Sitting of 15 June 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Carlow County, v. Thomas Bunbury, Esq. deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3o. and passed. Ropeworks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Admiral Dundas, from Greenwich, and other places, praying that a Bill may be passed compensating the Proprietors of Lands for the Purchase of Sites for Free Churches (Scotland).—From William James Chapman, Esq., Chairman of the South Western Steam Packet Company, on behalf of the said Company, praying that all Expenses for the Erection and Maintenance of Lighthouses, Floating Buoys, and Beacons on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, should be henceforth defrayed out of the Public Revenue.—By Mr. O'Connell, from People of England, Scotland, and Wales, and of the Irish resident in England, against the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill.

THE OBSERVATORY AT GREENWICH.
SIR ROBERT INGLISinquired whether there was any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table the Report of the Scientific Commissioners who had been appointed to take into consideration the question whether the works of the Croydon Railway were likely to interfere injuriously with the operations of the Observatory at Greenwich?
SIR ROBERT PEELreplied that there could be no objection to lay on the Table select extracts from the document in question. It unfortunately happened that some excited feeling had been mutually manifested between the scientific men engaged in this inquiry, and he did not see what good end would be obtained by publishing mere matters of wrangling. Everything, however, of a scientific character—everything that was calculated to throw light on the merits of the question at issue, he would have much pleasure in laying before the House.

EXPLANATION.
MR. ROSStook occasion to allude to a matter connected with the debate on

481
Friday night. He had to complain that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had unintentionally misrepresented what had fallen from him in the course of that debate. The right hon. Baronet, in assuming to quote his words, had put into his mouth what he had never uttered. He had attributed to him this monstrous proposition, the absurdity of which must strike every one, that when a statesman once do-parted from the paths of the Constitution, the farther he diverged from it the better. He had never said anything of the kind. What he had said was, that when a statesman once found himself called upon to depart from the path of the Constitution, he ought not to falter until the object for sake of which he had left it had been attained.
SIR R. PEELwas not conscious of having misrepresented the hon. Member; but if the fact were otherwise, he could only say be regretted it. He remembered having asked the hon. Member whether he was prepared to deny the allegation, that the state of Ireland was such as to require some extraordinary measure such as the Bill under consideration? and when the hon. Member replied that he was prepared to deny the proposition, he asked the hon. Member if he had not expressed some such sentiment as this, that if the adjustment of the landlord and tenant question were not to prove highly beneficial to Ireland in pacifying that country, and if, despite of such a measure, outrages were to be of as frequent recurrence in the winter of 1846 as in 1845 and 1844, he would advocate severe enactments, and would not even think the suspension of the Habeas Corpus too strong a measure? It was certainly his impression that the hon. Member had made a manifesto of opinion to this effect. He also understood the hon. Member to say, that if they were to violate the Constitution, they ought at least to take care that the violation would secure the object they had in view. That was his construction of what had fallen from the hon. Member, and if he had mistaken him he was sorry for it.

COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA.
MR. P. MILESIn reply to a question from MR. P. MILES,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that Government having thought it necessary that there should be more frequent communication than heretofore between this country and North America, were about entering into a contract in order to the attainment of this object
482
with the Messrs. Cunard. The contract was not yet absolutely signed, but every thing was prepared, and the negotiation was in a state of forwardness.
MR. MILNER GIBSONdid not see on what principle the Halifax Company should have the monopoly of the passenger traffic between this country and America. The Great Western Steam Packet Company, who had launched the Great Britain steamboat, had strong claims on the public and Government; and why should they be overlooked? The contract should certainly be open to competition.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained the grounds on which the Government considered the claims of Messrs. Cunard paramount to others. In the year 1838 the Messrs. Cunard were the persons who took the contract for establishing steam communication between this country and North America. In that contract, which was to last for ten or twelve years, as well as he could recollect, provision was made for the ultimate establishment (if it should be found necessary) of weekly communications. Up to this time, however, the Government had been content with a fortnightly communication only; but now that it appeared desirable to establish the weekly system, the Government certainly did think that the claim of the Messrs. Cunard was superior to that of any other parties.
MR. MILESmoved for the production of copies of the contract, and of all papers which had passed on this subject between the Government and Messrs. Cunard.
Agreed to.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped that, if the papers in question were to be laid on the Table, they would be accompanied by a statement of the manner in which the duties imposed by the contract had heretofore been performed by the Messrs. Cunard. He believed that it would be found that those duties had been performed in a very satisfactory manner.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE (THIRD NIGHT).
The Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill.
LORD WORSLEYsaid, that the measure was one to which he should feel it his duty to offer his strenuous opposition. He did not think that it was consistent with wisdom, justice, or sound policy to continue to govern Ireland on a system of

483
coercion, which had already been frequently tried, and had as frequently failed. Not only would the Bill now proposed be totally inoperative for good, but it would be positively productive of mischief, inasmuch as it would imperil the rights and liberties of innocent men, and make the Irish population, who already were by no means too favourably disposed towards that House, view its proceedings with deeper aversion and greater distrust than ever. There were many provisions in this Bill which were unconstitutional in their principle, and could not prove otherwise than highly oppressive in their operation. Amongst these, one of the most exceptionable was that which exposed a man, and possibly quite an innocent man, to the loss of liberty for the constructive offence of being found out of his house after sunset. A policeman was, in the first instance, to be the judge of what constituted "suspicious circumstances;" and the innocent man who was taken into custody by him would be imprisoned all night on the mere suspicion of being suspicious, and he would have no chance of liberation until next day, when brought before a magistrate. If it happened that he was taken up on a Saturday night, he must remain in custody all Saturday night and all Sunday; and it might perhaps be a late hour on Monday before a magistrate could be procured to investigate his case. The measure was altogether a Bill of pains and penalties, and totally unsuited for the present condition of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member the Recorder of Dublin said it would be ineffectual. It had been denounced as ineffectual also by the hon. Member for Dundalk, who had been nominated by the Government as a Member of the Devon Commission, and than whom there was no man who knew Ireland more intimately, or was a better authority on questions which concerned the Irish people, and influenced their condition. It had also been denounced by the hon. Member for Drogheda, and was indignantly protested against with one accord by the majority of the Irish Members. The hon. Members connected with Ireland who supported it were exclusively those who at all times had been in favour of coercion for that country, and whose policy it had been uniformly to resist every just and liberal measure proposed for the Irish people by every political party, but more especially by that party of which the noble Lord the Member for London was the head. It was his misfortune to differ on the Corn Law question
484
from the Friends with whom he usually acted; but if there was one circumstance more than another which had prevented his abandoning the noble Lord's Government, it was approval of the policy adopted by his noble Friend towards Ireland; and although he had voted with hon. Members opposite against the repeal of the Corn Laws, he could not make common cause with them in supporting the present measure. He gave Her Majesty's Government every credit for the measures they had taken with a view to mitigate, and if possible to prevent, the evils complained of connected with the question of occupation of land; but he told them that no measures introduced to meet temporary distress would be of avail in creating good order, contentment, and a better state of things in Ireland. They had not held out the slightest prospect of their adopting a more liberal or a more enlightened policy towards Ireland for the future. Steeped in misery and destitution, a large proportion of the Irish population despaired of getting justice from that House, and identified their hope of happiness, comfort, and prosperity with the restoration of a domestic legislation. This was a state of things greatly to be deplored. Confidence in the Government, and a feeling of secure reliance that grievances would be redressed, and justice fairly administered—these were the sentiments which ought to be encouraged in the minds of the Irish people; and until such feelings were nurtured, it would be vain to hope for a better state of things. What reason was there for supposing that the present Government possessed the affections of the Irish people, or ought to possess influence in Ireland? None whatever. Efforts were continually being made to render the Emancipation Act a dead letter, by excluding men from place, power, and emolument, because of their religion. Were not those who now introduced this Bill, and advocated it, the same who resisted municipal reform and the correction of Church abuses, and who proposed a Registration Bill, to cripple and curtail rather than enlarge the franchise? Were they not the men who dismissed the magistrates in whom the people confided, merely because they expressed their opinions on a political question? He differed from those magistrates, and regretted very much they should think that a Repeal of the Union would be of any advantage to them; but the Government had not declared the meetings they attended to be illegal. They allowed those meetings

485
to go on, and at length began to dismiss the magistrates who declared themselves in favour of repeal. When those meetings had gone on increasing in every district, they did at last issue a proclamation, but at so late a period that if it had not been for the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Cork they would have had confusion, and perhaps bloodshed, in consequence of the tardy endeavours of the Government to put an end to those meetings. As he had before stated, the Government had now been in power for five years, and the people had, perhaps, great expectations excited by a late Secretary for Ireland, Lord St. Germans, then Lord Eliot, who had in that House voted on two or three occasions with the noble Lord the Member for London and his Friends on Irish questions. At the election for Cornwall the noble Lord said the same liberal feelings that had previously actuated him should continue to guide him when in office; but what had they seen? They had seen that he did not attempt the reforms they expected from him. It was true he did one act of justice, and proposed the grant to Maynooth; but it could not be forgotten by the Irish people that some Members of the party at the head of the Government did their utmost to prevent its passing. In fact, there was now on the books a notice from one of that very party to propose the repeal of that Act. What else did they do? They did what he was glad they had done. They had passed an Act for the establishing of colleges in Ireland. They issued a Commission to Inquire into the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and he hoped that good effects would reduce from it; but he felt that very exaggerated statements had been spread abroad in consequence of that Commission. He hoped, he repeated, that good would come from it; but he asked were those measures alone sufficient to induce the people of Ireland to endeavour to assist the Government in carrying out the laws of the land? The Government had not, in his opinion, sufficiently tried what could be done by the vigorous exercise of the law, but seemed at once to fall back upon the old policy of bringing forward a Coercion Bill. Now, would they venture to bring forward a Bill of that kind in England? It was said that crimes were committed in Ireland at night; but he was very much afraid, if they relied upon this Bill only, that when vengeance was intended it would not prevent that vengeance
486
being taken in the day time. But had they no disturbances in England at night? They might say, in comparison, it was a trivial case—but there were the riots in Wales. They might say that it was confined to the destruction of turnpike gates; but he believed it was not confined to turnpike gates. He believed, when the people found they had the power, and could assemble large bodies of the people, and elude the police, that they turned their thoughts to any other matter which they considered a grievance. This Bill he considered to be most harassing and harsh, and those who knew Ireland well felt it would be ineffectual. He thought they would disgust the people of Ireland with this measure, instead of getting them to carry out in its full integrity the law of the land. If that were the case—should they find if they were obliged to put this Bill into operation that it failed, what were they doing? They were throwing back Ireland in her prosperity—it had been more prosperous of late years—it was growing in prosperity; but if this Bill came into operation it would affect that prosperity. If they failed in that measure, and if, in consequence of that failure, they had greater difficulties as a Government to contend with in Ireland, it would be their own fault. If, however, they should give up the Government to others who did not approve of this measure, who might succeed in tranquillizing Ireland by milder means, what a lesson they would teach! He believed that by different measures, by milder and more temperate measures—but yet showing a determination to maintain the laws of the conntry, they would be more likely to establish peace in Ireland, and to wear away, by degrees, the evils that prevailed, than they could do by bringing forward such measures as the present. He would, as upon the first reading, oppose the Bill. It was said that they should vote for the first reading of the Bill, because if they did not vote for the first reading they would be showing a want of deference to etiquette; but the Irish people did not understand that. He had objected to the Bill then on principle; he objected to it now on principle; he believed it to be unnecessary, and he should give the strongest opposition to this Bill in all its stages.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, the noble Lord had charged the Government with many things, but he had not charged them with anything more preposterous than with being answerable for the notice given by the hon.

487
Member for East Kent (Mr. Plumptre) for the repeal of the Act for the endowment of Maynooth. Having given his confidence to the Government on the introduction of this measure, he should not suffer any collateral matters to disturb the vote which he intended to give on the present stage. At the same time he must say—and he said it more in sorrow than in anger—that he could not justify the Government for having suffered the Session to reach such a protracted period without having earlier sought a decision of the House upon a question so vitally important. He should not taunt them with having failed to make a House upon one occasion; but having by some calamity or casualty failed to secure an early attendance for the discussion of the question, he held that they ought not to have given precedence to any other measure until they had secured the assent of the House to this. He gave to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government the same confidence with respect to this measure which he had yielded to his noble Friend now on the opposition side, in the case of a similar measure when introduced by the Government of which he was a leading Member. In every case he held that the Government was responsible for the peace of the Empire; and if they told him that a particular measure was necessary for preserving the public tranquillity, on them must rest the guilt—if guilt there were—in its enactment. He would not take upon himself the responsibility of saying that this measure was not necessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland; and having voted in favour of its introduction and the first reading, he saw nothing to induce him to alter the votes he had so given. He did not repose a blind confidence in the Government; he was sure they would acquit him of any such charge; but this being a measure of high police, he should support it as he would a measure of police applying to Kent or Cumberland. He believed the Government would have done better if they had not permitted the Bill to be altered and mutilated as it had been in the other House; but if they made up their minds, after five months' consideration, that although altered and mutilated the Bill was still essential for the good Government of Ireland, he promised them his support, but no longer than the Bill should remain as it now was.
COLONEL VERNERremarked, that as he believed some measures were urgently required to protect life and property in
488
Ireland, he would give the present Bill his support. At the same time he could not but express his deep regret that it should have been delayed for so long a time, as he was convinced that no measure had as yet been brought forward which was of so much importance to Ireland. He felt it his duty to vote in favour of the measure before the House; and having said so, he felt it also his duty to defend his conduct and character against a charge of inconsistency which had been brought against him by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It became his duty to state in 1845, in a letter to the Government, that there was a probability of distress prevailing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman charged him with having made the statement he did as regarded his own neighbourhood; but so far from it having any reference whatever to his own locality, the place was not within twenty-five Irish miles of his residence; it was situated in a county in which he never set his foot, and with which he had no connexion.
MR. HORSMANhad come to the decision to vote against the measure, because he felt, on a review of all the circumstances under which it was proposed, he could not vote for the continuance of a system which had been productive of so much evil. He could not vote against this Bill on the ground of insufficiency of evidence as regarded the fearful extent of crime in Ireland, nor on the ground that the Government had not forwarded it more hurriedly. He opposed it on principle. Two measures of great consequence had been brought forward by the Government. The one was a great, large, aud bountiful measure—a measure calculated to cheer the hearts of the nation by the blessings it was about to confer on them. The other was a harsh measure—a measure of severity, imposing pains and penalties on a whole people, whose crimes were, after all, the offspring of misgovernment. He was willing to take the view that was not disparaging to the Minister. He believed he had addressed himself to the one task because his heart was with it; but that he required a spur to urge him to the other, because experience had made it as repugnant to his reason as to his feelings. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had spoken of this as a mere police measure. If they were to look upon it in that light—if they were to look upon it as a mere isolated measure, brought forward by the Government of the day for a temporary purpose—they might

489
be disposed to trust it in their hands; but it was because he looked upon it as part of that old, impolitic, and sanguinary system which had wrought such calamity in times past to Ireland, that he could not allow that system one single day to be perpetuated. He could not, for a single moment, support such a measure, seeing, as he did, the utter failure of all measures of the same nature which passed before it. It was a system which Her Majesty's Government were not answerable for more than any other Government who preceded it. His reasons for opposing this measure were not founded on his own experience alone. He was supported by the authority of Lord Holland, who opposed the passing of the Insurrection Act when it was before the House of Lords, on the ground that measures of such a character were calculated to impede the working of measures introduced for the purpose of removing existing evils, and to destroy the unity of feeling between this country and Ireland. That occurred in 1825, and he did not see how such a measure was less objectionable now. Every enactment of the kind was a bad precedent. Was there anything in the results which arose from putting the system into practice, which could encourage them now in passing this measure? There were seventeen Coercion Bills already passed for Ireland which failed, and now they were called upon to pass the eighteenth. It was admitted by the noble Lord (the Earl of Lincoln), who introduced this Bill, by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and by several other Members, that the social state of Ireland was totally disorganized. He however thought that this was too harsh an expedient. He admitted that the crimes complained of were almost indigenous to the country; but he would tell them that they were the result of misgovernment, and that, instead of trying to suppress the symptoms, they should remove the causes. They had from Lord Devon's Commission a Report, stating that the Irish people were undergoing sufferings unknown to any other people. The law gave them not a shadow of the right to subsistence. Mr. Burke said that you forced from the people the obedience of subjects, and you never gave them the rights of citizens. The hon. Member for Waterford told the House the other night that during the last five years not less than 150,000 had been turned out of their dwellings. In consequence of such a state of things the desire was engendered to
490
commit crime, and it was impossible to say a word in justification or palliation of the cause of the crimes. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Friday was exactly the same as that which he made when, in 1814, he introduced the Irish Insurrection Act. That Bill was of a similar nature to the present, and it was introduced by the right hon. Baronet as the organ of the Government; and if the speech the right hon. Gentleman then made was compared with that which he delivered the other night, it would be found to be completely alike, with the exception of the names of parties and of the places where the outrages were committed. It was impossible for any one who looked at the two cases not to admit that the one was the counterpart of the other. The right hon. Gentleman then said, as he now repeated, that murders were committed in the open day, and juries refused to convict; and he added, on both occasions, that those crimes did not arise from any political or religious causes, but in consequence of disputes arising out of the tenure of land. It was impossible for him to say how many Bills of Coercion the right hon. Baronet had introduced since that time; but had he introduced a single measure as to the tenure of land? He now again recommended this measure, which every individual considered objectionable in opinion, and which no one regarded other than as a temporary remedy for a permanent evil. He gave full credit to the right hon. Gentleman for his sincere desire to promote the welfare of Ireland, and also for the measures which had been introduced by the Government; but he regretted that they had not been introduced at an earlier period of the Session: he also gave the right hon. Gentleman full credit for the measure which he had introduced last year. He believed that it was the right hon. Gentleman's wish, as well as his policy, to legislate for Ireland in a liberal spirit; but he trusted on that occasion the House would show that Parliament was not prepared to give unconstitutional powers, and to show above all, to the landlords that they must depend, not on the support of English troops, but on the confidence of their countrymen. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet did not at once apply a proper remedy. Seeing no good likely to arise from a temporary remedy for a permanent disease, he felt called upon to give his opposition to this Bill; and he did so because he could not reconcile his mind to impose restrictions which the Irish people would

491
consider as falling unjustly on them, nor was he willing to give unconstitutional powers to a Government, until every constitutional means had been exhausted.
MR. COLQUHOUNsaid, that if he found himself disposed to vote for the second reading of the Bill, it would not be on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis); neither could he adopt the reason laid down by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck), who said that he could not place unconstitutional powers in the hands of a Government in which he had no confidence; for if the noble Lord the Member for London had brought forward the same proofs in support of a measure as those that had been adduced by his right hon. Friend in his statement, he, although he had no confidence in the noble Lord, could not refuse Government such powers when they were asked for on its responsibility. His noble Friend said that there had been a diminution of crime within the last few months, therefore the case for the Government failed; but he thought the case of the Government, as stated to that House, was impregnable, and the proofs incontestable. Magistrates of different politics and religion, and of various counties, had petitioned in favour of the Bill, stating that crime was triumphant, and that there were no means of procuring evidence to convict its perpetrators; and if any one attempted to vindicate the law, or assert the rights of property, in some of the districts of Ireland, he incurred the most serious danger of his life. When the noble Member for London talked of remedial measures, as the hon. Member for Cockermouth had also done that evening, he would ask, were they to tell the people of Ireland that, although in some districts their lives were not worth a month's purchase, they must wait for a better state of things—until some arrangement was made on the subject of the Irish Church—until some measure with regard to the franchise was introduced, or, perhaps, until some addition to the number of Irish Members was made? He thought, however, that the House would be of opinion that they had quite Irish Members enough. They were a large and able body of Members; but he really did think there were enough of them. It was ridiculous to discuss such subjects when the question was whether they would let the farmers and landlords continue to suffer in a way which was a reflection upon the condition of the country. He agreed with his
492
noble Friend in thinking that the measure should have been pressed by the Government, so that it might have passed in the shortest possible time after the commencement of the Session; and he also agreed with his noble Friend that there had been a most extraordinary and culpable delay in its progress. If the Government had done its duty, and had passed the Bill through the other House, if possible, in the shortest possible time, as Lord Grey's Government did in 1833, and called upon that House to pass this Bill for the protection of life before other Bills, it would speedily have been carried. The anxiety of hon. Members who were supporters of the Corn Bill, would have induced them to hasten its progress; and this Coercion Bill would have been the law of the land if the Government had shown the proper anxiety to pass it. The great fault of the Bill was the want of a proper tribunal for the trial of these offences. You might get evidence from the constabulary against parties; but it was a most difficult thing to get juries to convict. There were only two clauses in the Bill before the House of any value in repressing crime, and those were what was called the Curfew Clause, and the Transportation for Seven Years Clause, both of which were opposed by the noble Lord the Member for London. On this point he heard, with some alarm, an observation of the right hon. Baronet a few nights ago, when he called upon the House to vote for the second reading, and said that these clauses might be materially altered in the Committee. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, left it uncertain whether he would consent to strike those two clauses out of the Bill. He was afraid that the right hon. Baronet would come down, as he did the other night, and say that he was glad of an opportunity of gratifying Gentlemen opposite from Ireland, forgetting the forty Irish Members who sat behind him. He therefore was afraid that the two clauses which gave energy to the Bill would be suppressed, and the Bill would then not be worth the paper on which it was printed. He therefore asked the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, who had yet to speak in the debate, whether he would pledge the Government to the Bill as it stood, and, above all, to those two clauses which gave efficiency to it? If the right hon. Baronet would not give an answer in the affirmative, and as he (Mr. Colquhoun) had no confidence in the Government, and as he believed they would give way on this matter,

