made converts of the whole of the Cabinet of Sir R. Peel, and the rest of the Ministers; and then he said that he had made converts of almost every body out of doors. If that were the case, then let the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government go to the people of England upon this question. He (the Duke of Richmond) would say to the farmers throughout the country, "Protection, not to corn alone, but to British industry." Let them go to the country, and ask the manufacturers of England—ay, the manufacturers of this town—the English tailors and shoemakers, whether they would consent to foreign articles coming in free of duty? He defied them to go to the country; but let them go and appeal to those constituencies that placed the present Government in power; and he said that those constituencies would say, "We were against free trade then, and we are against free trade now."
LORD BEAUMONTwished to say but one word upon this subject, and that was in answer to his noble Friend, the noble Marquess behind them. His noble Friend said, that the friends of the agriculturists had refused inquiry into the burdens upon land hitherto, but now, at this moment, they loudly called for such inquiry. Such would have been his conduct if a Motion
180
had been made to that effect in that House—viz., formerly to have refused such inquiry, and now to call for it. He would explain that apparent inconsistency. It was not till that moment that there was any prospect of a total repeal of the Corn Laws; and as long as those laws were in existence he thought it was the bounden duty of the agriculturists to submit to the peculiar burdens that bore upon them: any inquiry would have been useless, unless it had been with the intention of removing those burdens, and as he thought that they ought not to be removed, he considered that such an inquiry would have been useless; it would have wasted time, and would have raised hopes and expectations in many persons engaged in the cultivation of land that would not have been realized. That was his reason for formerly opposing an inquiry into the peculiar burdens upon land. But now a change had taken place in the country, which had so disorganized parties, which was going far to threaten all the institutions of the country, and which menaced such frightful revolutions in our commercial relations and agricultural interests that he thought the House could no longer delay to revise the whole of the local and general taxation of the country, with a view to a more equal distribution of the burdens; and he was therefore one of those who called for an inquiry into the burdens upon land — the Poor Laws — the commutation of tithes, not that he considered tithes one of the peculiar burdens upon land; they were real property, in the possession of the tithe-owners, and were no burden upon land; and if an inquiry were asked for into the law of the commutation of tithes, it would be for the purpose of doing justice to those persons who held them; and he would take this opportunity to say that many of those persons had in this contest behaved in a manner highly to their credit—he meant the clergy of the Church of England, who had not meddled on the one side or the other, though at that moment their property was likely to be affected, as well as that of other classes of the community. But he said, he wished for an inquiry into that subject, not as a burden upon land; but if his noble Friend wished to know what were the peculiar burdens upon land he recommended him to consult the two volumes now lying on the Table—the admirable production of the Poor Law Commissioners, and the Report on Local Taxation. He would ask his noble Friend to read through the passage

181
which said, that nearly 12,000,000 l. of local taxation were paid by real property alone, and that stock in trade, profit in trade, and funded property, were totally exempt from that taxation. If, then, those 12,000,000 l. were annually paid by real property, they were a burden upon land; and he thought that if they did go into the inquiry they would see that, independent of the enormous amount raised, there were in the distribution of these burdens, and in the manner of their assessment, grievances of which the land had a right to complain. There were certain restrictions in the employment of capital in the cultivation of land, as well as excise laws against the free use of the produce of the land, of which the landowners had a right to complain. Whilst he was on his legs, he might be excused if he mentioned an observation that struck him during the explanations that had recently taken place. He must say candidly that the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had explained the part that he had taken in the great scene of conversion with his usual distinctness; but he thought that curiosity might well be excited to know what were the grounds, what were the motives, what were the reasons that made converts of the rest of the majority of the Cabinet who opposed the opinions and plans proposed by the Prime Minister. He thought they had a right to know—he would not say a right, but curiosity might well be excited to know what made a convert of the late First Lord of the Admiralty; and again, what made a convert of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control. He could not imagine that it was any light reasons that had influenced his conduct; for he (Lord Beaumont) remembered listening in that House to a Speech the most convincing that could be addressed to their Lordships in favour of protection. Again, he trusted that the motives that might have converted the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were not that he might have an additional argument in arranging affairs on the other side of the Atlantic; for, if the noble Earl imagined that merely the prospect of profit would prevail, or if he considered that such measures would enter into the scale, he (Lord Beaumont) held that the noble Earl offered an insult directly to the North Americans, to imagine, that they would arrange a great national question on the ground and for the reason of profit, instead of relying upon those great principles of justice and right, and interpretation of treaties, which
182
ought alone to govern a nation; and which were now so clearly pointed out by those who had taken the trouble to read the numerous documents upon that subject. With regard to the question which had been raised by the noble Earl, he owned he perfectly agreed with him in thinking that it was something extraordinary that the publication of a letter from Edinburgh should have cured the potato disease. The moment that letter came out, it appeared that a total change took place—the immediate measures were immediately abandoned, and that for no reason, motive, or ground which was distinctly put forth, except the extraordinary one of a letter having been published in the public journals. He had but one word more, and that was with regard to the question of Ireland. If they now removed the sole advantage, perhaps, that Ireland enjoyed, viz., that of obtaining a greater profit on the sale of Irish produce in the English markets, in consequence of the duties on the introduction of foreign produce, he said that they removed and weakened one of those ties of love and gratitude which she might otherwise feel for this country. And he thought it would be strange if that argument were not afterwards put forward by those who might hope to obtain another kind of repeal. Seeing the rapidity with which an agitating club had effected the conversion, conscientiously, no doubt, of the Cabinet upon this question, he thought that another club of repeal might hope to attain the same success, especially when furnished, as they then would be, with the strong argument that the great advantage Ireland hitherto derived from her connection with England was about to be taken from her. He might go further and say, what was the use of the Canada Corn Bill? In giving that Bill to Canada, they placed that Colony in a situation in which she was indebted to the mother country for certain advantages. They now would remove these; and, from what was going on in America, how could they expect that Canada would long remain dependent upon this country, when they gave her no advantage in her trade? They had heard of the annexation of Texas, and another annexation might follow. He would not have mentioned this; but, at a time like the present, when we were on the point of a great commercial revolution, it was the bounden duty of every man to cast his eyes as far as he could, and endeavour to see what might be the result of the measures that were proposed.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid: Believing that my situation in some respects differs from that of my Colleagues, I think it necessary to explain to the noble Lord the circumstances of the question he has put to me. It is unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships with the reasons which brought me to the opinions which I hold; but I wish to state to the noble Lord that when my right hon. Friend, at the commencement of November, made the proposal to the Government which has been alluded to, I gave to that proposal my cordial and unhesitating assent. It would not be proper at this time to enter into the reasons that induced me to come to that opinion; but such was the opinion I then entertained, and such is the opinion I entertain now.
House adjourned.