Sitting of 13 March 1846

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Nottingham County (Northern Division), Lord Henry Bentinck.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1O. Lace Factories; Poor Removal; Fever (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Arthur Taylor, from Landowners, Farmers, Tradesmen, and others of Bell-broughton, against the proposed Government Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation.—By Lord John Russell and Mr. Wynn Ellis, from Importers and Manufacturers of Silk Goods, for a Speedy Adjustment of the Silk Duties.—By Mr. Hinde, from Members of the Committee of the General Shipowners' Association of London, against the proposed Measure respecting Timber.—By Mr. Jervis, from Churchwardens and Vestrymen of the United Parishes of Saint Margaret and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, against Institution of Night Asylums for the Poor.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Factory Workers in the Employ of Mr. Lord, in the Township of Manchester, for Limiting the Hours of Labour of Children and Young Persons employed in Factories to Ten.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from George Phillips, Licensed Victualler, in the Borough of Leicester, complaining of Post Office Mismanagement.

SPANISH SUGARS.
LORD J. RUSSELLapprehended that the right hon. Baronet would be able at once to answer the question he was about to put. In the Papers presented as the correspondence with Spain, Lord Aberdeed stated that it was intended to make a proposition to the Government of Spain on the commercial relations of the two countries, but he added that it was not intended to touch the question of the Slave Trade. The question he had to ask was, whether it was proposed, or not proposed, to admit the sugars of the Spanish Colonies as those of the most favoured nations?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the proposal made by Government did not contemplate the admission of the sugar of Cuba.

FAMINE IN IRELAND.
MR. P. SCROPEwould ask a question now which he had given notice he would put yesterday, when the House did not sit. It was this—Whether the measures of Government for meeting the impending scarcity in Ireland, contained any guarantee that every individual in immediate danger of perishing from want, should be enabled to obtain relief from some local authority, as in England? Every day more and more distressing accounts were received; and the right hon. Secretary of State would, therefore, not think it impertinent in him to inquire whether Ministers meant to undertake the responsibility of securing those who were in danger of perishing from destitution in Ireland, from such a calamity? Not that he considered it within their province so to do; but the course they had taken seemed to impose upon them that responsibility. He thought that the duty properly belonged to the local authorities, to the boards of guardians and the landlords; but Ministers appeared to have taken the burden off their shoulders, and to have put it upon their own. In England, if any such calamity occurred as that which now threatened Ireland, it would not be the duty of Government to interfere: the Poor Law guardians in the different Unions would have to apply a remedy to the emergency. They would have done so, no doubt, from the commencement of the winter; but in Ireland the case was different; there, the boards of guardians had not only no right to relieve the poor out of doors, but they were expressly forbidden from giving relief in any other shape than by admission into the workhouse. The workhouses were only
980
calculated to contain about one per cent of the population, so that in some Unions not more than twenty or thirty paupers could be relieved. Under these circumstances, the course that seemed to him open to Government was, to bring in a Bill into Parliament, at the beginning of the Session, to require and authorize guardians of the poor to make provision for the relief of the destitute in their districts. That, in his opiuion, would have been the proper course; but Government had undertaken to secure the population of Ireland against famine. He had no wish to detain the House, but merely to preface his question, and to explain how it was that Ministers had volunteered a responsibility that in fact belonged to the owners of land and property in Ireland. He thought that the first right to the food grown in Ireland lay in the people of Ireland. If it should be the determination of Ministers not to allow outdoor relief, he should feel it his duty to bring a measure or a resolution upon the subject before the House. The hon. Member concluded by repeating his question in the terms he had before used.
SIR J. GRAHAMwished to answer the question immediately. Certainly, the attention of Government had been directed with peculiar anxiety to this very difficult subject. The hon. Member sitting next to the hon. Gentleman who put the question, had spoken to him (Sir J. Graham) upon the point about a fortnight ago, and he had then said that it was not the intention of a Government to propose any permanent measure for outdoor relief to the people of Ireland.

FEVER AND FAMINE (IRELAND).
SIR J. GRAHAM: I hope that, by the indulgence of the House, I may be permitted to make a Motion before it proceeds to the Orders of the Day. I ask this favour under circumstances of urgency. If the House had met yesterday, it was my intention to have made the Motion then, and it is for leave to bring in a Bill to make temporary provision for the treatment of destitute persons affected with fever in Ireland. Only yesterday morning Government received from the Lord Lieutenant a Report from the Commission appointed to watch the advance of distress arising out of the failure of the potato crop, announcing that, in all the provinces, almost in every county, and in various localities of different counties, dysentery, to a very formidable extent,