493
he would not vote for the second reading. He had shrunk from the first reading, in consequence of his fear of the conduct of the Government, and he should now decline voting unless he received an explicit and satisfactory declaration from the right hon. Baronet. His noble Friend the Member for Bandon said, why oppose a Government in whom you have some confidence, and pursue a course which might throw them out of office, and give the Government of Ireland to Gentlemen opposite, in whom he had no confidence? So far as coercion went, the Whig Government went beyond the present, for the measure which they introduced in 1833 was one of the sharpest which ever came before the House. He did not suppose that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would deny that when he had the short possession of power at the end of last year, that he felt that such was the pressure of the case, and such the state of Ireland, that the noble Lord whom he selected to hold office as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland stated that he would not go to Ireland unless his hands were strengthened by a Coercion Bill, and to this the noble Lord acceded. He therefore did not suppose that the Government of Gentlemen opposite would do otherwise than the right hon. Gentleman; and that if Ireland remained as it was they would refuse to pass a rigorous Coercion Bill. The noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Lord Morpeth), who had as much knowledge of Irish affairs as any Member of that House, had admitted the necessity of the measure introduced by the Government; and he would beg the hon. Member for Weymouth, who condemned all Coercion Bills, to remember that. It appeared that at a meeting in Chesham Place (the residence of Lord J. Russell), the hon. and learned Member for Cork, the hon. Members for Finsbury, the hon. Member for Sheffield, the hon. Member for Montrose, and other hon. Members of similar opinions, were present, which implied that if the noble Lord was going to govern such a party his principles must be very stray—if he was going to drive such a team, he knew he must throw down a great many slices of the Constitution to them. The question, however, was, were they in a better position by supporting the present Prime Minister than they would be by supporting the noble Lord? He believed the hon. Member for Montrose did not wish to see the noble Lord in power. He thought so; and the noble Lord would,
494
indeed, find that he had a most restive, kicking, and curvetting team to manage if he took the reins. The hon. Member for Montrose, the hon. Members for Finsbury, and others, would bear down again, as in former days, on the noble Lord when he made one of his Conservative speeches; for he was by nature and habit a constitutional Whig, and ought to be on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; and the right hon. Baronet ought to be in the noble Lord's place. He wished he could by the forms of the House make such a Motion. Why did the hon. Member for Montrose, the hon. Member for Coventry, and hon. Gentlemen of similar opinions, wish to keep the right hon. Baronet in office? Because in reality they sat behind the driving seat; and whatever they whispered the right hon. Baronet adopted. He was quite alarmed when they got up and flattered the Prime Minister by telling him that he was far in advance of his party, and so forth. [Mr. B. ESCOTT: Hear.] He was not surprised at that cheer, for the hon. Member for Winchester ought to be on the other (the Opposition) side of the House; and he had no doubt after the next election the hon. Member would be. He was going to say, that when any hon. Gentleman of Radical opinions got up, and complimented the right hon. Baronet—told him that he was the man to save the country, and so forth—and then propounded some extreme views, he trembled, for he knew the right hon. Baronet would most probably adopt them. Irish colleges were suggested, and the idea was soon adopted. The endowment of Maynooth was next hinted at, and the right hon. Baronet soon after proposed it. At the close of last Session an hon. Gentleman brought forward a Motion on the subject of education, upon which occasion the hon. Member and the right hon. Baronet complimented each other; and he had no doubt that if the repeal of the Corn Law had not been proposed this Session, the right hon. Baronet would have come down with some scheme of national education similar to that which he scouted when proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London. He took up the opinions of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, licked them into shape, hinted towards the close of the Session the policy which he was going to adopt, and sat down amid the blank looks of his friends and the cheers of his opponents. In the next Session he brought forward a measure more extensive than

495
he had hinted at, to the astonishment of all his friends. That was the programme which they had had for years past, and should have for years to come. In future it would be more distinct, and the acting would be stronger, if the right hon. Baronet remained in office. And upon what ground did he adopt such a course? [Mr. B. ESCOTT: On the confidence of the country.] They would try that at the next general election. He had no fear of the issue, either in the towns or counties of England; and that was the reason why he wished to get the noble Lord the Member for London in power, and not because he had any confidence in him. The hon. Member concluded by saying, that if the Government would give him the assurance he required, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill; and if they refused to do so, he would not vote at all.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: His hon Friend required a pledge; he would condescend to ask none; nor would he give credit to any pledge made by the Government. He had neither voted for nor against the Bill on a former occasion; but the speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, whom he was proud to call his friend, had induced him to alter his course. Never was there anything so wretchedly inefficient as the reply of the right hon. Baronet, whom he was not proud to call his right hon. Friend. The Lord deliver him from such friends! He was, therefore, prepared now to take the straightforward, manly course, of voting against the measure. He had no Irish property; but he knew Ireland well, and had never received harsh or unkind treatment from any of its people. He had never found it necessary to travel there with an escort; and he felt convinced that they had only to do their duty towards Ireland, and they might rely on being met with good feeling and good will, provided they were not restrained by their priesthood. Now what was this measure? Was it intended for the benefit of Ireland? If he could think so, he would be most ready to support it. But it was a most inefficient measure, and one which he could not support, emanating as it did from a weak Government, as incapable as they were unwilling to bring in any measure to promote the interests of Ireland. It was an old saying that a dog might bark and yet not bite; so it was by the right hon. Baronet, who had shrank from proposing any measure against the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Cork.
496
Why, else, did they allow the Irish Attorney General and the Irish Judges to be insulted? If life was in danger in Ireland, why did they not act with promptitude? It was rather too late to talk of protecting the life of a man after they had hanged him. He did not believe the Government to be sincere in bringing forward this measure; and he, therefore, felt it his duty to oppose it. He did not know whether it had been presented, or not, but he understood that a petition had been prepared against the measure, signed by 259,000 persons. He had no confidence in the right hon. Baronet; neither had he any confidence in the noble Lord the Member for the city of London: but of the two he preferred the noble Lord. A man caught twice in a trap had only himself to blame if he never got out of it. Having, therefore, no confidence in the present Government, and feeling assured that the sooner they got rid of the black sheep the better it would be for the rest of the flock, he would most cordially join his noble Friend, whom, as he said before, he was proud to call his friend, in rejecting this detestable measure.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I should conceive that I had a comparatively easy duty to perform, if I could at all reconcile my mind to the maxims for our Parliamentary conduct which have been laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. My hon. Friend is of opinion that if a measure is introduced on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the protection of life and property—that being the assumption on the face of the Bill—it does not much matter what we are able to prove—that it does not much concern us what are the provisions of the Bill—that they may be irritating rather than consoling, and ineffective for any good purpose—but that still it is our duty, as a deliberate House of Parliament, to give our assent to that Bill. Sir, to such doctrines I can by no means assent. I can understand, indeed, that on Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, or on the first reading of a Bill brought down to us from the House of Lords, that so much is due to the authority of Her Majesty's Government or the other House of Parliament, that it may be right in this House to consent to the introduction of such a Bill, and to wait until a still further stage for its examination. But that we should altogether agree to such a Bill in all its stages—that we should impose upon the people an act

497
of restriction without previous examination—that we who are to pass the laws of this country, are not to consider what these laws are—that we are not to consider the grounds on which they are based, and how far they are to be effective for their object; that, Sir, is a proposition which seems to me so totally contrary to all my notions of Parliamentary duties, that it is impossible for me to adopt any such principle. Sir, in commencing an examination of this Bill, I am tempted to take the course which a Minister of the Crown usually takes in proposing a measure of this nature. The Minister of the Crown, in proposing a measure to this House, frequently commences by desiring our clerk to refer to Her Majesty's Speech, and to read from that Speech some paragraph directing our attention to particular measures affecting the welfare of the country. In the present case, or at least on the present occasion, I think they could hardly take such a course, because I think that that very Queen's Speech affords an argument against further proceeding with the present Bill. In that Speech Her Majesty called our attention to
"The very frequent instances in which the crime of deliberate assassination has been of late committed in Ireland,"
And declared it to be our duty
"To consider whether any measures can be devised calculated to give increased protection to life, and to bring to justice the perpetrators of so dreadful a crime."
Now I do say that the delay of five months after such an announcement does involve this view, that the Ministers of the Crown, attaching, as I give them credit for doing, the greatest value to human life, and wishing for the security of life in Ireland, as in every other part of the United Kingdom, had not any very great confidence in the measure which they have brought forward, whether it be in respect to the grounds on which it is founded, or the provisions which it contains. Sir, it is, I know, said that the course of public business has prevented the earlier consideration of this measure; but it appears to me that had they attached so much importance to it, there were two courses open to them to have taken, and either of which would, I think, be more consistent with Parliamentary practice, and with the dignity both of Her Majesty's Government and of this House, than that which they have taken. The one course would have been this—that seeing that they considered life
498
insecure in Ireland, seeing that at the same time they considered there was an insufficiency of food in the country, they had thought it right to introduce a temporary measure for the purpose of admitting the importation of food, and likewise that they had introduced a temporary measure for the protection of life, leaving the great question of the Corn Laws to be considered after these temporary measures should pass under the consideration of the House. But, supposing that they considered that it was necessary to combine a temporary with a permanent measure for the repeal of the Corn Laws, and that it was better to take the subject together, why then I think they must perceive that that measure must lead to protracted debates—that it must lead to vehement and continued opposition in its progress through Parliament; and that being so, then, I say, that their better course would have been not to advise Her Majesty to make any allusion to this subject in Her Speech from the Throne, but to have reserved themselves until the measure of the Corn and the Custom Laws should pass this House for going into the state of Ireland, and to have then considered whether it were still incumbent upon them to introduce a measure for the continuation of coercive enactments. By either of these courses, Her Majesty's Government would have avoided that which I must regard as the most serious inconvenience of our being now called upon to consider this measure under one or other of these imputations—either on the one hand of unnecessarily inflicting on Ireland a measure of unconstitutional restriction; or, on the other, of having delayed too long the consideration of a measure which Her Majesty's Ministers thought to be of such great importance that they advised Her Majesty to call our serious attention to it so long ago as the 22nd day of January last. Now, Sir, with regard to the measure, I am bound to consider the grounds on which it is proposed—the amount of crime, which is said to be the foundation of it. I am bound to consider in what manner Her Majesty's Ministers have treated that amount of crime. I am bound to consider whether the present measure affords that remedy which is likely to give increased protection to life, and an efficient check to crime; and, lastly, whether other measures of a different character might not be introduced more likely to reach the causes of the alleged insecurity. But, Sir, the noble Lord who holds

499
the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and who introduced this Bill, I own, gave me considerable embarrassment by the way in which he introduced it. We had had, at an early period of the Session, statements of dreadful murders, of murders committed in the open day, of persons going to church, of persons being in the performance of other duties, such as paying visits to their friends, cut off by the arm of the assassin; and I had conceived these were the facts to which Her Majesty's Speech alluded, and to which our attention was directed. The noble Lord seemed to me to dwell in detail upon a series of out rages which are not different in character, and I could not make out from his statement were different in amount, from the outrages in any year since I have been acquainted with the affairs of Ireland. There used to be a custom of Members of the Government receiving every week a statement of these outrages; and for six or seven years, I can vouch for it, the accounts received were marked with those peculiar characters which the noble Lord said marked crime in Ireland at present, and to which the noble Lord called our attention. He called our attention to the crime of sending a threatening notice to a man to compel him to marry a certain woman; that certain persons must be turned off, for instance, a milk-maid, because the farm servants did not receive milk in sufficient quantity. These are the noble Lord's outrages. They belong, undoubtedly, to a state of lawlessness and combination against the established authorities of the country; but they hardly form a sufficient ground for the measure now before the House. The noble Lord put it to me whether, having considered the measures of 1835 appropriate to the then state of things, I could consistently oppose the measure now before us. Sir, I will answer at once to that appeal. In my opinion, when this House is asked to go beyond the Constitution to look for remedies which are not in the ordinary state of the law, although that is far from being a conclusive reason against such a law, yet that every case must be tried upon its own merits. We must consider the circumstances of the period in which we are called upon to legislate; and it is no reason for carrying out any act of this nature that other Parliaments have given votes in favour of measures of a similar character. But, Sir, as the noble Lord has spoken of this, I beg leave to trouble the House with what has been my
500
conduct upon the subject of measures of this kind. Soon after I first entered Parliament, in the years 1817 and 1819, stringent measures—the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and what was called the Six Acts—were introduced as remedies for the disturbances in the manufacturing districts of England. I followed others, belonging to the political party to which I belonged, in opposing those measures. Many years afterwards, when I was in office, there were disturbances of a very similar character, according with political doctrines of an alarming tendency. But it appeared to me that it was better not to attempt any alteration in the constitutional law of this country. I came down to this House, and I asked for increased powers. I asked for an increase to the military, and I asked for power to increase the constabulary force. The right hon. Gentleman, now the First Lord of the Treasury, agreed with me in those proposals. I obtained his support. Those measures, together with prosecutions under the ordinary law, were resorted to, and the country was restored to a state of tranquillity. After the right hon. Gentleman opposite came into office, disturbances of a similar nature occurred in the manufacturing districts, perhaps still more alarming. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursued exactly the course I had taken. He sent down an increased military force; he ordered prosecutions before the ordinary tribunals; and the country was restored to a state of tranquillity, without any resort, as in 1817 and 1819, to the Legislature, for the purpose of obtaining extraordinary powers. I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman pursue that course. He pursued it with great firmness, at the same time with great conciliation, and his efforts were completely successful. Now, Sir, with regard to outrages in Ireland, which, as the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland has put them, are by no means of an unusual or peculiarly artrocious character, it did so happen that in 1832, being in office, I had to consider the introduction of a severe law of coercion for Ireland. I did not agree with all the measures of that Government. With some of those I so disagreed that I determined at one time to resign my office. I was only induced to remain when I found my late lamented Friend, Lord Spencer, had come to the same conclusion as myself, that preventive measures were not sufficient, and that dis-

501
agreement would lead to the breaking up of the Government. Upon this we agreed, that it would always be open to us to consider of further measures of conciliation, and to introduce further remedies for the evils of Ireland. At the same time I agreed—I do not hesitate to say so—to a measure more harsh and more oppressive than the measure now before the House. I thought the extreme insecurity that prevailed to life and property in Ireland, the prevalence of almost a civil war on the subject of tithe, and the murders and assassinations which had taken place in consequence, were a justification of that measure. In 1834 that measure expired. In 1835 a mitigated measure was introduced, which met with the support, I believe, of nearly every party in this House. There was scarcely any opposition to the passing of the measure of 1835. But as I had occasion to state, when speaking to the House on the first reading of this Bill, when we introduced the measure of 1835, Lord Althorp at the same time introduced measures of conciliation. He had introduced measures for the abolition of church cess, for the improvement of juries; and he declared the corporations of Ireland should be assimilated in their reforms to the corporations of England and Scotland. In 1835 it was the declared intentions of the Ministers, who had then lately taken office, to govern Ireland upon principles more congenial to the feelings and affections of the great body of the people than had hitherto been the case. Full confidence was reposed in those Ministers—full confidence that the Bill which was then passed was entrusted to hands that would not abuse its powers. I may say that confidence was justified, for I believe that Bill was never put into operation. I cannot find from my noble Friend Lord Normanby, whom I have consulted upon the subject, that he ever put it in force. I asked him if it was not the case that persons expected he might use the power which it gave him. He said, so far from that, he believed the fact of the power being in his hands was entirely forgotten, and that the existence of the Bill was scarcely remembered by the great body of the people. The fact is, certainly, that from 1835 to 1840 the Bill was not put into operation; and in 1840, having to choose whether we would renew that Bill or not, we deliberately determined not to renew it, and we allowed it to expire; therefore, Sir, if my authority is worth
502
anything as having voted for such a Bill in 1835, it is an historical fact equally conclusive in 1846 that in 1840 I did not propose the renewal of such a Bill. It was said, indeed, of that Bill, as I have heard it frequently said, that the terror of having such a Bill, and of the power being in the hands of Government, would operate to the prevention of crime. Now, Sir, in this respect, again I say, if there is any such influence to be exerted by a Bill of this nature, that advantage has been lost by delay. I can well understand a Bill suddenly introduced and carried at once inspiring a species of terror among malefactors; but when the Bill has been for five or six months under deliberation—when it has passed through a strong course of opposition, and it really does not seem to be insisted upon as a measure of importance — I say, that any such virtue which you can attribute to it, as a sharp remedy for disorder, is in great part lost by such delay. Now, Sir, as to the state of crime which this Bill is intended to repress. I think, in comparing crimes against the person, it is well to take the crimes in the whole of Ireland, in order, first, to see whether those crimes have generally increased. I have the returns here, containing the various numbers of offences; and with regard to some of those offences, I will compare the returns which are before Parliament in reference to former years and to the last year. The number of homicides in 1832, before the introduction of what was called "the Coercion Act," was 242; in 1837, 230; in 1840, 125; in 1842 (two years after an Act similar to the present Act had expired), 106; in 1845, 139; being a decrease of more than 100 from 1832, and an increase of 33 from the year 1842. With regard to the offence of firing at the person—in 1832 there were 328; in 1837, 91; in 1842, 74; in 1845, 138. With regard to the crime of attacking houses—there were in 1832, 723; in 1837, 606; in 1840, 229; in 1842, 337; in 1845, 483. With regard to conspiracy to murder—there were in 1842 only 4, and in 1845, 8. Of assaults with intent to murder, there were in 1842 3, and 1845 only 2. I think, Sir, it is plain from these, and from similar accounts with regard to offences affecting the person—because I do not take the number of threatening notices, injuries to cattle, and various offences of the kind, to be the subject of the Bill before the House, but of homicides, attempts to murder,

503
and firing into dwellings—there has been obviously no very great increase in Ireland between 1842 and 1845. Then said the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the argument has been repeated in this debate, although outrages and offences have not increased generally throughout Ireland—and, indeed, the First Minister of the Crown spoke with satisfaction of the general state of Ireland—yet with regard to the five counties named, crimes against the person have very greatly increased. But, Sir, an admission fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the First Minister of the Crown, upon this subject, which appears to me nearly conclusive as to the Bill of which he is the promoter. He stated the number of offences in Tipperary, Limerick, Clare, and Roscommon to have been 2,026 in 1845, and 3,013 in 1846; but that with regard to Leitrim the total number was 804 in 1845, and that in the five months of 1846 the whole number was 164. Is it that the criminals have become less audacious in that county? Let me observe that he goes on and makes a statement what the numbers would be for the year with regard to Tipperary, Limerick, Clare, and Roscommon; but with regard to the county of Leitrim he makes no such statement. Why, Sir, the numbers would be, instead of 804, only 396 for the whole year. What is the cause of this decrease? The right hon. Gentleman used these words:—
"In Leitrim there is an overwhelming military force, which it would be impossible to spare for other places; and there have also been on the part of the magistrates, and of the stipendiary magistrates, the greatest exertions, which have caused this improvement."
I say here is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's whole case. Are we so ill supplied with a military force that we would not at once accede to a proposition similar to that which I made in 1836 to the House, to grant an increase of military force to the four remaining counties? Is it not better to have an increase of military force? Is it not better to excite the vigilance of stipendiary magistrates and of the constabulary force, than to shut up the people in their own houses in these counties? Have you not yourselves shown that with regard to the county of Leitrim the ordinary powers of the law are sufficient? and do you ask me to grant extraordinary powers when your own case is, that you have yourselves exerted the
504
powers of the ordinary law, and in your hands they have been found sufficient? I say then, Sir, with regard to the ordinary law, let there be no want of exertion. If necessary, let those counties which require it be regularly patrolled. If the constabulary are not sufficient, have mounted patrols, as you had formerly in the neighbourhood of London, and take care that during the night the houses of the peasantry are not attacked or entered without the means of pursuing the offenders. Take every means of that kind. Employ the great and effective police force which you have in Ireland. Let no part of it be ineffective. Send more stipendiary magistrates there if it be necessary. Imitate your own example in England, and when you have found it with regard to one county in Ireland sufficient, do not ask for extraordinary powers. Then, Sir, the law as it at present exists gives very effective powers. I alluded, in speaking of this Act on its first introduction, to the powers given by the Whiteboy Act. I stated—and I beg pardon from the House for in any way repeating the argument, but it is necessary, in order to state the provisions of that Act—if you are obliged to have recourse to severe laws you should endeavour, as far as possible, to separate the guilty from the innocent—that the law by which you order every person to remain at home at night, by which you give to the constabulary the power of seizing every man against whom they said there were suspicious circumstances, when he was out at six o'clock on a winter's evening, or at ten at night in the summer, for the purpose of visiting a sick relation, or returning from a fair, or attending a funeral, was of itself a most harsh law; and that you ought to endeavour so to point your law, that it should be aimed only at the guilty. I stated that although you might not be able to convict persons at once of the crime of murder, yet that you might find certain indications of crime by which you might mark out the guilty, and which would hardly happen to be found together with innocence. Now, Sir, the Act which was formerly called the Black Act in England, and the Whiteboy Act in Ireland, does take those indications. The Whiteboy Act, as amended in 1775, punishes any person who—
"shall unlawfully compel, or by force or threats attempt to compel, any of Her Majesty's subjects to quit his habitation, farm, possession, or lawful employment, shall be guilty of felony, and suffer death."

505
That has since been mitigated by the Act of 1st William IV.; but the offender is still liable to transportation. By fourth section it is enacted that any person who shall, before sunset or after sunrise—
"maliciously injure the habitation or goods of any person, or shall forcibly take away any gun or sword, or other offensive weapon, or money, or cause the same to be delivered by threats or menace, shall suffer death as a felon."
This penalty has been repealed; but by the 1st Clause of this Act it is enacted, that—
"being arrested with any fire-arms, firelock' pistol, or any offensive weapon, or having his face or body disguised in any manner whatsoever, or wearing any particular badge, dress, or uniform not usually assumed by Her Majesty's subjects on their lawful occasions, shall use, assemble, or appear, by day or by night, to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects, guilty of a misdemeanour."
Now I say, these are punishments which come within the scope of the existing law; and if you employ your police and magistrates, you can hardly fail to find any persons who shall be out at night for the purpose of attacking houses or committing murder; and with these indications alone you are able to punish them in the one case with fine or imprisonment; and if they shall actually attack any house, it is in your power to sentence them to transportation. But, Sir, I have inquired into the operation of this law. I have inquired from many persons who have been familiar with its operation; and I have asked them in what manner it is that the law, when it is in existence, when it has been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, has been put in force in any county in Ireland. I was told that the manner usually was this—that the constables took up a great many persons whom they found out at night; that those persons were afterwards tried by the magistrates, and their excuse of a lawful occasion was generally not believed: these witnesses being members of their own family, were held insufficient to prove their innocence. If they were persons of good character, they were not considered guilty, and were dismissed; but if, on the contrary, they were thought to be those who were usually guilty of offences, and usually concerned in these outrages, then the sentence of imprisonment was pronounced against them. According to the present Bill, a man may be sentenced to transportation for such an offence; but to whom do you give the discretion of the law? In the cases I have mentioned there
506
is a certain offence, such as the wearing of a badge, the being armed, upon which the constable can rely. In this case, the offence is nothing but the exercise of a lawful right, which every subject of Her Majesty has, of traversing upon the high road at any time, by day or by night. Such is the offence. And then the persons who are the judges of it, be they magistrates, or, as in this instance, the judge and the jury, are to say what are suspicious circumstances; and if no lawful occasion is proved, the person is to be sentenced to transportation. I say, if by any exertion of the ordinary law you can refrain from using such an immense power as this, it is the duty of Parliament to refuse its consent to this Bill. But there are other considerations connected with this Bill, which I think very much demand the attention of this House. Whenever Bills of this kind have been brought before the House, it has been thought right to consider what are the grievances of Ireland, and to consider also in what manner those grievances might be the cause of many of the offences in Ireland. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in proposing this Bill, stated to the House that a great proportion of those offences were not agrarian, and not connected with land; but no one can have attended to the testimony that has been given before repeated Committees, and also to that before Lord Devon's late Commission, without seeing that the greater part of the outrages of this kind in Ireland are originally connected with the possession of land, and arise from the poverty and distress of the people in their competition for the possession of land. I might give instance after instance, from the best authorities upon Irish subjects, as to this fact. I will not give many, but I cannot refrain from reading two or three. In evidence before Lord Devon's Commission, at question 7,641, Mr. Barrington (for twenty-five years Crown Solicitor of the Munster Circuit) says—
"That there being no manufactures in the country, the actual existence of the peasantry depends upon their having land; there are twenty persons to offer for every farm. The whole disturbances of the country depend upon the desire to keep it."
7,640—
"That it does not make a particle of difference whether the person put in is a Catholic or a Protestant; he is equally the object of their fury, and they would murder him equally."
Major Warburton (for twenty-two years on

507
the establishment of the Irish constabulary) says—
"That there is great deal of misery in every shape among the poorer classes, whether they have land or not; that a poor man, turned out of his land without the means of maintaining his family, will endeavour to get it by crime if he cannot by other means; and that such a state of things must necessarily involve people in crime, when they are reduced to destitution by being turned out of their lands without having any means of subsistence."
Colonel Shaw Kennedy (late Inspector General of the Irish constabulary) states—
"That the great groundwork of all Whiteboy offences is connected with land; that the increase of crime is attributable more to social than political causes. Political agitation and religious differences appear only to increase crime by affecting the social condition of the people. Whatever affects the tenancy of land will instantly affect crime."
Mr. Barrington says—
"The general cause of outrages at all times in Ireland is anxiety to possess land; such has been the case since 1761. Whilst I have been Crown Solicitor (for twenty-five years) I could trace almost every outrage to some dispute about land."
Mr. Tierney (Crown Solicitor of the Irish North-western Circuit for twelve years), says—
"That the prevailing cause of outrages is the letting and possession of land, and the dispossessing of the former tenants and occupiers."
Mr. Hickman (for upwards of twenty years the Crown Solicitor of the Connaught Circuit), says—
"That in Roscommon, Leitrim, and Sligo, the outrages arise from the taking of land."
Captain B. Warburton (stipendiary magistrate for fifteen years) states—
"That the murders and outrages that have lately happened in Galway have arisen from disputes about land, and that the principal and primary object of all associations among the peasantry is the taking and keeping of land."
Mr. Tabiteau (a resident magistrate) states—
"That something about land is the cause of all murders in Ireland, and that ejectment is synonymous with reducing the cottier tenant to destitution and misery."
Mr. Kemmis (Crown Solicitor for the Leinster Circuit, comprising Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny, and Tipperary) says—
"That on the Leinster Circuit outrages are mostly agrarian, committed neither on account of religion nor of politics."
This, Sir, differs from the account given by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland; and it is evidence which I think this House can hardly neglect or deny. However ignorant many of us may be of the state of Ireland, we have here the best
508
evidence that can be procured, the evidence of persons best acquainted with that country—of magistrates for many years, of farmers, of those who have been employed by the Crown—and all tell you that the possession of land is that which makes the difference between existing and starving amongst the peasantry, and that therefore ejections out of their holdings are the cause of violence and crime in Ireland. In fact it is no other than the cause which the great master of human nature describes, when he makes a tempter suggest it as a reason to violate the law:—
"Famine is in thy cheeks,
Need and oppression starveth in thine eyes,
Upon thy back hangs ragged misery.
The world is not thy friend nor the world's law;
The world affords no law to make thee rich:
Then be not poor, but break it."
Such is the incentive which is given to the poor Irish peasant to break the law, which he considers deprives him of the means not of being rich, but of the means of obtaining a subsistence. On this ground I say, then, if you were right to introduce any measure to repress crime beyond the ordinary powers of the law, it would have been right at the same time to introduce other measures by which the means of subsistence might be increased, and by which the land, upon which alone the Irish peasant subsists, might be brought more within his reach, and other mode of occupation allowed to him more than he now possesses. I know, indeed, the noble Lord (the Earl of Lincoln) has introduced within the last two or three days measures upon a very complicated subject—the law of landlord and tenant; but I think those measures should have been introduced at the same time with the measure now before the House. How is it possible for this House, upon such a subject, to be able to tell, from the noble Lord's enunciation of them, whether upon such a delicate subject such measures are sufficient? Other Gentlemen have proposed other schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) thinks that the Poor Law in Ireland ought to be extended so as to include outdoor relief. He thinks it should furnish some relief to the people of Ireland from the extreme pressure of poverty. I confess I do not expect that such a law would relieve the miseries of Ireland. I am very much afraid that it would fix it in the place where it now exists, and that instead of a remedy it would tend to perpetuate it. That scheme, however, deserves consideration; and to any well-considered measure

509
of this kind, the House would be ready to pay every attention. There is another source of benefit, namely, the cultivation of the waste lands. On that subject I do not see the difficulties which beset the propositions with regard to the Poor Laws. It seems to me some great scheme with regard to the cultivation, preparation, and tillage of the waste lands would somewhat abate the severe competition for land, and diminish the causes of crime. I have already stated, that in giving my assent to the first reading of this Bill, I went through many of the objections I had to it. I stated that especially with regard to the clause which enables the Lord Lieutenant to shut up all persons within certain districts from sunset to sunrise, I should offer to it my most strenuous opposition, and that I should propose its omission. Upon considering the Bill, and going over its various clauses, I find that if that clause is taken out, there is nothing of value in the Bill. If it should, in fact, be so mutilated or destroyed, the Government would not think it worth their while to persevere in passing such an enactment. There were clauses in the Bill, as introduced in the other House of Parliament, whereby certain districts were made liable to fines and rates if outrages prevailed in those districts. There are provisions of a similar kind in the Whiteboy Act. Such provisions may deserve consideration; I think they should be considered, though not introduced into this Bill, where at present they do not exist, but into some other Bill, and then taken into due consideration. But if any clauses are so introduced, I think they should be very different, indeed, from those introduced into a Bill that was before the other House of Parliament. If you introduce the collection of small sums of money, and make all the poor occupiers in a district liable to rates for the purpose of enforcing compensation for those outrages, you will be likely to raise such a resistance as was raised to the collection of small sums for tithes; your enactment will not answer its purpose, and it is far better to have some general enactment than thus to compel the poorer occupiers, by means of military and police, to pay their 2d., 3d., or 4½d., on account of those outrages. Therefore, seeing that there is no essential part of the Bill to which I can give my consent, I think it is far better to offer my resistance to it on this stage than to reserve my objections to it for the next. Some persons say, most unreasonably I conceive, "If you have
510
such objections to it, why did not you object to the first reading?" If I had taken that objection to the first reading, and said that I should be compelled to vote against the Bill, it would have been said that it was a most violent opposition not even to allow a Bill to come into the House that had been adopted by the Government for the protection of life and property, and agreed to by the other House of Parliament, including many political friends of my own. I could not, therefore, offer opposition to the first reading; but at the same time I took care to signify objections which, as I then stated, went to the very foundation of the Bill, and thus prepared the Government for my refusal of support. After the Bill had been read a first time, on the very day of its being placed among the Orders of the Day, I stated at once that to the second reading I should give my opposition. I oppose it, then, on the ground that there does not appear to me, in the general state of crime in Ireland, sufficient grounds for passing a measure of extraordinary severity. Her Majesty's Government have themselves shown that, by exerting the ordinary powers of the law, the increase of crimes may be met and checked; that with respect to the provisions of this Bill, while they are harsh on the people in general, they do not point out the criminals, and thus involve the innocent in punishment; that it has not been accompanied, above all, with such measures of relief, of remedy, and conciliation, affecting the great mass of the people of Ireland, who are in distress, as ought to accompany any measure tending to increased rigour of the law. But, Sir, other grounds have been taken. It has been said by a noble Lord on a former night, and by an hon. Gentleman to-night, that they, having no confidence in the Government, cannot give their support to a Bill of an unconstitutional nature. Undoubtedly, that is a fair Parliamentary ground for opposing a Bill of this kind; but I confess that if I had thought this Bill calculated to meet the exigency of the case; if I had thought a necessity existed for this Bill, and that it was wisely devised for its purpose, I have no such want of confidence in the Government as would have led me to withhold a vote for it. With regard to the few districts in which crime has greatly increased, Her Majesty's Government have held out to us no expectation that this measure will be accompanied or followed by other measures. That

511
ground alone is sufficient why I should refuse my assent to this measure. That I have no political confidence in the Government is no novelty, because for several years I have been obliged to form my own independent opinions, without binding myself to any measures of theirs upon their sole authority. And, Sir, let me say, I am fully justified in that course by the measures which the Government have introduced. Those measures, both with respect to England and Ireland, are a testimony, not a testimony in words, but a practical testimony, that in former years, as far as their opinions go, they were mistaken, and we were right. Their case, in fact, so far as concerns the measures they have introduced during the present year, is that the existing state of the Corn Laws produces increased crime and increased mortality. It follows that the course they themselves pursued for some years was so far mistaken as to have produced that disastrous consequence. Now, I am imputing no wrong motives to them; I am not saying they were perfectly persuaded in former years that their course was a right one, nor that they are not persuaded in the present year that their altered course is for the benefit of the country; but I use this argument to show that I am not bound at least by their authority, and that where I have differed from them, where I have had the misfortune to ask them to propose other measures, which they have refused to introduce, they have afterwards, by their conduct, allowed that those who on this side of the House urged those measures, took the wiser view of the interests of the country. And I know not why, supposing them to carry this Bill, and our opposition to be unsuccessful, they may not, on some future occasion, tell us that the arguments in its favour did not preponderate — that, in fact, we were right in our opposition to it—and that measures of relief, of remedy, of conciliation, not measures of coercion, were those which were required by the state of Ireland. Now, I have said I impute no wrong motives to their conduct; and although I may be thought rash, and have been thought rash, in the measures which I have introduced, and the declarations I have made, yet I trust I have been usually cautious in this respect; and that when in some altercation of debate, where motives might be wrongfully imputed to me, I did not impute motives to those to whom I was opposed inconsistent
512
with a regard for their country. I feel in my own case, and the case of those who have acted with me, I have often heard motives imputed which I knew to be as wide as from here to Japan away from the actual motives which influenced myself and those with whom I acted; and therefore I should be unwilling to impute dishonourable motives to those who have now the government of the country. I think, if I must say what I have missed in the discussions that have taken place of late years in this House, compared with the discussions of former years, it is that while we were exposed for many years to every imputation against us—not, I must say, from the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, because he dealt as fairly as any public man in those imputations of motives, and when he did make an unjustifiable accusation, I remember he was always ready speedily to retract it—but we were exposed to imputations both from his Colleagues and those who supported him in former years. With an altered course of policy there has not, I regret to observe, been a due alteration of the spirit which animated them. Sir, when we attempted, amidst the heats of a religious agitation, seeing the numbers of people in this country who were living and bringing up their children in miserable ignorance—when we attempted a scheme of improved education, we were slandered. A state of alienation existed between the people of this country and of Ireland; when we attempted to knit in bonds of affection the people of those two countries, and to show that we thought reliance ought to be placed upon Roman Catholic Irishmen as well as upon Protestants, we were slandered. When we attempted, on the ground that there was a greatly increased population in this country, to relax those protective laws that prevented the introduction of food into this country, we were slandered. Upon all these subjects Her Majesty's present Ministers have changed their course. The measures that we proposed with respect to education it is their boast that they have carried further. The principles that we professed to adopt towards Ireland they have adopted; and they have attempted, in the last and the present Session, to act upon these principles. With regard to the admission of food from foreign countries, they have gone far beyond what we proposed. Well, Sir, giving them every credit for the honourable motives upon which they have acted, thinking that their course is an im-

513
proved and a wiser course—now, when the great measure upon which we mainly supported them has quitted this House, I will more confidently say so—I did wish some expression of regret that honourable men, doing that which they thought was their duty to the country and to the people of these realms, should have so long been the object of slander and calumny, when they who embarked in those slanders and calumnies now admit we were in the right. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary for the Home Department—and I allude the more readily to him because he has not yet spoken in this debate—accused us, when we were going out, of being like pirates who set fire to the ship; and it now appears that, having got possession of the ship, they have lived upon the stores which we left. They have guided themselves by the charts which we have deposited in the cabin; they have steered by the compass which we placed on the deck. And having so done, I think it would have been hardly too much if they had on some occasion or other, on some night or other out of years of debate, expressed some regret that we had been made the subject of so much reproach for the course we thought ourselves bound to take—if they had considered that it was no light matter to be charged before the country, and with a very considerable impression resulting, as promoting measures that tended to set up a Popish Government in this country, instead of our ancient Constitution — as promoting measures that tended to rob and destroy the agricultural interest. For my own part, I have felt deeply, I will not deny, both the buoyancy and the success of those measures; and seeing measures founded on the same principles succeed in this House, and I trust succeed in Parliament, I think it would have been no more than justice to confess that we were not justly liable to those invectives for pursuing a course which, in effect, was only seeing what was required a little earlier than Her Majesty's Ministers. Why, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun), in alluding to me to-night, spoke of measures—I forget what his phrase was, not dangerous innovation, but some equivalent of that sort, which, he said, I was very apt to promote. Now I will tell that hon. Gentleman I think he is totally mistaken with respect to the character of the measures which tend to preserve all the
514
institutions of this country. I am of opinion, following the great light of Mr. Burke, that the safest and best course is to reform and to preserve. I believe that a denial of all reform does not lead to preservation; it only leads to a more heedless, a more rash, a more precipitate innovation. Why, the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, thought it very unwise and very rash in me to propose that the great boroughs of this country—Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham—should have Members to serve in Parliament. But was that a rash innovation? Would it not have been been better to have admitted the great manufacturing districts of this country to representation in this House, when they had increased to such strength and importance as they had reached in 1830, without the necessity of measures of that kind being carried with Bristol exposed to plunder, and Nottingham Castle in flames? Would it not have been more conservative, to use a phrase which has been a favourite of late years, to have reformed in good time? And will it not, let me ask, be more conservative, instead of carrying further this Bill, to fix your sober and honest attention on the grievances of Ireland? There are grievances of all kinds, more or less conspicuous at different times; but those which I conceive at present to hold the most prominent place are the social grievances of Ireland. Would it not be worthy of you to consider whether, by some such plan as I have mentioned—by increasing the quantity of land accessible to cultivation in Ireland, and encouraging the tillage of the wastes—by securing at the same time the lives and properties of those who reside on the land—is it not worth while to consider whether you may not prevent in some future year a dreadful outbreak, when indeed you will hastily resort to measures of remedy and conciliation; but which measures will lose half their practical effect and almost all their moral effect? If this is the case, then, it is not always the most conservative course to resort only to measures of coercion, and to put by and delay measures of reform. Depend upon it that maxim of Burke is a sound one; and you cannot attend to it too closely, if you desire to preserve the institutions of the country. I wish as much as any man—no man more so—to preserve these institutions; but I know there are times when men look into the faults, and spy narrowly into the defects, of all those institutions; and I should wish betimes to clear them of

515
those defects, and to show that this Legislature is worthy to be trusted and honoured, and that we need no volunteer associations to point out to us what is the path of our duty. Depend on it your authority will be greater, reverence will be greater, and love will be increased. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn cannot vote for this measure, because he wants confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I understand there are Gentlemen—I have heard it, and seen it circulated in newspapers—whose confidence in the Government is so extreme that, although they disapprove this measure, although they think it will be ineffective—that its object is unnecessary and its provisions harsh—will yet refrain from opposing it on account of that overweening confidence which they have in the commercial policy adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers. Now let me put it to such Gentlemen, if such there be, how our case stands with respect to Ireland. There is a numerous body in Ireland—numerous even among her representatives—which says that no legislation of a United Parliament can devise fit remedies for Irish grievances, and that it is in a domestic Parliament alone that fit and wise legislation can be looked for. There are others, I fear, who, if I read rightly their sentiments, as expressed in a newspaper called the Nation, which has great circulation in Ireland, who go beyond that question of the legislative Union—who would wish, not merely to have such a Parliament as that which it was the boast of Grattan to found, and which legislated under the sceptre of the same Sovereign as the Parliament of Great Britain; but who defend the resort to every species of violence—who look to disturbance as the means, and regard separation from England as the end. You are legislating in the faith, you are legislating under the eye, of those parties if you pass this Bill; and you can say each of you who votes for it, or each of you who does not oppose it, that he considers it ought to be allowed to pass because it is for the benefit of Ireland, and that life cannot be secure in Ireland without it—that, in short, the case is completely made out for such provisions as these, and none others are required—why, at least, you are acquitted in your own consciences, and you can say to Ireland—"We have endeavoured to represent you, and we have legislated for you as if we had sat for Ireland, and we are considering our interests alone." But if you say
516
anything less than this—if you say we have no confidence in this measure, which we consider a bad and unconstitutional measure, but notwithstanding we allowed it to pass because there were other measures more especially relating to England, and for the benefit of England, which were going along with it, or had but a short time preceded it—look what an argument you give to the Repealers and those who are looking still further. They will say, "You miserable peasants, shut up from sunset to sunrise, obliged to keep within your miserable hovels; if you are found looking for a stray cow, or visiting an acquaintance who lives in a cottage a few yards from you, you are liable to transportation; but it is not for the security of the lives of the people among whom you live, but it is because English measures were passing through Parliament at the same time; and it is for the sake of those measures that these restrictions are inflicted upon you. Now, tell us, aye or no, is the Parliament of England and Scotland a fit Legislature for Ireland? Will you not seek for a domestic Legislature—will you not use your utmost efforts to obtain Repeal?" Why, what answer would there be to such an appeal but a unanimous shout, a unanimous effort of the people, and a declaration, "We have not justice, we are determined to obtain justice, and it is now proved to us it is not to be had of the Parliament of England." I say, let the House beware of supplying such an argument as that. If you wish to maintain the Union—if you wish to improve the Union, to make the Union a source of happiness, a source of increased rights, a source of blessing to Ireland as well as England, a source of increased strength to the United Empire, beware lest you in any way weaken the link which connects the two countries. Do not set so far apart the governor and the governed. Do not let the people of Ireland believe that you have no sympathy with their afflictions—no care for their wrongs; that you are intent only upon other measures in which they have no interest. I say, if you are persuaded that this measure is right, pass its second reading, and pass it through Committee; but if you are not so persuaded give no sanction to it; let it at once be rejected; because the loss of confidence which would follow from any belief that such was your conduct and such was your maxim—any such loss of confidence would not be temporary, it would not be

517
repaired in a year, or five years, or ten years, but it would be an irrevocable loss.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, if the noble Lord has keenly felt the unjust attacks of those who supplanted him in power, he has at least the consolation of receiving a noble revenge; and each time his pupils rise before the red box to whose authority they have succeeded, the noble Lord must, I am sure, feel that though he has not yet recognized on their part that spontaneous gratitude which his generous sympathies might alike claim and yield, yet he must be conscious that he is receiving from right hon. Gentlemen and from noble Lords ample compensation for the injustice which the nation now universally acknowledges that he has received at their hands. Sir, the noble Lord has treated this subject with an eloquence habitual to him whenever he touches upon the subject of Ireland, the case now before us. I for one do regret, and I do not refrain from expressing my regret, that the fate of a Ministry is supposed to depend, after all that has occurred this Session, upon an Irish question. This, however, I feel, not only that it was not owing to any of the Gentlemen who sit upon these benches that the circumstances which now engage us have occurred, but that we have shown ourselves upon the earliest occasion, and on the first opportunity, ready to discuss the question now before us; and I think I may say that whatever may have been the policy of the Government with respect to other questions, and however enraged and outraged may have been the feelings of many on this side of the House as to the general policy pursued by Her Majesty's Ministers, I feel I am justified in stating, that from the very first, and on the earliest opportunity, we evinced a desire not to treat in a party fashion the measure now before us. Sir, it is impossible for us to forget at the end of June the circumstances under which this measure is brought forward. This measure is an unconstitutional measure, as is now universally acknowledged; and this measure is an unconstitutional measure with respect to the country which, of all others, requires to be treated with consideration and delicacy. Then I may ask the House whether the manner in which the subject was brought under consideration in another place; whether the manner in which this measure was there brought forward, origin-
518
nally professing to be permanent, and immediately announced as temporary; whether the manner in which this temporary measure has been finally brought under our notice—recommended to us for that temporary character and for the exigencies of the circumstances which called for it, then studiously concealed from our notice till its existence was almost forgotten—entitle this measure to our confidence without a scrutiny; and whether these circumstances would not be at any time calculated to occasion suspicion? For my own part, I should be under any circumstances loath to join in passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland. If I saw such a Bill recommended by a majority of the Members for Ireland, on whatever side of the House they may sit, I should certainly come to its consideration with feelings very different to those with which I entertain this measure; which all the Irish Members opposite oppose as tyrannical; and which most of the Members for Ireland behind me denounce as futile. But, Sir, I cannot forget that this is not the first Coercion Bill which Ireland has been supposed to require, which we have passed, and which have been so ineffectual that there have been repeated appeals to us for novel powers. Although I am far from saying that peculiar circumstances in that country may not occur to require the exercise of extraordinary powers by the Legislature of the United Kingdom, still I think it cannot be denied that the time has arrived when it will be impossible to consider a Coercion Bill for Ireland apart from the general circumstances that disturb society in that country. If this be true, and if this position be, as I believe it is generally, if not universally recognized; if it be true as regards Ireland, as it is true as regards England, that we have been for years discussing questions of municipal authority and of political right, whilst the condition of the people has been neglected; if in Ireland, as in England, this sovereign subject has been postponed throughout our public discussions, I for one, am not prepared, under any circumstances, to support a Coercion Bill which shall stand isolated, and be taken into consideration without reference to the social state of Ireland generally; I ask the House, whether the general grounds which would have at an earlier date justified the opposition to this Bill, have not been further increased by the conduct of the Government in its prosecution? I will not trouble the House for a moment

519
with the memoranda which are at hand; but let me recall to the recollection of the House some remarkable facts. This Bill was recommended to Parliament on the 22nd of January; it was ordered to be printed on the 16th of March; it was read a first time on the 1st of May; and it was proposed to be read a second time on the 2nd of June. If this be the way they deal with a measure which has been described by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland as temporary, how would they attempt to pass measures which they intend to be eternal? Now, Sir, while the excuse of Government was the absolute necessity of passing their economical measures, I find that on May 5, the House adjourned at nine o'clock; on the 7th, at eleven; on the 21st, at half-past seven; on the 26th, at half-past seven; on the 28th, at a quarter to eight. These were not Government nights, but they were nights in which Government business is sometimes taken. But on five Government nights the House adjourned at an early hour. All this was before the first reading. When the House met again on Monday, April 20, there was no House. After the first reading of the Coercion Bill, on May 22, we had the Factories Bill, and not the economical measures. On the 25th, we had a Committee of Supply. On the 29th we had the Budget and Supply; and on June 5, the Poor Removal Law. Well, then, not admitting, which I cannot do, that the economical measures of the Government, however great and important they may be, are so important and so urgent as a measure for the protection of life, and which they described as temporary in its operation, I have shown that the House did not sit on ten days, and that it rose early on five days, in which measures might have been brought in for the protection of the life of Her Majesty's subjects. This is the last memorandum with which I shall trouble the House. On the 20th of April, that celebrated day on which there was no House, I find this among the Orders of the Day:—"Adjourned debate on the First Reading of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill, before the other Orders—Sir James Graham." The House was not made on that day, forty Members not being present when the Speaker took the Chair. On the 22nd April the House was occupied with the Friendly Societies Bill. On the 29th of May we had the financial statement; and on the 5th of June the Poor Removal Bill had precedence. It will be
520
admitted, I think, by every impartial person, that however wrong we may be in our impressions or suspicions, we have a primâ facie case for coming to the conclusion that there has not been an earnest, even if there has been a serious intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in forwarding this Bill. Indeed, the papers just laid before the House, in this age of statistics might be called the statistics of shuffling. No reason has been adduced by Her Majesty's Ministers—no circumstances have existed during this Session which can account for this delay—which can account for the fact that in the month of June we are asked a second time only to read this Bill. Now, Sir, I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Bill itself. But though I have heard many eloquent and able speeches to prove that the state of Ireland is bad, that five counties are greatly disturbed—though Her Majesty's Ministers, and especially the Secretary for Ireland, have made elaborate calculations of the outrages committed, which may be all true; yet, Sir, one is reminded that to the majority of those outrages the Bill does not apply. At the same time, while the state of Ireland is dwelt upon, Her Majesty's Ministers hold out the hope that the state of society in Ireland is at this moment in a situation of great amelioratin. According to the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, there is a deep feeling of gratitude in Ireland for the introduction of Indian meal into that country. I think the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland told us that this feeling pervaded the wilds of Connaught and the wilds of Munster, and that the distribution of Indian meal was not only attended with present beneficial results, but that it would have an important bearing on its social condition in future. The noble Lord hoped the Irish people would look back hereafter with gratitude to the feeling entertained towards them by a paternal Government. It is satisfactory to find that there are circumstances of so ameliorating and kindly a description at work; but in the very same newspaper which contained the noble Lord's speech—I speak of a great organ, the only one which is generally favourable to the measures of Her Majesty's Ministers, though I believe it is not personally favourable to Her Majesty's Ministers themselves—I mean The Times, on the very day in which the speech of the noble Lord appears on

521
the advantages of Indian meal in the wilds of Minister, I find this account of a mutiny in Limerick gaol:—
"The war against Indian meal has extended from the workhouse to the gaol of Limerick, and its introduction as an article of food had well nigh led to serious consequences. In pursuance of a resolution of the board of superintendence, sanctioned by the Court of Queen's Bench, the breakfast dietary of the prisoners has been changed from oatmeal to Indian meal stirabout. It was served out for the first time on Wednesday, when every prisoner, male and female, refused to use it. The number at present confined is 107, and, displeased at not having the former dietary to which they were accustomed, all refused to do the usual prison work, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the governor, Mr. Woodburne, and the Roman Catholic chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Bourke, whose advice they scoffed at. Shouting, yelling and whistling were heard in all the yards. On Thursday morning the prisoners evinced the same obstinate defiance, and would not work. The prisoners swore vengeance against those who introduced the new dietary, and said they would die to a man, sooner than use it."
I need not trouble the House with all the details, but it is stated "that a terrific uproar prevailed." This, I believe, is by no means a solitary case; and when the Coercion Bill is opposed, and we are told, as an argument by which we ought to accept it, that though the Government are going to rule five counties by coercion, they are going to do what will create a deep feeling of gratitude in the wilds of Munster, it is, I think, necessary we should inquire whether there is any better foundation for this report than for the famine in Ireland. Sir, the First Minister told us there was great inconsistency on the part of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, inasmuch as he voted for the first reading of this Bill, and opposed its second reading. Now the reason which the noble Lord gave for this change in his vote—that he had no confidence in Her Majesty's Government—must be sufficient, one would think, to stop all argument, and to put an end to all discussion on this head. But I am not willing that this particular instance of conduct on the part of the noble Lord and those who vote with him should be misunderstood, or that we should be supposed to be influenced merely by that feeling of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government which is practically avowed by many of us. I say that never has an individual acted towards a Government with more fairness, or given them more exact notice of the course he intended to pursue, with respect to this measure, than the noble Lord. It is three months
522
ago since the First Minister applied to the noble Lord, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to know what he intended to do with regard to this measure. I need not refer more particularly to this subject, because a minute was drawn up by the noble Lord which has been read to the House in order that there should be no misconception on the subject. I say that that minute has been observed not only to the letter, but in the spirit. I cannot therefore admit that any argument against the consistency of the noble Lord can be maintained by this allegation of his conduct with respect to this Bill. It is unnecessary to dwell upon it, because the facts are open, are known, are precisely laid down; and no impartial person can read that document, whatever they may think of the policy of the noble Lord, and deny that the noble Lord has fulfilled his engagement, not only in a just but a generous and complete spirit. Sir, I am not disposed to admit that that other allegation brought against the consistency of the noble Lord by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to his vote on the Factories Bill was better founded. Two years ago, Her Majesty's Government, of which the noble Lord was not only a constant, but, as it has been admitted, a firm and disinterested supporter, brought forward a Bill to restrict and regulate labour in factories; and the noble Lord not only supported the Government, but his vote proved that he was favourable to the restriction of labour in factories. There was an Amendment made to the Bill to restrict labour in factories further, and the noble Lord voted for the original Motion of restriction; but that did not preclude the noble Lord or any hon. Gentleman, when two years had elapsed, when it was found that the restriction of labour did not produce the injurious effects that were contemplated, from not taking the same course, following the same career; and when an hon. Gentleman opposite, most conversant with the subject, himself a master manufacturer, brought forward a measure to still further restrict labour in factories, was there anything inconsistent in the noble Lord voting for that measure? And, yet this is called by Her Majesty's Government, "inconsistency." This is the public conduct which is adduced as a parallel to the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's Government, upon a great public question, this Session. The right hon. Gentleman says—"I have changed my opinion: I

523
have changed my policy. But are you the person to blame me? Are you the person to have no confidence in me—you, who changed your opinion on the Coercion Bill, who voted for the first reading, and mean to oppose the second reading—you who voted against the restriction of labour two years ago, and with infamous inconsistency, not a year ago voted for a still further restriction?" It is an hallucination on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to suppose that they can justify their conduct in the measures they have brought forward this year by allegations of such inconsistency in individuals, even if such allegations were justified. The noble Lord, even if he had changed his opinions on the Coercion Bill, and even if he had changed his opinion on the Factories Bill, has violated no confidence — he has betrayed no trust; and it cannot be said of the noble Lord that he got into Parliament by pretending to have different opinions on the Factories Bill than those he holds now. It cannot be said of the noble Lord that he with practised duplicity supplanted a candidate on the hustings by promising to vote for the very measure he knew he was coming to Parliament to oppose. It is not that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have changed their opinions on a question of great public policy—that is open to all men—but what we say of the right hon. Gentleman is, that he got into power by professing opinions contrary to those which he now upholds; and that he turned the noble Lord opposite and his friends out of power because they were about to practise the policy which he now pursues. And we do not bring forward this merely or principally as a moral imputation against the right hon. Gentleman; we are perfectly ready that he and his Colleagues should settle the question of moral conduct with their conscience, as they have to settle, and may have to settle, many things; but what we say is this, "You are injuring us, you are injuring Gentlemen opposite, and the country, because in the course you are pursuing you are striking at the root of the Parliamentary Constitution of England." We say this, that opposition founded upon definite principles is as much part of the English Constitution as King, Lords, and Commons; that a powerful Government may be a great thing and a very advantageous thing for a nation, but that a powerful Opposition is as necessary to the good
524
government of this country, to the maintenance of our liberties, and the elucidation of great principles of policy, as a Government however strong, however eminent the talents of the individuals who form it, or however distinguished or adroit in Parliamentary debate. This is the charge we have always brought against Her Majesty's Ministers. It has nothing to do with the disappointment, however just, of a few individuals, or of any party in this House; but it is the cause of the great body of the nation, who are interested in the intelligible position of public men, and who feel that it is for the welfare of this nation that that green table should divide different opinions as well as different individuals. We are not to be met, we who make this charge, by telling us that we changed our opinions about the second reading of the Coercion Bill, or the Factories Bill. The quarrel is great, it is a national quarrel, not an individual one. It is not a miserable squabble between individual Members of Parliament, and we are not to be answered by a Secretary of State or the First Minister going to that red box and telling us, "Do not remind us of the past. It is very true that we entered this Parliament merely as private Members, and that our representations and your confidence made us Ministers of State. It is very true that we have acted exactly contrary as we promised. But all this is forgotten."
"Sed tu oblitus es
At Dî meminerint, meminit fides fides."
And I tell the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, though they may have forgotten all this, the violated principles of political morality have not forgotten it: it is remembered by the outraged faith of England. Now, I will give an instance from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other night of the system—no not the system, but the conspiracy—carrying on against the Parliament of England—against the frank and honourable manner of governing England by decided principles of policy. I take the words of the right hon. Gentleman upon a most important and interesting subject, and if he can satisfactorily explain, then I shall not only be satisfied, but surprised. I am speaking of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct at the commencement of this year, when he was vindicating it with the highflying tone which late at night he knows how to assume. He said—"I had to choose between organizing a decided and interminable opposition to all change

525
with respect to the Corn Laws, and undertaking—if the noble Lord felt himself unable to undertake it—the foundation of final legislation on the subject." Now, nothing could be more constitutional, nothing more Parliamentary, than this position of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech of Friday night. He was either to stick to his principles, or, if he thought they were wrong, he was to give the noble Lord permission to carry his own principles into action; and if the noble Lord had not the power to do that, then the right hon. Gentleman, in a most constitutional manner, said, "I had a right to change my opinions if I thought necessary; and, if the State required it then, I was prepared to carry those principles into effect." Now I want to know, if this be an exact description of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman; if he felt it was his duty utterly to oppose all change, or to give permission, according to the genius of our Constitution, to the noble Lord to carry those principles into action, how was it that the right hon. Gentleman, a week before he gave this opportunity to the noble Lord, attempted to induce his own Cabinet to carry those principles into effect? I want this answered. I asked the question before, and the right hon. Gentleman called it "bandying personalities." But, a few weeks after, he who never forgets the necessity of a Parliamentary explanation in the long run, informed us that he was going to explain the whole circumstances. I listened with profound attention. It happened, by chance, that I sat nearly opposite the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain that no words which fell from his lips escaped my ears; and this I know, that he spoke on the subject for nearly an hour, and his statements were infinitely interesting. Twice he told us that he was going to explain all, and finally he dazzled the eyes and ears of the House by reading them a secret and confidential State Paper; but the slightest approximation to a specific explanation of the great fact—that the right hon. Gentleman never gave; he has never given it; and that we wait for. But why do I remind the House and the country of this mysterious and inexplicable passage in the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman now? It is, that he finished his speech on Friday night last by saying—
"If it is asserted that I wished to interfere in the settlement of this question by the noble Lord opposite, that is the foulest calumny which the
526
vindictive imagination of a political opponent ever dictated."
The vindictive imagination of a political opponent dictate this calumny! Why, I find it in the reports of the debates in this House, I find it in the minutes of his own Parliamentary explanations; and he who described that imputation as the foulest calumny of a vindictive imagination, was describing the conduct which he had himself confessed. I have made these observations on what I will venture to call the attack the right hon. Gentleman has made on the noble Lord near me as to his political consistency. As far as his political consistency is concerned, my noble Friend is ready to pit his against that of the right hon. Gentleman. But I cannot for a moment admit that the great controversy which is going on before the House and the country, which touches the very foundation and genius of our Parliamentary Constitution, is to be degraded to a personal quarrel. That is the point which I put to the House, and which I leave to their grave and honest consideration. But then the right hon. Gentleman, determined, I suppose, to put an end to the ambitious career of my noble Friend, felt it necessary to make another attack on him. I wish to be quite exact, and I will quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He said—
"That the noble Lord had assumed, for the first time, a license in debate, a license that was injurious to the cause of legitimate debate."
And the right hon. the Secretary at War also admonished the noble Lord on the previous night, and reminded us in tones of indignation, that—
"We had been addressed in language never before used in Parliament, and which he hoped would never be made use of again."
It seems the language of the noble Lord was too strong. It was not Parliamentary. And, above all, my noble Friend's describing Gentlemen in office as janisaries, appears to have excited, as it does now, the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Sir, I observed on that occasion, notwithstanding the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that you did not think fit to interpose; and, Sir, When I remember the language that has been used in this House by men of great light and leading, by the greatest statesmen and orators that England has ever produced, I am not at all surprised that you did not interpose. And, Sir, I only regret that those who I suppose are the new generation to which

527
the right hon. Gentleman referred, appear not to have that acquaintance with the Parliamentary history of their country which it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to have. Now, I will not trouble the House with a long or even a familiar extract: I am going to read a short passage from a speech of one who may fairly be described as the greatest Parliamentary orator that ever existed in this country; and I do so out of respect to the noble Lord the Member for London, who is an admirer, and, in some degree, the successor of that distinguished man. Sir, when I heard the language of my noble Friend, who spoke without any previous communication with me—[a laugh]—I mean, of course, as to any particular expressions he used. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have found some mare's nest. I hope they will find it amusing. But I think they will find that they have no cause to laugh.—Sir, there is on record a speech of Mr. Fox—the greatest he ever made—from which I would quote a very short passage. I think it may not be unprofitable for me to read it to the House, for these are mealy-mouthed times, and it is well for us to know, how in the great days of Parliamentary struggle—in the days when there were giants—Ministers and the opponents of Ministers expressed themselves in Parliament. It is from a speech of Mr. Fox that I am about to quote. It seems that Mr. Pitt had spoken in the debate, but his speech is not reported. In a note, however, it is stated that he had reproached Ministers with basely clinging to their offices. What answer did Mr. Fox give to the charge? He said—
"And once for all, let no man complain of strong language. Things have now arrived at such a crisis as renders it impossible to speak without warmth. Delicacy and reserve are criminal where the interests of England are at hazard."
This, Sir, was the language used by Mr. Fox, then leader of the House of Commons, and virtually Prime Minister. He went on to add—
"The various points in dispute are such as strike to the heart, and it were unmanly and pusillanimous to wrap up in smooth and deceitful colours objects which, in their nature and consequences, are calculated to fill us with a mixture of indignation and horror."
[Mr. S. WORTLEY: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman, the Judge Advocate, it seems, is not satisfied. I am reading the whole of the passage, because I did not wish to give what might appear to be a garbled extract. The passage I more par-
528
ticularly refer to is this: Mr. Fox continued—
"But for God's sake strangle us not in the very moment when we look for success and triumph by an infamous string of bedchamber janisaries."
And the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was couched in language almost equally strong. I remember a similar passage in a speech of another great statesman, Mr. Grenville, in which he spoke of his being "opposed by persons in office, who were sent, like janisaries, to strangle or despatch his Bills." Why, Sir, I want to know what language my noble Friend used was worse than this? I will not read another passage which I have, because I have given the key which I have no doubt many Gentlemen will follow up. But one short passage I may give from a speech of Mr. Fox. He said, speaking of his opponents—
"The whole compass of language did not afford words sufficiently strong to mark the contempt he entertained for their conduct — their impudent avowal of political profligacy, as if that species of treachery were less infamous than any other. It was not only a degradation of a station which ought to be occupied only by the highest and most exemplary honour, but they forfeited by it all claim to the character of gentlemen, and were reduced to a level with the meanest and basest of the species."
And yet the Secretary at War gets up and tells us that we use language that was never used in Parliament before, and which he hopes will never be used again. Is it come to this, that we are to be lectured by the Secretary at War? I recommend him to get the speeches of Mr. Fox, and to study them day and night; his nervous and masculine eloquence will not suffer by the perusal. I now approach a subject, to which I cannot allude without unaffected pain. [Laughter.] Sir, there may be some who will treat with derision the memory of a great man; but, I confess, whatever may be my feelings on the conduct of any individual, if he have been a distinguished citizen of this country, particularly if he has been an illustrious Member of this Senate, and particularly if he has left us for ever, I would not receive an allusion to his memory with the miserable sneer which I heard just now. Soon after the noble Lord, the other night, had used language which, although strictly parliamentary, because justified by the greatest authorities, appeared to have astonished the First Minister, and astounded the Secretary at War, he made other allusions which touched some secret sore.

529
The noble Lord the Member for Lynn, I say it in his presence, for I know he is superior to any petty offence on the subject—the noble Lord, if he has one characteristic stronger than another, it is his total absence of affectation and pretence. The noble Lord never comes here but he always tells us that he does so most unwillingly, and that he has been pressed against his will into the position he now occupies. He always tells us, "I am no ripe scholar, I am not a practised statesman, I am not an orator; cannot you get some one else to lead you than me? I was bred a soldier; I never aspired to more than the reputation of a high-spirited and honourable English gentleman." I must say it not in his praise; for, I think, with his great abilities and his high station, it is a deficiency in such a man; but the fact is, that he is not ambitious. Any one who knows him intimately, knows that the idea—and it is a legitimate idea—of his rising in the State is foreign to his nature, and never entered his mind. The noble Lord says it was once his happiness, and it is still his pride, to have filled the humblest situation of a political career near to a great Minister; and from that period he has not sought nor wished to occupy any office, however exalted; and even the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) has admitted, that the noble Lord was his constant but pure and disinterested supporter. The noble Lord may have expressed himself with unusual warmth and vigour. I am not sure, however, but the racy vigour of his brave honesty is not worth all that pompous plausibility, and all that solemn adroitness—all that "damnable iteration' of stale sophistry and frigid commonplace which are now held to constitute modern eloquence, the noble Lord, speaking with earnestness, and remembering his early position, the only position in public life which he ever aspired to, the humblest position which a political career can offer, near a great Minister, and one to whom he was bound by the dearest and nearest ties—the noble Lord stated that the right hon. Gentleman had hunted to death Mr. Canning—the noble Lord stated, that in the year 1829 the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, or rather announced, that in the year 1825 he had informed Lord Liverpool that what was called the Catholic question must be settled—that it was no longer possible to resist those claims—and that, if they
530
could be settled by his leaving office, he was prepared to make the sacrifice. The noble Lord, remembering the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in 1827 to Mr. Canning—remembering the effect which that conduct had on the career—probably on the life of Mr. Canning—the noble Lord taking the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that it was base in a Minister to conceal a change of opinion, asked him how it was that when in 1825 he changed his opinion on the Catholic question, in the year 1827 he rose in that House and made an explanation with respect to the causes of his severance from Mr. Canning, which he never would forget. The right hon. Gentleman made an answer which I need not recapitulate, but which I recapitulate only from a desire not to be unfair towards the right hon. Gentleman, because it will be in fresh in the recollection of every one who listened to it. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the year 1829—not, of course, denying the communication with Lord Liverpool—when he announced that communication to the House of Commons, he announced nothing more than he had explained in 1827 in the presence of Mr. Canning himself. Now, it is a remarkable circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman did not read this speech. He read the speech which he had made in 1827, in presence of Mr. Canning; bnt the House will recollect that he never read the speech which the noble Lord alleged contained the great admission, and which was the only question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to that speech, but never read it. I thought it due, however, to the right hon. Gentleman to read it, and the following is a passage from that speech, as I find it reported in Hansard:—
"So far as my own course in this question is concerned, it is the same with that which suggested itself to my mind in 1825, when I was His Majesty's Principal Minister for the Home Department, and found myself in a minority of this House upon this question. When I then saw the numbers arrayed against me, I felt that my position as a Minister was untenable. The moment, Sir, that I, the Minister responsible for the government of Ireland, found that I was left in a minority on the question, which was of paramount interest and importance to that country, that moment I sought to be relieved from the duties and responsibility of office. I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Administration, that in consequence of the decision given against me in this House, it was my anxious wish to be relieved from office."
Now, Sir, I am ready to admit that that perfectly bears out what the right hon.

531
Gentleman said the other night; he did not say anything, according to this report, which he did not say in 1827 in the presence of Mr. Canning; but that certainly contradicts all that many gentlemen who were connected with Mr. Canning, and who were Members of this House at the time I believe. That speech, remember, was made in 1829. Now, Sir, I make no charge against the right hon. Gentleman; but I say that the speech I have read from is a garbled, a mutilated, or, to adopt the language of this House, a corrected report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; and that it omits, and entirely omits, that important statement which is the great question to-night. That I will proceed to prove. It so happens that in those days there were two reports of what was said in this House; for there was then not merely Hansard, the speeches in which are generally corrected by hon. Gentlemen themselves, but there was also the Mirror of Parliament, the speeches in which were taken in shorthand, verbatim by the most able shorthand writers, most of them being men of education and intelligence, and at that time the speeches were published every three days. Now, Sir, I call the attention of the House to what it appears from the Mirror of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman really said in that famous speech of 1829:—
"So far as I am personally concerned, I beg to say, my own course is the same as that which suggested itself to my mind in 1825, when I was His Majesty's Principal Minister for the Home Department, and found myself in a minority upon the Catholic question in this House. I felt that, looking at the numbers arrayed against me, my position as a Minister was untenable. The moment that I found that I was in a minority on that question, I felt that it was no longer advisable that I should continue to be charged with the responsibility of Irish affairs. I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Administration, that in consequence of the decision against me by the voices of the representatives of that country, the time was come when something respecting the Catholics ought, in my opinion, to be done, or that I should be relieved from the duties of the office I held, as it was my anxious wish to be."
The words left out in the report of Hansard are these:—
"I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, that in consequence of the decision against me by the voices of the representatives of Ireland, something respecting the Catholics, ought, in my opinion, to be done."
But this, Sir, is only the commencement of my proof. Hon. Gentlemen may understand that though you may alter your
532
own speech for Hansard, you cannot alter the answer to it. There may be two versions of a speech—the speech for the House, and the speech for posterity. An hon. Gentleman, who was then the head of a party that had also been betrayed, the head of the Protestant party in this House, and who had since been a Member of Her Majesty's Government, in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as it appeared in the Mirror of Parliament, though not in Hansard, used this language:—
"If at that period the policy of conceding the Catholic question were clear to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that in justice to himself, in justice to his Friends, in justice to the country, in justice to Mr. Canning himself, who has always been the able, powerful, and consistent advocate of the Catholics, he ought not to have concealed it. If, as he now says, he had discovered in 1825 the necessity of passing this question, I ask why he did not say so in 1827, and give his support to Mr. Canning then, when the supposed difference between him and Mr. Canning obtained for him the support of many hon. Gentlemen who differed with him only on that, which I confess was the case with me?"
Sir, that was a memorable speech. It was the speech in which Sir E. Knatchbull used the phrase nusquam tuta fides. It appealed to the feelings of the House, who were carried away by the expressions of the speaker. The right hon. Gentleman was obliged to get up and notice it; but he did not notice that passage; he never denied that he had proposed to Lord Liverpool, in 1825, that something should be done respecting the Catholics, though Sir Edward Knatchbull had repeated that statement. No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman admitted his guilt, if guilt it were; and it is only in 1846 that he vindicates himself by referring to a different speech, and quotes a report which I have proved is not a correct one. Now, Sir, I have a right to speak of that report of the speech I have read from in Hansard, as being corrected by authority, for I find a note—and every one knows how seldom one finds notes in Hansard—on the 5th of March, 1829, appended to the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in these words, "Inserted with the permission and approbation of Mr. Secretary Peel." Now, I have been informed that the report I have quoted from the Mirror of Parliament was made by Mr. Barrow, one of the finest shorthand writers in the country, and a man of education and intelligence. But after all, it is Sir E. Knatchbull's speech that proves the truth of the matter, and would prevent any

533
imputation being substantiated against Mr. Barrow's accuracy, if there was any made. But not satisfied even with this, I thought it discreet to refer to the report of the most eminent newspaper of the time—The Times of the 6th of March 1829, and there the right hon. Gentleman was reported thus:—
"He stated to Lord Liverpool, then at the head of His Majesty's Government that in his opinion the time had come when something respecting the Catholics ought to be done, and that he must be relieved from the duties of his office."
Therefore, Sir, it appears also by this report that, in 1825, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the time had come when something respecting the Catholics ought to be done. After this, I think it is unnecessary to offer any more evidence; I have accomplished the vindication of my noble Friend, who had not the power of speaking again in this debate. My noble Friend told me that there were no means by which he could have the power of speaking again; though I had hoped means might have been found; and therefore I felt it my duty to undertake his defence. I have not rested this case on the authority of anonymous publications, though they are anonymous publications, as the Quarterly Review, or the Edinburgh Review, which I hold in my hand, which are no mean authorities; for the articles in them are frequently written by men high in the Legislature, and cognizant of all that is done and all that is said by public men. I believe there is many a Cabinet Minister on both sides of the House at this moment that has written articles in those reviews; and there have been several contributors to them who have been Prime Ministers, as, for instance, Mr. Canning himself. Now, in the Edinburgh Review, of April, 1829, in an article on the state of parties, written, I believe, by a man who was not to be misled with respect to transactions in which he had himself taken a great part, this is the language used. In the former part of the article he gave a character of the right hon. Gentleman, which I omit, as it is not very favourable to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is therefore unnecessary to bring it forward on the present occasion:—
"Sir R. Peel at that time told Mr. Canning, in the House of Commons, that his unlooked-for opposition to Mr. Canning was grounded on a difference of opinion on the Catholic qaestion; yet at that very time he had in his writing-desk a letter in which two years before he had told Lord Liverpool that, in his opinion, the Catholic claims ought
534
to be granted, and proposing that he should retire from office in the mean time."
It is true that is an anonymous publication; but then it is widely circulated: the passage was read in society, and it never received any contradiction. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has said that there was no misconception between him and Mr. Canning; that in 1827, when he made that explanation, Mr. Canning immediately responded in terms which did not look as if Mr. Canning thought the right hon. Baronet would hunt him to death. We are all aware of what Mr. Canning said on that occasion. He offered some Parliamentary compliments to the right hon. Gentleman; he acknowledged the candour and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman. We must all acknowledge that such is his character. That was on the 21st of May. This is the character to which the right hon. Gentleman is always referring. Why, before forty-eight hours were over, Mr. Canning had expressed his real opinion of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. The opposition commenced in a manner which outraged all decency. A party of Gentlemen—I will not inquire what great house they were dining at, though I have been told—came down to this House, the right hon. Gentleman among them; the debate was the shipping interest; a late Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman rose and delivered himself of a speech which, if that Gentleman were a Parliamentary authority at all, I should quote as exceeding in virulence anything which might be to the taste even of Mr. Fox. And the third day after the right hon. Gentleman received his character for candour and sincerity, the right hon. Gentleman rose and delivered one of the most violent opposition speeches ever heard in Parliament. What did Mr. Canning say then?—
"I rejoice," said Mr. Canning, "I rejoice, Sir, however, that the standard of opposition is at length unfurled in this House. Such an act is, to me, worth a thousand professions of qualified neutrality. In whatever mind the feeling of opposition lurks, let it come boldly forth, and boldly will I meet it. I never have shrunk—I never will shrink—from explanation or defence, whether the charge preferred against me be conveyed in the avowed hostility of the open and manly foe, or in the not less dangerous insinuation of the disavowed opponent."
"Now," said the right hon. Gentleman, "I did not hunt him to death." I am not going to enter any details for the purpose of determining whether the right hon. Gentleman did hunt Mr. Canning to death. That is a poetical phrase; that is metaphorical

535
language; and it only expresses the feeling entertained by the friends and relatives of Mr. Canning. If I were to enter on such matter, I must go into secret councils—into private correspondence. I must speak of newspapers set up to hunt the noble victim—newspapers supported by men who were members of Mr. Canning's Government. I must go into details on which I will not enter. What I have met to-night is the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to meet his reply addressed to the new generation of Members, not on the spur of the moment, with an imperfect hold of details which occurred nineteen years ago; but after he had taken one, two, three, even four days, to get up his case. He came with these extracts, which I have proved to be garbled. He came with a suppressio veri unprecedented in the debates of this House. I have brought you a version to the letter. I have brought you evidence—unintentional evidence — which confirms that version. I have placed before the House in its true light that great passage, in its history that memorable avowal. It is nineteen years ago since it occurred, and posterity has decided upon it. "But," said the right hon. Gentleman to the noble Lord, "if such has been my conduct, how can you justify your conduct in calling me your right hon. Friend?" Is it necessary to notice such a charge. I recollect when the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of that great Pharisaical confederacy called the "Conservative Opposition," the right hon. Gentleman had more than 300 hon. Friends, many of whom he did not know by name, and many whose appearance if he had to identify them he could not recollect. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "why elect me for your leader?" It has sometimes been my lot to notice in this House the extraordinary tone of the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks as if he were entitled to be sole Minister of England. He comes to this House and says, "I am about to make an exposition of my policy." But I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, that when a party is formed, it is not a single individual who gives it shape. I was but a very humble Member of that party; but when I joined the Conservative Opposition, I followed an eminent personage to whom I was warmly and personally attached. My noble Friend was attached both in public and in private life to Lord Stanley? Far from acknowledging the right hon. Gentleman as his leader, my noble Friend's name will be found in
536
the list of those who voted against him, and turned him out of the Government. When Lord Stanley felt it his duty to cross the House, my noble Friend followed his Friend Lord Stanley—his personal and private Friend, as well as political leader. Under such circumstances, can you be held to have become the personal follower of an individual with whom you have no official connexion, and with whom, during nineteen years, you have had no private intimacy? I may venture to say that my noble Friend has had less personal intimacy than any other Gentleman of the party with the right hon. Gentleman. Yet now the right hon. Gentleman says, "You are barred from taking such a course, because, though you were probably never under my roof, and never accepted a favour from me, you still were pleased in Parliamentary parlance to call me your right hon. Friend." Sir, I think I have answered the elaborate attack of the right hon. Gentleman on the noble Lord—his attack on my noble Friend's consistency, his attack on his Parliamentary language, his attack upon the imputation my noble Friend made upon him as to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. Canning. But I trust I have done more than vindicate my noble Friend. I trust I have put in its true and intelligible light that mysterious passage which has so long perplexed the politicians of Europe, and which the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night so elaborately explained for the benefit of the rising generation. I am not surprised, that, closely connected with Mr. Canning as he was, my noble Friend should have expressed himself as he did. The feeling to which he gave utterance is shared by all who have had intercourse with Mr. Canning. I never saw Mr. Canning but once, when I had no expectation of ever being a Member of this House, but I can recollect it but as yesterday when I listened to almost the last accents—I may say the dying words—of that great man. I can recall the lightning flash of that eye, and the tumult of that ethereal brow; still lingers in my ear the melody of that voice. But, Sir, when shall we see another Mr. Canning—a man who ruled this House as a man rules a high-bred steed, as Alexander ruled Bucephalus—[a laugh]—of whom it was said that the horse and the rider were equally proud. I thank that hon. Gentleman for his laugh. I know that times are changed—the pulse of the national heart does not beat as high as

537
once it did. The tone and temper of this House are not as elevated and brave as in the days of Mr. Canning; nor am I surprised, when the vulture rules where once the eagle reigned. The right hon. Gentleman once said that Ireland was his great difficulty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, why Ireland was his great difficulty, and whether, if he had acted with frankness to Mr. Canning in reference to his communication with Lord Liverpool in 1825, Ireland would have been his great difficulty? This the right hon. Gentleman must feel at the present moment, when we are about again to divide on an Irish question—a division which may be fatal to the continuance of his power. It is Nemesis that inspires this debate, and dictates this division, and seals with the stigma of Parliamentary reprobation the catastrophe of a sinister career.
SIR R. PEEL: I am aware, Sir, that the forms and usages of the House preclude me from making any reply to the hon. Gentleman; but still, in a matter purely personal, I dare say the House will do that which it has almost uniformly done, wave a rigid adherence to established usage, for the purpose not of enabling me to make a reply, but rather of desiring Gentlemen, in justice, to suspend their judgment till an opportunity for reply comes. The whole of this question turns upon this single fact—did I, or did I not, in 1825, state to Lord Liverpool that my opinion on the Catholic question was changed, and that a settlement should be made? The whole, I repeat, turns upon that fact. Well, then, I publicly assert, that the report of my speech of the 5th of March, 1829, is a correct statement of the truth; that I said to Lord Liverpool, in 1825, that my position as Secretary of State for the Home Department, the only one of the Government opposing the Catholic claims, yet responsible for the administration of Ireland, and seeing my Colleagues in constant concert with my opponents, made my position, being alone in that House, so intolerable, that I asked to resign my situation in the Ministry. In the course of the night I stated that, retaining my opinions, I was anxious to tender my resignation, but was prevented by Lord Liverpool, who induced me to remain. In 1825, I opposed the Roman Catholic claims. In 1825, Lord Liverpool made the strongest speech he had perhaps made on that subject; and I beg also to refer to what I said on the same subject, as utterly inconsistent with my having
538
given my advice to Lord Liverpool to settle the Catholic question, or even with having an opinion in my heart that those claims should be settled. In 1827, I offered opposition still to the Catholic claims; and in 1828, I continued the same opposition. I found in 1828, that my position resembled that in which I was placed in 1825; and I said I could no longer continue responsible for the administration of affairs in Ireland. When the circumstances of 1829 took place, I then said, for the first time, to my noble Friend then at the head of the Government, not only that I must relinquish my position in the House of Commons, which had overruled my views, but that my opinion was, that the time had now come when the question should be decided, and that in a private capacity I should do all I could to facilitate the settlement of the question. As to the Edinburgh Review, why, there has been a lapse of seventeen or eighteen years since that article was published. But here let me say, that all the evidence on the subject which the hon. Gentleman has been quoting from, has been accessible to him ever since 1829. He had just the same opportunity as he has now of making the attack on me; but it is reserved till the period when I have taken the course which I have done on the present question. And it seems to me to be expected that after the lapse of seventeen years I am to reconcile any contradiction that may be discovered, or to answer any charge that may have been brought against me. The main question, however, is, did I in 1825, or did I not, state to Lord Liverpool that my opinion was changed? Why, Lord Liverpool was the friend of Mr. Canning; and do you think it probable that, considering the intercourse which existed between them, had such an opinion been expressed by me, Lord Liverpool would not have communicated the important fact to Mr. Canning? As to the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I certainly did do what many others have done—I corrected that speech; and what object, I ask, could I have in doing so? But I spoke on the 5th of March; and on the 6th of March, the day after, I find in the Mirror of Parliament a report of that speech with which I had no concern, and in which you find the answer I made to the question put to me on the 5th. Then as to the Edinburgh Review. What public man will say that it was necessary for me to answer that statement,

539
made by an anonymous writer, or that the statement, if not contradicted, must be held as true? Is it necessary to contradict every malignant paragraph, and, because it is not contradicted, is its truth to be assumed? But this I say, that as the writer in the Review asserts there is a letter from me in existence, in which I gave my opinion to Lord Liverpool that the Catholic claims should be settled, I challenge the production of that letter. What authority has he that that letter exists? If he states that fact, I challenge the production of the letter. But I will go further, and pledge my honour, that if the letter was written, and I have a copy of it, that copy I will, in extenso, give to the House. If it exists, it will show what were the grounds for the expression used in the speech of the 5th of March, that I had waited on Lord Liverpool and stated to him what were my intentions. I have my belief that the communication between Lord Liverpool and myself was a verbal one; but if a letter exists, it shall be produced. I repeat, however, that I never, in 1825—and that is the main fact—intimated to Lord Liverpool a personal change in my opinion on the subject of the Catholic claims. I had no right to say one word on this subject, and I have refrained from entering into a full reply; but allow me to express my grateful thanks to the House for having given me the opportunity of saying thus much.
Debate again adjourned to Thursday.
House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Small Debts; Juvenile Offenders.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Campbell, from Derry and other places, praying that a Bill may be passed compensating Proprietors of Lands for the Purchase of Sites for Free Churches (Scotland).—From Bedford, and other places, against the Corn Importation and Customs Duties Bills.—From Chichester, for the Substitution of Affirmations in lieu of Oaths where persons having Conscientious Scruples object to be sworn in Courts of Justice.—From the Parish of All Saints, Wandsworth, complaining of the Inadequate Remuneration and Inconvenience that Petit and Common Jurors are subject to at Assizes, and for a Revision of the Laws relating to Jurors.—By the Duke of Buckingham, from Inhabitants of Falmouth, in favour of the Corn Importation and Customs Duties Bills.—From Railway Passengers on the Bristol and Birmingham Line, complaining of the Inconvenience attending the change of Carriages at Gloucester resulting from the Break of Gauge.—From the City of London, against the Corn Importation Bill.—From Westminster, for the Adoption of a Measure for the Employment and Reformation of Discharged Prisoners.—From Guardians of the Droitwich Union, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.

CHESHIRE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION SOCIETY.
LORD DELAMEREwas understood to say that he was anxious, in defence of his character, to offer a few words of explanation to their Lordships. The noble Duke (Richmond) on a former occasion had stated his surprise at finding his (Lord Delamere's) name as a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Protection Society. He (Lord Delamere) answered without hesitation that he had never belonged to that society, and that he never had belonged to any society of the sort, and that he believed he had never aided that society by subscription, but that he could not tax his memory; his strong impression, however, was, that he had never done anything of the sort. He now repeated that he never did belong to the Cheshire Agricultural Association; and he felt called upon, as a gentleman and man of honour, to declare that what he had said on the former occasion as to not being a subscriber he then repeated. It was strictly true. The fact was, that when the Anti-Corn-Law League began distributing pamphlets and laying out money for the purpose of setting tenants against their landlords, and began to tamper with the registration, he, with a large portion of the gentlemen of the county did attend a meeting at Northwich to see whether it might not be possible to defeat the machinations of the Anti-Corn-Law League; and it being considered necessary that there should be a small sum at the command of the Committee, for the

439
discharge of legal, advertising, and other expenses, he had subscribed something and paid it immediately to the chairman; but he had never attended any meeting afterwards, and he never was a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Protection Association, nor any other protection association. If the noble Duke had told him what he (the Duke of Richmond) had stated in his (Lord Delamere's) absence from the House, he should have immediately risen and made the explanation he had just given.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: It appears, from the noble Lord's statement, that the people in his part of the country do not hear much, neither, I am afraid, do they remember much. Your Lordships may remember, that I got up the other night to justify myself as to the grounds which induced me to believe that the noble Lord was a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Society. The moment I saw the noble Lord in his place I told him what I had stated, though, as there was a debate going on, he might not have heard what I said.
LORD DELAMERE: I give you my word of honour I did not.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: I am not charging the noble Lord, I beg to remind your Lordships, with a greater offence than has been perpetrated by many of your Lordships—a change of opinion on the corn question within the last two years. I tell you fairly, my Lords, that ever since this Bill came into your Lordships' House, I have come down every night with a list of all the noble Lords favourable to it who have been members of protectionist societies; and I should not be at all surprised if, before the debate closes, I find an occasion of reading to your Lordships what I conceive to be so curious as well as perhaps instructive a document. It appears that on the 5th March, 1844, there was a large meeting of the gentry and farmers of Cheshire, who met in the market-place, and so large was the attendance that there was obliged to be an adjournment elsewhere. Now the first resolution that was proposed at that meeting was—
"That a society be formed for the protection of agriculture; that the objects of this society be not merely the protection of the landed interests against the schemes of the League, but also to oppose all measures that may be brought forward, having a tendency to deprive agriculture of that protection to which it was so justly entitled. That this society ought not to interfere with political subjects, but that every effort should be made to secure to the tenant-farmer a fair remuneration
440
for his industry, so as to enable him to give to the labourer a fair day's wages for a fair day's work."
This resolution, my Lords, I find was moved by the right hon. Lord Delamere. My Lords, that is the paper on which I rest my justification. I agree in every syllable of it, and I only wish the noble Lord had adhered to it as stedfastly as might have been expected from the part he took in those proceedings.
LORD DELAMERE: With regard to that meeting I certainly attended it, and it was very numerously attended. But the adjournment spoken of did not take place from the great numbers attending it, but from the fact of our having been ousted by the Anti-Corn-Law League. The resolution alluded to was certainly moved by me, but it was moved in conjunction with many others bearing on the particular circumstances of that period; for then it was that paid emissaries were sent by the League to Cheshire, who endeavoured to separate the farmers from the landlords, and the labourers from the farmers. That resolution was accompanied with others as to registration. I refused an invitation to belong to the Protection Society of Cheshire, nor did I ever pay a halfpenny towards it except the trifle of 25 l. which was given for the purpose of counteracting the machinations of the League.
VISCOUNT COMBERMERE: I can only say that, as chairman of that society, I always considered the noble Lord as one of our most active and efficient members. As he has now withdrawn, of course I can no longer look on the noble Lord in that light. The noble Lord says he did not pay his subscription. I received this morning a letter from Mr. Harding, a neighbour, if not a tenant, of the noble Lord, who says, as secretary of the Association, "Having seen that Lord Delamere stated that he did not belong to any protection association, or subscribe to the funds of any such society, I beg to state, for your Lordship's information, that Lord Delamere is our vice-president, and that he subscribed to our funds towards the end of last year; and further, that he moved the first resolution at our meeting," that referred to by the noble Duke (Duke of Richmond).

PETITION OF THE MERCHANTS, BANKERS, TRADERS, &c. OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
On the Order of the Day for resuming

441
the Adjourned Debate on the Question, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee," being read,
LORD STANLEYsaid: I hope it will not be looked upon as any violation of any previous understanding for proceeding with the Adjourned Debate at once, if I present to your Lordships a petition worthy of your most attentive consideration, bearing immediately on the question now under discussion. My Lords, this is a petition—and I consider it a high honour to be selected by such a body to bring under your notice such a document—signed by merchants, traders, and bankers of the city of London. I will not say that those petitioners request your Lordships to reject the Bill under consideration. I desire not, in the slightest degree, to exaggerate the importance of the petition I desire to lay before you. The petitioners are many of them largely embarked in enterprises connected with our commercial interests; and having to attend to their own private concerns they interfere with reluctance in any political matter whatever, and would be satisfied to leave a question such as this to the deliberate and impartial consideration of Parliament. They have not petitioned your Lordships on the subject of this Bill; nor would they now have done so, had it not been that a petition was presented by the noble President of the Board of Trade, purporting to be the petition of the bankers, merchants, and commercial men of the city of London, in which it was stated that, in their opinion, the passing of this measure was essential to the progressive prosperity of every class of the community. My Lords, if there be any class especially whose interest this Bill purports to be designed to serve, it is the mercantile and commercial class; and, no doubt, a considerable impression was produced on your Lordships' minds by a petition presented by one who held high official station, and which undertook to represent the general feeling of the commercial body. It was the presentation of that petition that brought from their private concerns many of those whose names are appended to the petition which I have now the honour to lay before your Lordships—the petition of the merchants and traders of London, in which they humbly state—and the list of signatures gives fully good evidence they are correct—that they represent the general opinions of that class to which they belong. They begin by saying that—
"Though desirous to leave so important a measure
442
to the deliberate wisdom of your Lordships, they think it right to state that the commercial and manufacturing interests having been for some time in a state of great activity and prosperity, they see no ground for asserting that this Bill is essential to their progressive prosperity. Your petitioners, on the contrary, regarding the vast extension of commercial enterprise for many years past, and which seems to be continually going forward, do not believe that the Bill in question is essential to the continuous activity of that commercial interest. Your petitioners numbly believe that this is an experiment on a vital branch of our national interests, involving consequences the magnitude of which it is impossible to foresee, and calling for your Lordships' deep and anxious consideration."
I told your Lordships that they did not pray you to reject this Bill; but these parties come forward to protest against its being supposed to be the general feeling of the citizens of London, or of the mercantile and commercial classes there, that this Bill was essential or even necessary to the prosperity of the commercial interest. And they go further; not desiring to interfere with the deliberate exercise of your Lordships' judgment, they yet beg of you to bear in mind the immense and unforeseen consequences involved in this measure, and not hastily to adopt a great and hazardous experiment. I admit that the relative value of the two petitions depends on the signatures appended to each. I shall enumerate some of the names appended to this petitition. There is the chairman and deputy chairman of Lloyd's; the chairman and deputy chairman of the Dock Company; a considerable number of Bank Directors—six, I believe; there is a large number of bankers too; there are the names of Abel Smith and Co., of Curtis and Brown, of Spooner, Attwood, and Co.; of Bevan and Tritton, of Hanbury and Co., of Muspratt and Co.; of merchants there are Baring Brothers, and Huth and Co., without dispute the largest general merchants in the city; of shipowners there are the names of Tyndal and Somes, the largest in the trade; of shipbuilders there are Curling, Young, and Co.; there are thirteen of the principal names engaged in the corn trade, many of the principal houses engaged in the silk trade, several of the principal houses engaged in the iron trade, all the leading houses, without an exception, of those engaged in the Canadian and Australian trade, and many of the principal houses engaged in trade with the other Colonies. My Lords, such is the authority of the names appended to this petition (and they are open, of course, to your Lordships for inspection), who, not desiring to interfere with your deliberate

443
judgment, pray you not to believe that this Bill is universally called for by the mercantile and manufacturing classes of the city of London; and stating that the feelings and sentiments of those interests have been misrepresented to your Lordships in laying the petition on the Table. I have to express my earnest hope that you will adopt the advice they have tendered respectfully, and consider deliberately the vast experiment you are about to make; and that if you are determined (as I fear you are) to make an alteration in the existing law, you will not only accompany it with due deliberation in your counsels, but that this great experiment will be conducted with a due degree of caution in practically applying the principles of their legislation.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEhad the honour some time ago to present to their Lordships a petition from merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London. He was not aware that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) intended to present the petition he had now done, or he might have been prepared with an analysis, showing the amount of respectability, influence, and wealth, attachable to the petition he had presented, so as to form a set-off to the petition which his noble Friend had now brought forward. He had no intention to diminish in the slightest degree the authority, or to detract from the weight of that petition; and perhaps he would not have troubled their Lordships but for one or two expressions which had dropped from his noble Friend. One of these expressions was, that the petition which was formerly presented purported to represent the general sentiments of the city of London; and the other was, that those who signed the present petition objected to it as a misrepresentation of the sentiments of the mercantile community. Now, what he wished to press upon their Lordships' attention was, that the petition he presented did not profess to be anything but what it distinctly was; nor did the observations with which he had accompanied it state that it was more than the petition of merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London. It did not profess to be the petition of the city of London, but of certain merchants, bankers, and traders in it. He would say, therefore, let the petitions be judged by their relative merits and numbers; but let it not be supposed that the first petition came before their Lordships under false appearances. He had had no opportunity of instituting a comparison be-
444
tween the two petitions; but since the noble Lord had drawn their attention to the signatures attached to his petition, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) begged to state, that to the petition which he had the honour to present, there were the signatures of twenty-four or twenty-six bankers, instead of six or seven, as in the case of the petition now brought forward by the noble Lord. There were attached the names of 267 merchants and others; but, as he said before, he was not in a condition to institute a comparison between the two. If, however, anything was to depend on this, he asked their Lordships to place them side by side; and he was not afraid of the comparison, whether with respect to wealth, knowledge, or respectability.
LORD STANLEYhad nothing further from his view than to impute to his noble Friend anything like misrepresentation. But it would be recollected that a few nights ago, when it was stated that the petition which the noble Earl had presented did not express the sentiments of the city of London, it was asked on the other side, why there was no counter petition. In these circumstances the present petition must have been deemed necessary. He accepted his noble Friend's challenge as to a comparison. He had been authorized to state to their Lordships, that if they compared the signatures of the two petitions, they would find that those attached to the one presented by him represented more than threefold the amount of business transacted by those who had signed the petition of his noble Friend.
EARL GREY, upon examining the petition presented by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), found that, as originally drawn up, it contained the following passage:—"So little ground is there in their view for saying that it is necessary these measures should be passed with the least possible delay." But it appeared this passage was thought too strong, and the pen had been drawn through it. On erasing these words, it was implied that the opinion of the petitioners was, that the measures ought to pass with the least possible delay. The petition did not venture to ask their Lordships to reject the Bill, but talked of it as an experiment which ought to be decided one way or other. This, which was represented as a counter petition to one, numerously signed, and praying their Lordships to pass the measure, had not asked them to reject the measure,

445
and its promoters had struck out a passage in which it was represented that there was no danger in delay.
LORD ASHBURTONobserved, that there could be no doubt, if their Lordships were prepared to pass this measure, they ought to do so without delay. Such was the whole meaning of the passage referred to by the noble Earl as having been expunged, and he thought so too.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the whole object of the petitioners seemed to be to show their Lordships, that they did not agree with the sentiments contained in the petition presented by the noble Earl (Earl Dalhousie). They did not, however, ask their Lordships to reject the Bill, and all that could be drawn from it was, that there was no unanimity in the mercantile body of London on the subject. In the time of the Income Tax, in 1816, there was a public meeting at the Egyptian-hall, and that would, of course, speak the sense of the city; but that could not be said of either of these petitions. But, at all events, none of the petitioners were for unnecessary delay; they all felt, that if the Bill was to pass, the sooner it did so the better. Now, any Amendment that night in Committee would cause a delay of months. There could, moreover, be no greater mistake than to suppose that the mercantile interests were banded against the agricultural interests of the country; they might differ upon the Corn Laws, but generally speaking the former were for supporting the latter.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL—EXPLANATION.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he was sure their Lordships would not be indisposed to listen to the few words he was about to address to them, which had at least as much to say to the question before the House, as the remarks they had just heard, when they knew that what he had to say tended to correct a mistake affecting the personal character of a Member of their Lordships' House. He had not been present at the time the speech was delivered by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), and he deeply regretted the fact; but he understood that the noble Lord had done him the honour to advert to one or two points of his speech, in which he had been misinformed as to the facts as far as regarded himself (the Bishop of St. David's).
446
He understood that the noble Lord had been pleased to refer their Lordships to the distinction existing between the sources from which certain of the right rev. Prelates on the benches of that House drew their incomes, and those from whence the incomes of the parochial Clergy were derived. He was aware that his noble Friend had not intended, and most probably had disclaimed the design, to make any invidious construction on the effect of that distinction; but as he believed the noble Lord had also stated that it was a fact likely to make a great impression on the country, he thought their Lordships would admit that he (the Bishop of St. David's) was entitled to say, that the fact on which the noble Lord relied was erroneous. Speaking for himself, he wished to inform their Lordships, as well as the public, that of his own public income very little more than one-third was derived from fixed payments, and that very little less than two-thirds was subject to reduction for depreciation of agricultural produce or for other causes, exactly in the same proportion as the incomes of the parochial Clergy. He did not mean to extend his assertion on this point beyond his own case; but their Lordships would, he was sure, give him some credit for being sufficiently well informed as to his own affairs.
LORD STANLEYwould have been glad, had the right rev. Prelate, before he had thought proper to advert to what had fallen from him on a previous night, informed him beforehand of his intention. He (Lord Stanley) had not the least idea that he would have been called upon for an explanation of what he had really stated; but it was in their Lordships' recollection and he recollected it, that he expressly said, he would state nothing personally offensive to the right rev. Prelate, and that he would say nothing of him in his absence which he would not say in his presence. But their Lordships would recollect that the right reverend Prelate had addressed them on the subject of motives, and that he had used those extraordinary words, as nearly as he (Lord Stanley) could remember, "That their Lordships might be fully conscious of the purity of their own intentions; but they must recollect that a very different view of this great question would be entertained throughout the country, and that a very different construction would be put on their conduct." In commenting on that observation of the right reverend Prelate, not supposing it possible

447
that he could have intended anything offensive to their Lordships, he had made use of words to the effect, that he was confident the right rev. Prelate was as little influenced by any motive of private consideration as he had given their Lordships credit for being, but that the public were free to draw the same inference with respect to him and his motives, as he had thought fit to draw with respect to the personal motives of their Lordships. If there were anything personally offensive in what had passed, it had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and not from him; because his (Lord Stanley's) assertions, with respect to the operation of motives, went as far as the right rev. Prelate's conviction of their Lordships' purity of intentions. The statement he made, which might not have been correctly repeated to the right rev. Prelate, had been this—and he hoped he would forgive him for repeating it—that there was a wide distinction between the sources from which the right reverend Bench and the parochial Clergy derived their incomes; that the latter were wholly and exclusively dependent on corn for their income; that as the value of that article feel, so their income would be depreciated, and they would inevitably be losers by the measure, unless all other commodities fell in proportion; and he had proved that would not be case. By the confession—no, not confession—he would not apply that word to the speech of the right rev. Prelate—but by his own statement, their Lordships were informed that two-thirds of his income depended on the price of corn; but as regarded one-third of it, he was not only protected from reduction, but received a fixed money payment for it. He then took the liberty of showing that all who received a fixed money payment were gainers by this measure, and that was all he had said. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory to the right rev. Prelate. He had not thought he should have been called upon to make it, and should have gladly explained what he did say, if the right rev. Prelate had asked him to do so in private. He disclaimed all motives, or the imputation of them, and had only pointed out the distinction between the sources of the revenues of the parochial Clergy, and the right reverend Bench, which was admitted by the right rev. Prelate to exist.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, that the distinction had certainly been stated in a manner which would appear
448
somewhat invidious, and that effect had been augmented by repetition in other places in a manner still more invidious. He was almost ashamed to trouble their Lordships with a defence against imputations—not intended, it was said—but certainly calculated to exercise an injurious effect, as regarded Members of their Lordships' body, on the public mind. He would, therefore, without troubling their Lordships at any length, state how the case really stood. Out of the twenty-six Members of the right reverend Bench in their Lordships' House, fourteen were altogether free from being placed, in the least degree, in the circumstances which had been stated by the right rev. Prelate, and received no portion of their incomes in payment from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those Members of the right rev. Bench derived their incomes in the same way as the landed proprietary did, the only difference being, that they derived a larger proportion from the impropriate tithes, which were more likely to be affected by this Bill, than in any other way. It certainly seemed severe that the Clergy should suffer by the Bill; and its bearing on their case presented an obstacle to him in the way of the vote he had given on behalf of the Bill. The liability of the parochial Clergy to be affected by it certainly did appear to him an argument against the Bill. He did not, however, regret the appeal which had been made to the right rev. Bench, for he believed they were justly looked upon as the guardians of the Clergy in that House. Nevertheless, he thought the injustice which had been done to that body was not so much attributable to that Bill as to the Tithe Commutation Act. Differing, as he did, in opinion on that subject from many of his Friends, he had always held, and repeatedly expressed it, and he believed, that by it parochial Clergy were deprived of the prospect of any increase of value to be derived from improvement in agriculture. Of the other Members of the right reverend Bench four were in the position of paying fixed charges to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of uncertain incomes—the gross amount of their revenue being liable to fluctuation from the operation of this Bill, or of any other measure affecting the price of corn. Of those four right rev. Prelates, three had recorded their votes in favour of the Bill. Thus two-thirds of the right reverend Bench were altogether removed from the possibility of their being under

449
any imputation as regarded the motives for their votes. One-third of his right rev. Brethren were under the suspicion of receiving fixed payments. But had none of their Lordships any fixed incomes? Had none of their Lordships funded property not liable to be affected by the operations of this Bill? He claimed no exception for his right rev. Brethren from any charges which could with truth be brought against them; but from their position and character, no persons should be more exempt from charges without proper foundation. He thought he had demonstrated that this charge, which it had been intended to apply to them, though it had been brought forward in somewhat an invidious manner elsewhere, was totally without foundation.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, it must be admitted that above all men the right rev. Prelates ought to be most feelingly susceptible as to any charge which might touch their character and high position; and feeling that he might have excited in some degree the great susceptibility they had shown in this measure, he would beg leave to say a few words on the subject. He must say that the susceptible feeling the right rev. Prelates showed had been somewhat slow in its approach. He had spoken on the second night of the second reading, humbly delivering his opinions as he had a right to do. He seldom troubled their Lordships, that having been, he believed, the second or third time he had troubled them; but it was a long time ago, and he had been in the House several nights since, when no notice was taken of it. Not one word had been said of his remarks until last Friday, when they had been commented on by the right rev. Prelate. He thought it needless to assure their Lordships there was not a Peer in that House who would more unwillingly offer a word to them which could possibly look like an imputation on the right rev. Prelate. He stated that they stood in that position with regard to the parochial Clergy, that it was a part of some difficulty for the right rev. Bench to interfere on the present occasion, and that the people might possibly misconceive their motives in doing so; nor had he alluded to the right rev. Prelates in any other sense. He utterly denied that any other wish had entered into his heart than to do them justice; and he acquitted them entirely of being actuated by any unworthy motives. But he had been called to task by the
450
right rev. Prelate, who had made a most able and eloquent speech, for having taken the liberty of addressing himself to that right rev. Bench. He was not accustomed to take liberties, nor did he think he had taken any liberty in expressing himself as he had done. If out of that House the right rev. Prelate should ever condescend to give him (the Earl of Malmesbury) his spiritual advice, he would gladly admit and follow it; but in that House, in all temporal and in all political subjects, he should, in everything but ability and eloquence, consider himself and act as the Peer of the right rev. Prelate.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Srose to explain. The only object he had in any observation he had addressed to their Lordships, was to remove the impression which might have been made within that House, and in the country at large.
The EARL of HARDWICKEwished to remind their Lordships that there had not been anything like personalities introduced into the debates, until certain right rev. Prelates had addressed the House for the first time. Those right rev. Prelates to whom he referred had not been ascustomed to take part in such proceedings, nor had they possessed any opportunity of seeing the manner in which many of their right rev. Brethren conducted themselves. Those right rev. Prelates never had ventured to impute motives to any of their Lordships in the discharge of their duties, and had set the House a bright example of dignified and becoming conduct. And he now gave the right rev. Prelates to whom he alluded his advice that they would take this example and warning, that it would not be very wise, as regarded themselves, for them in future to impute motives to any of their Lordships in reference to anything which might arise in their Lordships' House.
The BISHOP of OXFORDrose to address the House amid some confusion. He appealed to their Lordships' sense of justice to hear him for a few moments. It would be impossible for him to suffer the lecture which had been delivered to him—and he would add no epithet to that word, for he considered it would quite suffice to express his meaning—it would be impossible for him to suffer the lecture which the noble Lord had thought it proper and seeming to address to two right rev. Members of that body, who sat with him in that House as his Peers, without saying a few words in reply. He was in the recollection of the

451
House, when he appealed to all he had said; and he fearlessly challenged contradiction, when he asserted that he had imputed no motive to any noble Lord in the beginning of his speech, and had guarded against doing so. In the heat of argument, and in discussing what he believed to be a great national question, upon which, after the best and most earnest consideration he could bestow, he had come to a clear and decided opinion, he might have been led into a warmth of expression which he had not intended. If that had been the case, and if he had said anything offensive to any noble Lord, he was at once ready to admit it, and to apologize for having done so. But as to submitting to the imputation which had been so wantonly and improperly brought forward, that instead of confining himself to argument, he had imputed motives to their Lordships, he would not do so, and he rejected the charge altogether. It was a very easy thing for noble Lords to stand up in their places and make such charges as these, and to make charges of youth and inexperience; but was a man who for forty years had studied, and that not carelessly, books, men, and manners, to be declared incompetent to deliver his opinions, or to be taunted by the noble Lord with being a young man? Surely it were a greater shame for any reasonable being to be on the wrong side the question as an old man, than as a young man. But he was not very anxious to throw aside the censure of the noble Lord, by any desire to escape by the plea of great senility. He had confined himself to argument, which was, he believed, found to be troublesome; and it was far easier to give lectures on imputed arrogance, than to take the edge off argument which had been listened to and received. It had been said, too, that he had set the example of introducing acrimony and personal altercation into the debate; but he could appeal to the noble Duke, whether, when he had drawn his (the Bishop of Oxford's) attention to a slight slip, a wholly unpremeditated allusion which had risen to his lips in the moment of speaking, and with which he concluded the sentence, he had not at once retracted it. Now he did complain publicly of that pseudo lecture which had been delivered to him with such extraordinary gravity by that noble Lord, with whom he was in private on terms of friendship. He could not, however, suffer that noble Lord on the common ground of that House to assume the
452
privilege of imputing to him assertions and motives which he could not prove.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAsaid, that having had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House for many years, he could most confidently state, that if ever he had heard a lecture in his life, it certainly was contained in the speech of the right rev. Prelate in the last night of the debate. So strong a lecture he had never heard. Not only had he designated the speech and arguments of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), which, in point of eloquence and effect, had never been exceeded in that House, as a mere declamation—as "actual rottenness;" but he had the presumption to say that those of their Lordships who had stated, and stated honestly, that they were the friends of the labouring classes, had other motives for their conduct. He had hoped to have heard the right rev. Prelate prove that this was a landlord's question. Had he done so, he (Earl Winchilsea) would have doubted the motive by which he thought himself actuated. He would not occupy their Lordships' time any further than by saying that the right rev. Prelate knew but little of the agriculture of the country when he talked of improving it by introducing the competition of the foreign labourer, the labour of the serfs of Poland. He could conscientiously say that he deeply regretted the speech of the right rev. Prelate; and he thought that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who had spoken from the other side of the House, had given as perfect a description of that speech as could be imagined.
The EARL of GALLOWAYhad heard the speech of the right rev. Prelate, and the animadversions which had been made upon it, and must express his deep sense of the injustice of the latter. During his speech the right rev. Prelate had been frequently subjected to the most unseeming interruptions; and it was a marvel to him that the right rev. Prelate should have been enabled with so much good temper to bear with those interruptions. There was sometimes something very sharp in the retorts of the right rev. Prelate; but there was nothing unparliamentary in the speech. He believed that the attacks launched to-night against the right rev. Prelate showed how deeply those who made them felt the truth of the remarks which had called them forth.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee.
The preamble was agreed to.
On the Motion that the First Clause stand part of the Bill,
The DUKE of BUCKINGHAMrose to propose an Amendment of which he had given notice. He moved it, he stated, with the hope that he might be enabled to induce their Lordships to agree to the alteration of the First Clause. He was no party to the Bill; he thought it uncalled for and dangerous, and he wished to propose his Amendment simply with the view of doing what he possibly could to save some remnant of protection to the agricultural interest. By the Bill as it stood it was proposed that after the 1st of February 1849, the duties to be enacted in the schedule should cease, except that a nominal duty of only 1s. per quarter should be levied upon the import of wheat, oats, and barley. His object was to continue some degree of protection by proposing to leave out the date of February 1849, and to continue the sentence with the schedule which their Lordships would find in the fourth page of the Bill, and which provided to the landed interest an amount of protection to the extent of 10 s. when the price of wheat fell to 48 s. per quarter. If their Lordships agreed to his proposition, the effect would be that the farmers, after February, 1849, instead of finding themselves protected by a nominal duty of only 1s., would be still able to rely upon a protective duty to the extent of 10 s. per quarter. He repeated that he was no party to the Bill; nor would he in the slightest degree sanction it; but he suggested this course as the best which, under the circumstances of the case, now could be adopted for the agricultural interest. As he saw around him many noble Lords who had taken active parts at agricultural meetings and protection societies in holding out expectations to the farmers that by their exertions they would be able to maintain protection, he hoped and trusted that on this occasion noble Lords who were in that position would go along with him and give him their support. Many of their Lordships too had stated their preference for a fixed duty: they were therefore to that extent protectionists, and he claimed their votes as well as those of the advocates of the sliding-scale. As they were now arrived at a point which was finally to determine whether or not they would grant any degree of protection at all to the agriculturist, he hoped that they would pause before entirely overthrowing the hopes of the farmer. He had repeatedly stated his objections to this measure, which he thought unnecessary, un-
454
called for, and fraught with danger to every class of the community. They had now an opportunity of materially altering, and, as he believed, amending it, without interfering with the vote which they had given for its second reading, and of aiding him in reserving some shadow of protection to the agricultural interest. If they passed this Bill as it at present stood, they would, many of them, he was sure, in the course of a few years, or even sooner, regret the step which they had taken, and the vote which they had given. He implored their Lordships to set aside all party feeling in dealing with this question. Let them not look to those in office or those who were to come into office. Let them not record a vote to prop up an Administration, at the risk of injuring the great interests confided to their charge; but let their Lordships boldly come forward, and honestly and conscientiously record their opinions. Depend upon it, whatever the result might be, they would always have the satisfaction of reflecting that they had acted with clean hands and consciences, according to their views of what was best suited to promote the interests of the country at large. For himself, he threw aside all private feeling and individual friendship, humbly endeavouring as he did to discharge his duty to the best of his ability; and he would sincerely say that he had never given a vote more honestly and conscientiously than that which he should record in favour of the Amendment which he now begged to propose to the House.
The Question having been put,
The EARL of RIPONstated that he felt it to be his duty to object to the Amendment. While he did so, however, he must state that he was not at all disposed to impute to his noble Friend that in bringing forward his Amendment he had in any degree compromised his principles upon the subject. As their Lordships had affirmed the principle of the Bill by giving it a second reading, the noble Duke was fully entitled to propose any alterations which in his opinion might tend to mitigate the evils he apprehended from the operation of its general principle, and to render it more compatible with the welfare of those interests upon which he thought it would have an injurious effect. He (the Earl of Ripon) would take this opportunity of saying a word as to some observations which fell from a noble Lord behind him the other night. That noble Lord said, with reference to this particular part of the measure,

455
that he could not conceive what had induced Her Majesty's Government to adopt a modified sliding-scale for a period of three years, except for the purpose of effecting a species of compromise, and in order to satisfy those who might have been expected to object most strongly to the introduction of this Bill. Now, he begged to say most positively and distinctly that this provision was not introduced with any such notion. He would not have been a party to any attempt at such a miserable compromise; but, on public consideration entirely, he did give his conscientious support to this provision of the Bill. The reason for the introduction of that clause was this—as a very great change was about to be made, it appeared to the Government advisable that there should be some gradation in the process of effecting that change. Some persons might be of opinion that if a great change was to be effected with regard to an important interest, the more expeditiously it was carried out the better; while others might consider that it was necessary a certain time should be permitted to elapse before such a change came into full effect. In dealing with questions of this nature, Parliament had repeatedly acted on both these principles; and he certainly thought, with reference to this particular measure, that it was most advisable some time should be allowed to elapse before it was brought into full operation. The sole motive for the introduction of this provision was a desire to mitigate those evils which were likely to arise from the greatness of the change in contemplation; and on this ground he adhered to it. It appeared to him that his noble Friend's Amendment was of much greater importance with regard to this Bill than the noble Duke seemed to suppose. He (the Earl of Ripon) would not allude to any circumstances which might hereafter arise if this Amendment should be carried; but he begged to say that the Amendment did, in point of fact, involve an entire alteration of the principle of the Bill, for it professed to give permanency to that protection which it was the object of the Bill, after a limited time, to remove. Those, therefore, who approved the end and object of this Bill, certainly could not consent to an alteration which would defeat that end, and prevent the measure from effecting those purposes for which it was introduced. For his own part, he (the Earl of Ripon) could not support this proposition; and he did not see how any noble Lord who had voted for the se-
456
cond reading of the Bill could support the Amendment of the noble Duke. But the Amendment was objectionable even as regarded the object of his noble Friend. The noble Duke himself did not appear to attach any great importance to it. His noble Friend had said that his object was to preserve a remnant of protection; but he (the Earl of Ripon) could not think that it was desirable to preserve a remnant of protection, for it had been contended that the remnant was not worth having. From the arguments used over and over again by the opponents of this Bill, he presumed that such a degree of protection as was established by this clause would be most inefficient, and could only serve eventually to occasion severe and unmitigated disappointment. If the agriculturists were to have protection, they ought to have an efficient protection; but it appeared to him, that to propose to establish in perpetuity the protection given under this clause, was to tender to the agriculturists what really was not worth their acceptance. What security could his noble Friend have that that protection would be maintained? What ground was there for supposing that any plan like that proposed by the noble Duke could be regarded as a permanent measure? What advantage, then, were the agriculturists to derive from the adoption of his noble Friend's proposition? He (the Earl of Ripon) would not now enter into the general question. He would only say that he considered, if the noble Duke's proposition was adopted, it would only delude and disappoint the agriculturists; and he thought their Lordships would be very ill advised if they assented to the alteration proposed by his noble Friend.
The EARL of CLANCARTY: My Lords, as the Amendment moved by the noble Duke has raised the whole question of the principle of the Bill, I trust I may be permitted to take this opportunity of offering to your Lordships a few observations upon it, which I am the more anxious to do from the very important bearing—I fear very injurious effect—it is likely to exercise upon the progress of agricultural improvement in Ireland. I can assure your Lordships, and especially noble Lords connected with Her Majesty's Government, that in considering this question, and in attending to the arguments that have been offered on either side in the course of the discussions that have taken place, I have done so with an anxious desire to give my

457
support to the measure. To myself, as to most of your Lordships, the question of free trade, and especially of a free trade in corn, was a new one; it has never till now been seriously discussed in this assembly; and so far was it formerly from finding favour with your Lordships, that, not many years ago, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne), then at the head of Her Majesty's Government, characterized the repeal of the Corn Laws as an act of insanity. I, therefore, had no greater prejudice to overcome than many of those noble Lords, who, formerly divided only as to the mode of giving protection, are now in favour of free trade. If, my Lords, I had any prejudice in the matter, I can truly say that it inclined me to look with favour upon the quarter from whence this measure has been proposed; for, however disappointed and deceived I have felt by the policy of the Government towards Ireland—a policy, the weakness, inconsistency, and ill success of which cannot be better illustrated than by the necessity that has resulted from it for the enactment of a Bill for the protection of life called the Coercion Bill—I yet cannot forget, nor will the country forget, that it was by the talents and energies of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet that the finances and commerce of the country have been raised to their present prosperous condition from the slough of despond in which they were left by the Government who quitted office in 1841. But, my Lords, when I examine the character of the policy which has produced the good results we see around us, I find that it has been essentially the policy of protection—of protection to native industry generally—but, above all, protection to the corn grower. Not, indeed, a high protection, which would operate to the prejudice of the community, for the benefit of a class, but a protection as low in amount as would consist with the due encouragement of agricultural industry. Such was the sound principle upon which protection was afforded by the Act of 1842 and subsequent Acts; a policy most ably stated and defended by the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies in his unanswered, though not unassailed, but unanswered because unanswerable, speech on the second reading of this Bill. I shall not, my Lords, trouble your Lordships by entering into a general discussion of the Bill; but I must be permitted to notice an argument which appears to have had great weight with many noble Lords who are in favour
458
of the measure, I mean what is called "the force of circumstances." Happily it is not here as elsewhere that the agitation of the Anti-Corn-Law League can have any influence. Could any pressure from without induce your Lordships to forego the consideration due to important measures, you very soon would lose the confidence and respect of the community, which now is, as it ever will be, your best support. The argument which has operated so strongly with many of your Lordships is the rapid increase of the population; an increase proceeding in geometrical rather than in arithmetical progression, and occasioning the necessity for a proportionate increase in the supply of food. My Lords, I most fully admit, that it is a duty of the first magnitude to provide that the population should have food cheap and in abundance; but it appears to me that the argument cuts directly against the present measure — against the abandonment by the State of the duty of regulating the supply of the food imported from foreign countries. It is true there are restrictions upon the import of corn, but they operate only to prevent a glut in the market; they cease to operate when their operation would be injurious. But whether you maintain the sliding-scale or adopt a fixed duty protection, in either case you stand upon a vantage ground to treat with foreign nations for the supply of food should the necessity arise for doing so; but if you remove all restrictions, and throw open the trade to foreign nations, what security have you, when you become dependent upon them for the supply, that they will not impose duties that will raise the price of bread much higher than it has ever been made by duties paid into the British Exchequer. The argument is not a new one, but it is one which has never been answered satisfactorily; and until it is so, it appears to me perfectly conclusive against the Bill. I beg, my Lords, shortly to advert to another argument which has been brought in favour of this measure, considered as part of a general system of free trade. Notwithstanding the admission in Mr. Gladstone's despatch to the Governor General of Canada, that "Her Majesty's Government have on several occasions endeavoured to make arrangements with Foreign Powers for the mutual relaxation of tariffs — but almost uniformly with ill success," we are told that our free trade must be successful. How? Through our own free agency

459
alone. I confess, my Lords, that I never understood what this meant until the debate on the second reading in this House, when it was explained by a noble Earl opposite (Earl Clarendon), once distinguished as a displomatist, to mean, that our manufacturers could, with the aid of the smuggler, be enabled to defeat the commercial restrictions of foreign nations, and to find a market for English goods in every country in the world. Such a doctrine I certainly did not expect to hear in this House, and still less propounded from the lips of a diplomatist, at the same time professing his preference of such a trade to one dependent upon Treaties. I cannot think, my Lords, that if our commerce is to be extended by means of a contraband trade, it will be either respectable or conducive to the interests and security of those engaged in it: nor does it carry with it much promise of a cordial relation with the Governments of foreign countries. I have always looked upon the smuggler much in the same light as the illicit distiller or the poacher. Offences against the customs, the excise, and the game laws, are, indeed, only offences in the eye of the iaw; but though only mala prohibita, they commonly lead to offences which are mala in se. If, therefore, I have felt surprise at the doctrine of a contraband trade being advocated in your Lordships' House, how much greater was my surprise at finding it not merely acquiesced in, but sanctioned, by a large majority of the votes of the right rev. Bench, who have manifested so great and unusual an interest in this question. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) who spoke last on Friday night, and charmed the House with the eloquence of his declamation, challenged your Lordships to appeal to the Bench, not upon the paltry interests of a class, but upon questions of morality and religion. I accept the challenge of the right rev. Prelate; and I put it to the Bench whether it can consist with the interests of morality and religion for the Parliament to connive at and encourage a smuggling trade—whether it would not better consist with the Christian character of British subjects, in whatever countries they carry on the business of trade, that they should be mindful to "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," and "render to all their dues—tribute to whom tribute, and custom to whom custom is due;" but it seems that in the train of evils to arise from free trade, there is to be the violation of precepts
460
having a much higher sanction than any your Lordships could confer. And now, my Lords, one word upon Ireland. Soon after the policy of Her Majesty's Government was announced, I heard the remark made by a gentlemen well acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland, that "the Irish landlords will be either very ignorant or very good-natured if they consent to a repeal of the Corn Laws." The observation, my Lords, appears to me to apply just as appropriately to Parliament as to the landlord class; for, happily, they are perfectly identified in interest with the whole of the community. But so far as the peculiar interests of the Irish landlords are concerned, I will take it upon me to say, notwithstanding the aspersions that have been cast upon that class to which I have the honour of belonging, that if a sacrifice were necessary for the general good, they would be as ready to make it as would the landlords of England, and much more so than those whose property is not in land; for among landlords there is a feeling of responsibility which does not in the same degree attach to the fundholder or the manufacturer. It is not, however, upon the landlords, but upon the occupiers and cultivators of the soil, that would fall, in the first instance, the consequence of this impolitic measure. And I will show your Lordships how that is: The rents of the proprietary in general are moderate, regulated at what, one year with another, the land is well able to yield, after remunerating the labour of the farmer. Thus it is that in 1835, when the prices were very low, I believe lower than it is contemplated they will be under the operation of free trade, the rents were fully sustained. Now who, my Lords, were the losers by the low prices? The farmers, and only the farmers. Again, my Lords, let me show you how it will bear against the cultivators of the soil. There has sprung up of late an active spirit of agricultural improvement in many parts of Ireland. Wastes which were formerly almost worthless, or yielded a very small rent for the coarse pasture they afforded, have been improved and brought under cultivation; in confidence, no doubt, that the improving tenant would be permitted by his landlord to reap the fruits of his labour and enterprise, but in confidence, also, that the Corn Laws would be maintained. Now, the landlords have performed their part: the benefit of these improvements, where they have been made at the tenant's expense, has been left in

461
the hands of the tenants. The rents have not advanced with the increased productiveness of the land; but if you pass a law by which the price of the agricultural produce is to be lowered, the injury to the improving tenant is the same: the check, the discouragement to future improvement is the same as if the landlord had raised his rent. Thus, my Lords, it is upon the occupiers of the soil that, in the first instance, will be inflicted a loss and an injury by your proposed legislation. Circumstanced as properties in general are in Ireland, it is not easy to bring about new arrangements between landlords and tenants; and the necessity must first become very palpable before the proprietor can consent to a sacrifice of income. Then, my Lords, look at the political consequences of this measure. If its tendency is to make this country dependent, it is to make Ireland politically independent. The peculiar privilege of free trade in the markets of this country enjoyed by Ireland, as a consequence of the Union between the two countries, was noticed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle), in his admirable speech in 1834 in defence of the Union, as the greatest among the benefits Ireland owed to that great event. The noble Lord, then a Member of the House of Commons, commenting upon Mr. O'Connell's speech, said—
"Does the learned Member recollect the passing of the 46th Geo. III. c. 46, which has given to Ireland a free trade in corn? Was not that a concession favourable to Irish interests? Do hon. Gentlemen venture to disregard the consequences to Irish agricultural industry of the free intercourse in corn between Ireland and England?. If they think that an unrestricted intercourse with the best and richest market for agricultural produce in the world is of no advantage to Ireland, there cannot be any argument urged that will influence their opinion.… I may therefore point out the free trade in corn with England as one of the most must substantial advantages which Ireland has derived from the Imperial Parliament—an advantage not confined to the rich or powerful, but creating a new demand for labour, and thus improving the condition of every cottager in Ireland. This I make my first point."
Now, my Lords, by this Bill Ireland will cease to be indebted to the Union for her free trade in the English markets. Her peculiar privilege will be lost, and she will have no greater advantages in the English corn trade than any foreign country. Attaching, as I do, great value to the Union, which, well cemented, I believe would be greatly for the advantage of both countries, I cannot but lament that anything should be done to weaken it. Much injury has
462
been done by the free trade in religion; the sympathies of the two countries are not what they were. I warn your Lordships that these experiments in legislation may prove most detrimental to the best interests of the Empire. I believe, my Lords, that the interests of all classes are united in the maintenance of a moderate and well regulated system of protective duties. And, feeling this to be the case, I shall give my cordial support to the Amendment moved by the noble Duke.
EARL STANHOPEsupported the Amendment, and stated that previously to affording his reasons for this support, he wished to say a few words on what had fallen from a noble Lord who had addressed the House upon the subject of the Bill. The real principle of the Bill was to be found in its preamble, that it was "expedient to alter the laws relative to the duties on corn." In that view he fully concurred—that was, in that principle of the Bill as contained in the preamble—though he was opposed to the change involved by the Bill now before them. But if the principle of the Bill was contained in the preamble, it appeared a monstrous absurdity, that the Bill should exhibit in one place the necessity for a free trade, and in another effectually negative the principle by a limitation. The most arrogant statements had been used with respect to the operation of the Bill. The condition of the country at a future period had been given, and statements made of the position of things, which could be seen by no man not possessing the gift of prophecy. No man could predict the condition of this country three years hence. An event, for instance, might happen, which all might hope was far, very far distant—an event which would plunge this nation into a condition of confusion, anarchy, and war. No man could affect to see the position in which the commercial and financial interests of this country would be placed at the expiration of any limited period. How then could legislation touch the matter? The country should have judged on the change, the Ministry should have made an appeal to the country; though this appeal they had not dared to make, because well aware of what that appeal would produce upon an oppressed, an outraged, and an indignant people. No change of the character proposed should be made, but under the deliberation of a Parliament called for that purpose. Under such an appeal, no base sycophants would probably have been

463
found—sycophants who have crept like filthy reptiles towards their own purposes; under such an appeal, no such creatures as these would have been found, for they would have retired to their own native obscurity. He could never forget the emphatic declaration of the noble Viscount lately at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that the repeal of the Corn Laws was the wildest and the maddest project that had ever entered into the brain of man. He thought that the noble Viscount, in justice to himself, in justice to the country, which might otherwise form an injurious opinion of his character, ought to be ready—whether he was able or not was a different question—to explain how it was, that without having recanted his opinion, without any change of circumstances, he should, a few evenings ago, have voted for the second reading of this Bill. He did not undervalue small minorities—it had often been his fortune to vote in small minorities himself—but when some noble Lords opposite boasted that they had formerly been in small minorities upon this question, and that they had now become the majority, he must say that had that been his case, however agreeably he might have been surprised by the change, and whatever the advantages might have been, still he would call upon them, in justice to themselves and to the country, to vindicate their conduct. He had heard several noble Lords, whose memories now appeared to be steeped in oblivion, speak strongly in favour of protection; and, indeed, a very short time ago the principle of protection was unanimously maintained on this side of the House, and all but unanimously on the other; but whatever influences might have been at work to convert them, he could not suppose that they had turned round with the same facility and complaisance as was shown by nine Members of the Cabinet, who after they had resigned office because they disapproved of this measure of the great dictator that sat in the Cabinet, a very few days after resumed office again, prepared to carry through the very measure which they had before disapproved of. This was a digression which he had been unavoidably led into, because one reason which induced him to vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend was, that it asserted the principle of protection. But at the same time he entreated their Lordships not to misunderstand him, or to suppose that he had departed at all from the principles which he formerly maintained,
464
as if he now thought that the present amount of protection was too much. On the contrary, he thought, that putting aside the principle of protection which was thus asserted in the Amendment, the amount of protection it proposed was ludicrously inefficient; but the whole Bill to which this was an Amendment was fraught with so much injustice to the agriculturist, that the Amendment would be better than its passing; indeed, rather than have this Bill, he would infinitely have preferred a total, immediate, and entire abolition of all protective duties. One of the remarks of Her Majesty's Ministers—who, as Milton said of kings, were strong in legions though weak in argument—was, that this measure was the necessary consequence of the measure of 1842; and that those who disapproved of the present Bill ought to have voted against that measure. This did not apply to him, who had voted against the measure of 1842; but it argued as if Ministers had then abandoned the outworks, that they might now be able to give up the citadel. In conclusion, he begged, that in justice to himself it would be distinctly understood, that in voting with the noble Duke, he did not pledge himself to adhere to this modification of the sliding-scale or any other; he wished to keep himself, as he had ever been, and, as long as he had life, should remain, free and unfettered to support any other Amendment that might be proposed in the Corn Laws, without being restricted to an Amendment like this, which could not, and ought not to be, a final measure.
LORD BEAUMONTwas anxious to state his reasons for voting for this Amendment, lest his conduct might be construed into an unqualified support of a system which would, in his opinion, be absurd, if considered as a measure of efficient protection. The House had already decided the question of protection, and he did not intend to revive it; still he thought that those who thought with him ought to take this one more opportunity of recording their opinions against the Government measure. But besides that, he supported the Amendment because he thought they were wrong in abandoning after three years all duties on corn, and thus surrendering entirely one main source of their revenue. Another reason was, because he believed, contrary to the opinion of the noble Earl (Earl of Ripon), that instead of this delay of three years being of advantage to the farmer, it would be of very serious injury to him.

465
His third and perhaps his strongest reason was this, that he thought they had no right whatever to legislate this year for another Parliament, which would sit before the measure of their legislation would come into operation; they had no right to act upon a principle which they dared not act upon immediately, but which they were seeking to saddle upon others that were to follow them. What did they know of the probable position of this country three years hence? Might not some other party soon hold the seals of office? And what right had they to legislate for any future Ministry? Again, every argument in favour of the present measure was founded on the present position of affairs — some peculiar to this year, some peculiar to the state of Europe; and not one of which might be in existence in three years' time, when the Bill was to come into operation. Nay, the very contrary state of things might be in existence then, for all that they knew; and yet the House was called on to legislate in the dark for a future and distant period. Some maintained that they were only now arrived at that state of things when they must adopt the principles of free trade? If they were right then, why not carry out their principle, and adopt free trade at once? But instead of that they damned their own opinions by their own acts, and gave the lie to their warm professions in favour of free trade, by deferring it for three years. The proceeding certainly did not savour much of courage on the part of the Ministers, or they would at once have adopted the broad principle of free trade. If he was not afraid of using offensive language, he would say that it was a sneaking way of carrying out their principle. Then, with regard to the second argument he had used, namely, that instead of a benefit, the delay of three years was an injury done to the farmer; what was the operation of this Bill? It announced to the whole corn-growing countries of Europe, that at the termination of three years they might introduce corn into this country duty free. Now, there was no country at present which had much surplus produce to send; but three years was exactly the time to allow foreigners to bring their soil into a proper cultivation for wheat, and thus enable them, without difficulty, to glut our markets. The expectation of a new market would induce foreign speculators to hold back a large quantity of corn for the termination of the three years, and then pour it into this country all at once; caus-
466
ing thereby a general derangement of our trade, both abroad and in the corn market at home. If we had adopted free trade at once, perhaps next year the demand would have been greater than the supply; and thus, by raising the prices abroad, foreign countries suffering under the rise of price would have called on their Governments for some further restriction on exportation; or, at any rate, the speculators would not have been able to inundate this country with the same quantity of cheap corn as they will probably collect for the expiration of the three years. Then, again, they allowed a man whose covenants with his landlord were not properly considered, time to exhaust his land, either with the intention of leaving his farm, or under the idea that the land must, of necessity, be thrown into pasture. Again, what did they do in another respect by fixing on the exact period of three years? As their Lordships were aware, "the four-course system" was the common one in England. Well, the effect of the present measure would be, that everybody would try and make such arrangements as to avoid having wheat sown in the winter preceding the year of free trade. And what would be the consequence? Why, that in that year there would scarcely be any wheat the produce of this country. They would endanger the whole order of cultivation, and instead of having, as at present, one quarter of the land growing wheat, another quarter oats or barley, and the rest green crops, seeds, or turnips, we should have one year all wheat, another year all barley, and so on with everything else. Instead of the present regular quantity of land in white crops, we should have a large breadth in one year, and a very small in another, owing to the derangement in the rotation of cropping, caused by the unfortunate selection of three years as the advent of free trade. Whoever framed this Bill was, he maintained, profoundly ignorant of English farming. By passing the present measure, too, they would be guilty of the absurdity of adopting a pretended sliding-scale for three years, without any of the benefits of the sliding-scale.
LORD KINNAIRD: Why, then, do you seek to perpetuate this absurdity?
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that they did not seek either to establish or perpetuate it; but they would not support a measure now, which was only to interfere with it in three years, because they did not wish to legislate for a future Parliament. He

467
(Lord Beaumont) would ask, too, had they any right to cut off the source of revenue which the corn duties afforded? How did they know that the state of their finances at the end of three years would allow of such a sacrifice? If they would not put a tax upon the corn because it was an article of general consumption, what right had they to keep up a tax upon any article of general consumption? The argument against this tax was an argument against all taxes on the necessaries of life. The question was now one of revenue. If they could not tax foreign corn for revenue, they could not tax any article of food, clothing, or furniture. The Bill was one which was calculated to make every farmer a free trader; and there could be no doubt that if this measure was passed, there would not only be an attack upon the customs duties, but there would be, and with much stronger reason, an attack upon excise. If they dared not, upon principle, tax the foreign grower of corn, why should they tax the farmer of England for his barley—why should they tax him for attempting to make sugar out of articles the produce of his soil—why should they tax his hops—and why should they forbid him to grow tobacco upon lands that would not grow wheat? And the matter would not settle there—it would extend to the subject of tithes. He differed altogether on this subject from the right rev. Prelates who had spoken. He said, that after this Bill passed, gross injustice would be done to the landowner by the Tithe Commutation Act. How was the Tithe Commutation Act arranged? They took an average of seven years, which was a period of high farming, induced by protection. Those seven years were the basis of the Commutation Act; and it must be remembered that in those seven years land was brought under the plough, which, if this measure passed, must be thrown back again to pasture. The effect of this would be that the land reverting to pasture, would, for seven years, be saddled with an arable tithe. In proof of this he quoted several cases given before the Committee on Lands Burdens, to show that even now there were farms which their owners would gladly lay down in pasture if they were not deterred by the amount of tithe. In other cases, again, where the land was poorly cultivated, previously to the Tithe Commutation Act, he admitted that the landowners had benefited. He contended, farther, that the mea-
468
sure would alter the whole landed property of the country. Taking the rent of the land in England, according to the income-tax returns, at 45,000,000 l., or, what he thought would be nearer the mark, at 40,000,000 l. sterling—for he knew that three and a half millions of tithes and fines, and other sources of revenue, were included in the larger sum—and assuming that farmers ought to make three times their rent, that gave an amount of 120,000,000 l. But if this Bill only depreciated farming produce 20 per cent, the effect would be that the landed property in the country would be reduced from 120,000,000 l. to 96,000,000 l., while the amount of charges in the shape of taxes, &c., continued the same. This was a measure by which they would raise the value of money, while they would reduce in proportion the value of all other kinds of property. Would it, then, be just to reduce the value of property to this extent, and yet leave the same amount of money charges upon it? The State, which received a land tax, or the titheowner who received money payment, would benefit to the extent of the increase, so that it cut unkindly in two ways on those who did not receive a money payment. The man with a fixed income in money would be able to purchase so much more on account of the reduced prices in the market; but the farmer, while he received so much less for his produce, would have to bear the same amount of money payments as now. If they acted with justice, they must reduce the taxation on the particular interests whom the Government measures affected. The fact was, the Legislature must, in the event of the success of the scheme, come to the consideration of local taxation which pressed with peculiar severity on the land. Then, if they reduced this species of taxation, they must throw the burden upon the Consolidated Fund. In other words, they would increase the demands on the Exchequer, while they sought to demolish a chief source of revenue. By the present measure they were throwing away a million of money at least which might be procured without raising to the amount of a single farthing the price of corn in this country. He did not think that the small duty of 2s. or 3s. a quarter made any difference whatever in the price of foreign grain when sold to the people of this country. At Dantzic the exporters were not guided by the price of corn in the continental markets, but in the English markets; these foreign merchants looked to the London market, and

469
when this market rose, so wide a margin always existed between the original price of the grain and the price it fetched in London, that they could add two or three shillings a quarter without any diminution of demand. Instead of the continental average regulating prices in Dantzic, the London prices alone influenced the exporting merchants. They watched our market, and could adapt themselves to it with advantage. The measure would involve a great sacrifice of revenue, and benefit none in the end but the foreign exporter. He would vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend on the cross benches, although he thought the protection which was really important had been virtually destroyed by their former vote, and the present proposal could not restore it. The principle of protection being entirely abandoned, they were now bound to consider the question of revenue. They were about to legislate not for the present, nor for the next three years, but for a future period of a distant date. They were depriving the Government of that future day of a rich source of revenue which they were unwilling to sacrifice themselves, and binding a future Parliament to terms they themselves rejected. The Government ought to have courage, and manfully bear the evils which their measures brought with them, and not to entail upon their successors the results of a disastrous policy. In conclusion, he would remind their Lordships, that though they had abandoned the principle of protection, they had a revenue to provide, and that if they acted consistently with their newly adopted policy they must be prepared to sacrifice one-half their custom duties, and two-thirds of their excise; and, moreover, that while they were keeping up, if not increasing, the general and local taxation of the country, they were diminishing the incomes of those on whom that taxation almost exclusively fell; that the foreigner would profit most by the present measure, and that he might find it his interest to use the command he must necessarily acquire over our corn markets, for the purpose of embarassing the state of our finances. He had spoken so often on this subject that he was ashamed to detain them longer.
The MARQUESS of BUTEthought the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke would not afford much protection to the agricultural interest. He did not wish to undervalue anything which fell from the noble Duke; but it struck him, that what
470
the noble Duke suggested to their Lordships could not furnish any assistance worth speaking to any branch of agriculture; and if the Amendment did not offer any real and substantial good to the agricultural interest, they had much better be without it. In expressing this opinion, he thought he was merely enunciating the sentiments of a great many farmers in this country; for they considered that any measure of protection, however slight, would be regarded by the rest of the community as invidious; while it might afford to the possessors of it but very slight advantages. From conversations he had held with many farmers, he was persuaded it was their impression that either an effectual protection, or none at all, was for their real interest. He must frankly tell their Lordships that when he began public life, he thought protection was the principle upon which the policy of this country ought to be regulated; but having been directly or indirectly engaged in matters directly or indirectly connected with the commerce of the country, his opinions had undergone considerable change. He now thought that protection, as far as commerce was concerned, so far from being a benefit, was a positive injury; and he thought that, even as regarded agriculture, it was not serviceable. He confessed that he did not view with any great apprehension the measures before Parliament; and having made inquiries in various parts of Scotland and England, was inclined to think a great many of the more intelligent farmers regarded them with as little alarm as he did; even in the districts where the greatest alarm prevailed, the more enlightened farmers did not participate in it. As to the duty spoken of by the noble Lord, he was able to say that if they imposed a duty for the sake of revenue, they would act diametrically opposite to the wishes of the occupiers of land; though he did not at all mean to say that the occupiers of land were to dictate either to their Lordships or to the other House of Parliament. As regarded the question of tithes, about which so much had been said, he must say that he did not coincide in the extreme opinions expressed on either side; but thought the result would be somewhere between both—neither absolutely ruinous, nor very injurious. He would vote against the Amendment of the noble Duke.
The EARL of HARDWICKEwould not again have troubled their Lordships if he had not felt very strongly on this subject.

471
He would trouble the House with a few details upon points which had not been sufficiently enforced. He could not at all agree with the noble Marquess, that the farmers of England were averse to a duty for the sake of revenue. His impression was, that their only feeling would be one of anxiety to contribute in that way to the revenue; and such a duty, let it be remembered, would, at a very moderate rate, bring in a revenue of one million sterling. After the Bill passed, he believed they would hear no more about free trade from its present advocates, the manufacturers; but they would find then nobody would be such a free-trader as the farmer. As the Legislature had thought fit to withdraw protection from him, which protection had alone enabled him to meet the heavy demands which pressed upon him, the farmers would loudly and unanimously demand that the tax upon all other articles which came into general consumption, should be withdrawn also. He did not expect that the arrangement proposed by this Amendment would be permanent; for it seemed to him that Ministers had cut at the very root of all stability in financial measures. The Amendment of the noble Duke was certainly not what the agriculturists might desire; but they must look to the position of parties. He avowed himself anxious to maintain even a fragment of protection; and, in the hope that they would be able on a future day—since they were not permitted to do so now—to take the opinion of the country on the question, until they should have an opportunity of asking the country whether they were for protection or not. These were the grounds upon which he would support the Amendment of the noble Duke. If they could get no more, he would be perfectly ready to have a protection of 10 s. a quarter. The exigencies of the country demanded it. He was as perfectly certain as he was that he stood there, that they could not cultivate the poorer soils without it. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Kinnaird) shook his head; but he had heard the noble Lord in former times say, that no land ought to be cultivated for wheat unless it could grow fifty bushels an acre. [Lord KINNAIRD: I said thirty-two bushels.] No land to be cultivated unless it produces thirty-two bushels an acre. Then, how are you to feed the people? Why, the average production on most inferior soils is not more than twenty bushels an acre. The county I live in is a great wheat-growing county, and sends
472
out more wheat than any other district; and let me tell the noble Lord that thirty-two bushels is a very large average indeed, even there. So you will displace all the labour, and throw all the land out of cultivation which does not produce thirty-two bushels an acre. What are you to do for bread? [Lord KINNAIRD: I said, thirty bushels an acre.] Oh, the noble Lord has come down a bit! But no land is to be cultivated which does not produce thirty bushels an acre. My Lords, this is very important, considering that it comes from the head of the Anti-Corn-Law League. We are to starve unless all lands produce thirty bushels an acre, or unless foreign countries feed us. Why, if the noble Lord thinks that thirty bushels an acre is the average produce of the kingdom, I must say he knows nothing about farming. [Earl STANHOPE: Kitchen garden cultivation, the noble Lord must mean.] Truly, my noble Friend is correct. The noble Lord of the thirty bushels must be speaking of the produce of the kitchen garden. But if all such land is to be taken from the productive sources of the country, they would become dependent on foreign produce to an extent that has never yet been heard of, and the price would be affected accordingly. It was a mistake to suppose that the farmers were interested in keeping up the price of bread. The cheaper the bread, the better for them; but it must be the bread of home-grown corn. Protect them — protect them, he would say; and he would answer for it, that under the system of protection, the people of England would eat cheaper bread than ever they would under the proposed measure. He would now make a few statements, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. He would take the price of bread in London from 1757 to 1817, allowing twenty-five per cent for change of currency. In 1757, the price of the quartern loaf was 8d., the same price as at present. In 1800, it was 1s. 4d.; in 1809, 11 d.; in 1810, 1s. 1d.; in 1811, 1s. 1½d.; in 1812, 1s. 3d.; in 1813, 1s. 1½d.; in 1814, 9d.; in 1815, 9d.; in 1816, 1s. 1d.; in 1817, 1s. 3d. These variations, occurring as they had done, were evidently not owing to protection. There were some other points in reference to this question which had not been touched upon in that House in detail. They (the landowners) had been charged with selfishness on their part in endeavouring to retain protection; but they were the parties who in reality

473
would suffer least, inasmuch as they were better able to bear the loss; but what was to become of the class of men who cultivated small portions of land? In 1841, according to the returns, there were in Ireland 306,915 farms under five acres; between five and fifteen acres, 251,128; above fifteen acres, 127,166: making in all, 685,209 farms, of which 457,000 and more were under fifteen acres. The House knew the destitute condition of these people, and how much more dependent on the profitable returns of the soil they were than those who had larger possessions in land and greater incomes. There were in England, in 1812, according to property-tax returns of that year, 114,778 farms which paid rents of 66 l. 13 s. 4d.; above 66 l. 13 s. 4d., and under 200 l. a year, there were 432,534. There were, therefore, under 200 l. a-year of rent, no less than 546,000 farms; and the population had since that time increased seventy per cent. Were not their Lordships responsible for the safety and comfort of this large class, or should they throw them entirely out of their consideration? It was said, go on and improve, and grow more; but those who said so did not seem to know that they would come to a point when they could grow no more. Nature raised obstacles in the way. They were so dependent on the season and the storm, that in a moment the grain was laid flat and wasted. [The noble Lord here gave the results of a calculation which he had made of the loss which the present measure would entail upon the farmer.] He would take a farm of 400 acres of inferior land, paying a rent of 400 l. a year. The landlord took the sixth or seventh of the produce, the farmer took the remainder. There were grown on this, 100 acres of wheat, producing 30 bushels per acre, which made 1,000 l. 10 s.; 100 acres of barley, 36 bushels per acre, which made 725 l.; 100 acres of beans or peas, which made 720 l.; other produce, 249 l. 0s. 10 d. The whole produce, then, amounted to 2,490 l. 10 s.; from which deduct the rent, and there remained 2,090 l. 10 s. The gross receipts after the payment of the rent, would be 2,090 l.; and out of this he would have to pay all the costs of cultivation, manure, &c. Now, nobody had ventured to tell them what the price of wheat would be under the new law. Mr. Cobden had stated to the farmer, that the change would increase his profits; to the landlord, that it would increase his rent; and to the manufacturer, that it
474
would reduce wages. He had been the very Proteus of the day. Now, taking the prices at an 8s. duty, corn had been at 45 s. a quarter on a long average. Now, he would venture to assert, that wheat would not be higher than 40 s. a quarter after this Bill passed into a law, as the standard average of the price of wheat. The landlord might reduce the rent 100 l. a year, and then, at this rate, the gross receipts would be 1,570 l., and the tenant's loss would be, even if the landlord gave up the whole of his rent, 125 l. Then, they said, this was a landlord's question. Of course, in one sense, it was a landlord's question; but the tenant would be a ruined man; the landlord who had capital, energy, and activity, would take the land into his own hands, and cultivate it himself. It had been repeatedly said that rents were rising, notwithstanding these measures; but he denied that they were so unless there were some circumstances of a peculiar nature in operation, He had had farms to let since the measure of 1842 was passed, and though put up at public auction, they had not been accepted even with the promise to pay the tithe on them. He had two of them in his own hands yet, having been unable to find tenants. The statements which he made were founded on a practical knowledge of the subject, for he spoke as a dealer in these matters; and he felt convinced that the statements on the other side proceeded from agents and interested parties. There was one important question which he was desirous to put to their Lordships, in reference to this subject, and it was this—what were they to do with the political state of the country after this Bill was passed? He did not understand how they were to carry on the Government with the sentiments and sensations that it would call into existence—how they were to carry on the Government, and maintain the Throne, with the constituencies they had in the towns, who were rather republican—he would not say disloyal — but of a very radical tendency—when the constituencies in the counties were disgusted and alienated. Could they manage them? Could they advise them, or use the legitimate influence which might guide them to wise and temperate measures? If the question of protection were raised in the country, and Parliament should again restore to them the protection they had so long enjoyed, then they might remain loyal; but if they found that it was not so, and if, at any future stage of the history of this country, they

475
found their means greatly diminished, he could not conceive that anything less was to be looked for than a great change in the mode by which the revenue was to be raised. The protection they had enjoyed was not only to enable them to improve the soil, but to bear the heavy burdens on real property. The amount of revenue of the land was 250,000,000 l., the burdens imposed were 62,000,000 l.; perhaps, if this were thought too little, he might say 80,000,000 l. or 100,000,000 l. Was the payment of these burdens to remain incumbent after protection was withdrawn? He said that it would be incumbent on Parliament, if protection were removed, to make all the other classes in the State take their share in bearing the burden of tithes, poor-rates, &c. Some time since he had presented a petition from the Commissioners of the Bedford Level, in which the petitioners stated, that if protection were removed, they would be unable to maintain in cultivation that district which had been reclaimed from the sea. The rents which the landlords received there were not more than 11 s. an acre; and the petition stated that such moderate rents were considered satisfactory, merely because it was expected that in time the district would have a natural drainage. It was an artificial country, purely cultivated by the power of the steam-engine; it had been cultivated on the faith of the continuance of protection, and in the hope of eventual advantage from natural drainage; but with any great reduction of prices it would be impossible to keep up the cultivation. He should merely say that if the House passed this Bill, no doubt it would do so for reasons which would not injure the character of their Lordships as men of honour, desiring to do what was right, though their character as legislators, bound to protect the interests of these poorer classes, might be injured. Loss of character, in one sense, there would be in this business. A representative in Parliament becoming the servant of the Crown was, by the Constitution of this country, deemed to be so far a new man, that he must go back to the people for re-election; but where could be found a man so new as the man who had changed his opinions—who yesterday said, "Aye," and now said "No;" who to-day said, "Protection," and to-morrow, "None?" Changing their office from that of servants of the people to servants of the Crown, men must go back to the people to be re-elected; and if those who had with the people agreed that
476
such and such laws were to be sacred, and such and such enacted, and who had committed sacrilege upon the one, and not done the other, were not required to appeal to the people, then Parliament would find itself placed in a wrong and false position with the country.
LORD KINNAIRDagreed with his noble Friend who had last addressed the House, in deprecating the clause which held this question in suspense for three years longer. He should certainly have preferred a total and immediate repeal. His noble Friend stated that, if this measure were carried, all the farmers of the country would become free traders. He (Lord Kinnaird) should not be surprised at that; for, as a member of the Anti-Corn-Law League, he might say that the principle of universal free trade was a principle on which they had always relied. One of the dangers the noble Lord opposite had set forward with much force was the irruption of foreign grain to be expected upon the reduction of the duty. That was an assertion which apparently deserved some attention; but in effect it would be found of no importance. There was a large quantity at present in bond which could not be sold at a profit to the merchant for less than 60 s. per quarter; and what was rising in the corn-growing countries, in consequence of the demand for it to be sent to Holland and other parts. He contended that the improved method of cultivation which would be introduced would more than compensate for the less price to be obtained for the grain. The subject of wages had been alluded to; the landlords were not to blame for the low rate of wages; there was no set of men in any country so anxious to promote the welfare of their labourers as the landlords in England: but then the landlords should not maintain that agriculture was in such a prosperous state that the Corn Laws might be continued. He would instance the successful competition of the Scotch agriculturists with those of England as an example of the advantage to be derived from a better education of the agriculturist, and the introduction of a better system of farming. A friend of his stated to him that two Scotch agricultural labourers were fully equal to three labourers of Hampshire or Dorsetshire; and their work, besides being equal in quantity, would be much better done. What was wanted was an altogether better system of farming, so as to make the land produce what it ought, and then the English farmer with his means and advantages could compete with all the

477
world: land up the Ohio produced but ten bushels an acre, and we must make our land produce twenty-eight or thirty. An experiment had been tried in Ireland on two fields, side by side; one was cultivated on the old system, and the net profit for three years was 6l. 12 s. 6d.; the other was cultivated on an improved system, and thoroughly manured, and the profit for the same period was 23 l. 7s. 6d. Much had been said about the ruinous effect which the repeal of the Corn Laws would have upon the value of landed property. He (Lord Kinnaird) had had the advantage of hearing the opinion of Mr. Simpson, the eminent auctioneer, a few days back; and what did their Lordships think was the effect already produced? Mr. Simpson said, that in all his long experience, he had never known estates more in demand, or more easily either let or sold. Rents were rising, and prices were firm, and to be obtained with facility. Few better or more competent authorities than that gentleman could be found, and such was his statement; and he had added that the sliding as well as other scales had fallen from his eyes. But there was another high and competent authority, whose opinion was of great weight upon the question—he meant the tenantry themselves. On an estate which he (Lord Kinnaird) would mention as an instance merely of what was taking place, a number of farms having lately fallen out of lease, the tenants, in retaking them, demanded the insertion of a clause giving them the option, in case the Corn Laws should be repealed, of giving up their holdings. The agent consented upon condition that a similar option were given to the landlord of rescinding the lease, in case the property should, after the repeal of those laws, become more valuable. The terms were agreed upon; but before the completion of the deed the tenants came voluntarily forward, and declined to have the option in either case inserted, preferring to take their chance in the ordinary manner as theretofore. He could cite several similar instances to their Lordships; but he did not wish at that late hour to trespass further upon their time. But before he sat down he wished to add a word or two with regard to what had been said of the League, of which he was a member. Many allusions had been made to that body; and it had been asserted that no such excitement existed in the towns upon the question before them, as had been represented by the
478
League to exist. Their Lordships would, he hoped, give them (the League) credit for having remained perfectly quiscent during the progress of the debate in both Houses. To such an extent, indeed, had they been quiet as to have given some sort of right to the noble Lord opposite to say that no excitement could be got up by them in the towns upon the subject; but he could assure the noble Lord that the League had resisted all the applications which had been made to them from all parts of the country to make a movement during the discussion, from a motive of respect to their Lordships, to the other branch of the Legislature, and to the Government which had taken the matter in hand, lest it might be said of them, in case they made a great demonstration, that their intention was to intimidate their Lordships. He was well aware that the League had been already frequently charged with an attempt to intimidate; and he was equally aware that many protectionists had asserted that their Lordships could not be intimidated; but although that had been said, yet he could assure them that the motives of the League were such as he had stated. They would not give a colour to such an assertion. They left the matter in the hands of the Government, and to the wisdom and discernment of their Lordships and the other House of Parliament; and that had been the reason for the great quiescence of that body. But if their Lordships imagined that there was any apathy abroad upon the subject, they greatly mistook the feelings of the country. The opinions of the manufacturing districts were deep and unanimons. He could speak for Scotland from personal knowledge; and he should say that if they were disappointed in their expectation that the Corn Bill would pass—if anything should occur to mar those hopes which were regarded at present as almost certainties, they would soon be heard, and in an unmistakeable voice.
House divided on Question, "That the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the Motion:"—Contents 130; Not-contents 103: Majority 33.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

Richmond

Salisbury

Beaufort

Downshire

Rutland

Exeter

Montrose

Newcastle

EARLS.

Buckingham

Huntingdon

Cleveland

Winchilsea

479

Chesterfield

VISCOUNTS.

Sandwich

Hereford

Abingdon

Gage

Eglintoun

Doneraile

Kinnoull

St. Vincent

Airlie

Sidmouth

Selkirk

Lorton

Orkney

Lake

Oxford

Exmouth

Dartmouth

Combermere

Aylesford

Ponsonby

Stanhope

Hill

Pomfret

BISHOPS.

Ashburnham

Glocester

Warwick

Exeter

Hardwicke

LORDS.

Ilchester

Stanley

Delawarr

De Ros

Mansfield

Hastings

Carnarvon

Clinton

Cadogan

Willoughby d'Eresby

Malmesbury

Beaumont

Egmont

Vaux

Shannon

St. John

Enniskillen

Sinclair

Roden

Saltoun

Mountcashel

Polwarth

Wicklow

Middleton

Lucan

Sondes

Erne

Boston

Limerick

Hawke

Clancarty

Walsingham

Onslow

Southampton

Nelson

Berwick

Charleville

Bayning

Oxford

Bolton

Lonsdale

Northwick

Harewood

Clonbrock

Bradford

Redesdale

Beauchamp

Colchester

Sheffield

Faversham

Eldon

Skelmersdale

Falmouth

Wynford

Somers

Templemore

Stradbroke

Abinger

Munster

Ashburton

Ranfurly

De Freyne

Paired off.

Duke of Marlborough

Earl Howe

Duke of Portland

Archbish. of Canterbury

Duke of Manchester

Marquess of Winchester

Marquess of Thomond

Duke of Devonshire

Marquess of Ely

Marquess of Ormonde

Marquess of Westmeath

Duke of Sutherland

Earl of Cardigan

Earl of Besborough

Earl of Lauderdale

Viscount Melville

Earl Ferrers

Earl of Romney

Earl of Tankerville

Lord Saye and Sele

Earl Waldegrave

Earl of Meath

Earl of Guilford

Lord Prudhoe

Earl Digby

Duke of Somerset

Earl of Beverley

Duke of Bedford

Earl of Longford

Earl of Westmoreland

Earl Brownlow

Marq. of Londonderry

Viscount Arbuthnot

Lord Abercromby

Viscount Strangford

Earl of Camperdown

Viscount Doneraile

Duke of Roxburgh

Viscount O'Neill

Viscount Massareene

Viscount Beresford

Earl of Clare

Viscount Canterbury

Lord Foley

Bishop of Winchester

Bishop of Lichfield

Bishop of Bangor

Bishop of Chester

480

Bishop of Llandaff

Lord Bexley

Bishop of Bath and Wells

Bishop of Norwich

Ld. Willoughby de Broke

Earl Amherst

Lord Colvile

Lord Downes

Lord Reay

Bishop of Durham

Lord Dynevor

Earl of Essex

Lord Bagot

Earl of Stair

Lord Sherborne

Lord Strafford

Lord Braybrooke

Lord Colborne

Lord Lilford

Earl of Sefton

Lord Farnham

Lord Talbot of Malahide

Lord Crofton

Marquess of Anglesey

Lord Alvanley

Lord Dunfermline

Lord Ravensworth

Lord Stourton

Lord Rayleigh

Lord Rolle

House resumed.
House adjourned.