981
had made its appearance, attended by fever in many instances, and adding an apprehension that the fever would become general. Under these circumstances, the Members of Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that it was absolutely necessary to make some special provision; and I now ask leave to bring in a Bill for the object already stated. The substance of the measure I will briefly state. It asks that power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to establish in Dublin a Board of Health, this board to be composed of commissioners, not more than five, already in the service of the public, and therefore requiring no additional salaries. It is proposed that three members of existing commissions shall be members of the Board of Health; and there is a medical officer already in the pay of Government who will be added to the body. It is proposed also that on the representation of this Board of Health power shall be given to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint in every Union a medical officer to be paid at the public expense; and on the representation of that medical officer that it is necessary, on account of the appearance of the fever in a formidable shape in the Union, to call upon the boards of guardians in the Unions either to build temporary fever hospitals, as in the case of Galway some years ago, or, failing that, to apply some existing edifice to the purpose. Provision is to be there made for the supply of medical assistance, medical comforts, food, and every thing necessary for the cure and treatment of fever at the expense of the Union. Power is also to be given to the boards of guardians to defray the expenses out of the poor rates. A provision will also be introduced that this measure shall only be of temporary duration. It is to be limited to the month of September 1847. Power will also be given in the Bill to the Lord Lieutenant, on the representation of the boards of guardians that fever has disappeared, to suspend its operation. I have now shortly stated the substance of the measure, and the House will see that no delay ought to be interposed. I shall therefore at once move for leave to bring in a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of destitute persons afflicted with fever in Ireland.
MR. WAKLEYhad expected that some Member of Parliament connected with Ireland would have followed the right hon. Baronet; but he could not omit this opportunity of saying that it seemed to him that prevention was better than cure. The
982
right hon. Baronet said that additions were to be made to the Commissioners; that a board of health was to be established; that in different Unions medical officers were to be appointed; and that the Lord Lieutenant was to have the power to direct that fever hospitals should be prepared. This was all very well, but it must be attended with a heavy expense; and what he earnestly recommended was, that the money should be applied to the procuring of food for the people of Ireland. This ought to be done immediately, liberally, without stint, and without restraint. The experience of all medical men, in cases of fever arising from want of food, had proved distinctly and unequivocally, that do what you will to prevent its progress, but one remedy was successful, and that remedy was a supply of food. An able pamphlet had been published by Dr. Corrigan, in which he gave statistical details to show that no change of weather, no change of climate or condition of circumstances, would be effectual. Nothing would do but a change of food. As he had said, it was proposed that great expense should be incurred. Then, why not incur it in food? Why not give the people provisions, which was much better than giving them physic? The disease was now only commencing; it was in an incipient state, although in some districts it might have made considerable progress. This was the very time, then, to prevent the spread of fever by the spread of food. The question was between fever and food. Where fever had not yet made its appearance, let it be kept away by food. The supply ought to be sufficient and immediate; and he was sure that he only spoke the universal voice of England, when he said that every man would be delighted to learn, that a general and an adequate supply of food had been given to their Irish fellow subjects. Let it be borne in mind, that the great principle of prevention, in cases of fever, and, indeed, in all other cases, was better than cure. It ought to be a most serious consideration with Government how best to supply food; and by this means to put a stop to the progress of disease.
MR. COLQUHOUNwas very much inclined to agree with the last speaker. This was no new case, for the same thing had happened in 1823; and he might refer to the experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for its effects, when serious famine made its appearance in the west of Ireland. They would find that the appli-

983
cations then most earnestly made were for food. He believed that in 1831 there was a similar case; famine and disease broke out in that year, and that also received the only possible relief, which was in the shape of food. He would, therefore, most urgently entreat Her Majesty's Government, if medical relief was necessary, to bear in mind that food was of infinite importance.
MR. OSBORNEexpressed his fear that if Government was to provide food gratuitously for the distressed poor of Ireland, it would, create a system of eleemosynary relief, which ought by all means to be avoided. He could conceive of nothing so mischievous as leading the people to look up to Government permanently for relief and food. He would rather call upon Government to provide some regular employment for them. It had been anticipated by many that a great deal of employment would be created before this time, by the Railway Bills that were passed last Session; but he believed it was a fact, that none of these companies had as yet put a spade into the ground, in consequence of the want of money. He would put the thing in a more tangible shape, and would call on the Government to make grants of loans of money to these railway companies; by which means they would be able to proceed with their works, and to give employment to the people. Of what benefit would it be to send food into the country, if the people had not wherewithal to buy it? He did not know whether he had properly understood the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but certainly nothing-would be so injurious to the people as to establish a system of eleemosynary relief.
LORD G. BENTINCKwas sure that no objection would be offered from any part of the House to any measure that might be proposed by Government, for the purpose of extending relief to Ireland; but he thought they were entitled to ask Her Majesty's Ministers to lay on the Table of that House the whole of the information on which they founded their proposition. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Finsbury, in thinking that it was for want of food that the evil of fever was arising; and the best mode of remedying that evil was to take care that those who were in want should immediately receive food to relieve it. He thought the way to obtain that object would be, as he had stated on former occasions, to purchase Irish oats, wheat, and food of every description; and not to send for maize from the United States.
MR. HUMEsaid, the subject was one of very great importance. He was very much of opinion that it would require serious consideration whether they should make the whole people entirely dependent for food on the Government, or means should not rather be devised to find thom employment. In the case of public societies which gave relief to the entirely destitute, they had ample proof how very rapidly the number of claimants increased, and how unworthy of relief the parties were. He should fear very much that such a course would have the effect of lowering, instead of raising, the quality of their food. It had been said that Indian corn was likely to introduce a better description of food, and thereby to assist in raising the character and aspirations of those who used it; but he much feared, with his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Osborne), that if they were to distribute it indiscriminately to those who were in want, they would be doing more harm than good to the people. Whatever measures might be devised, he should desire the Government to be very careful in their iniquiries, discriminating as to the application of relief, and chary of its distribution. He meant chary, not from any disinclination to relieve those who were really destitute, but lest relief should be bestowed on those who were not really in want, or were undeserving of it.
Mr. O'CONNELLcould not agree with the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) that the best plan would be to purchase provisions in Ireland; for that would be to raise the price of provisions to those who wanted to purchase them, and make them generally dear. No: he could not but think the Government had done much more wisely. They had brought in a quantity of maize to replace the damaged potatoes, and caused it to be transported to Ireland under the Government auspices. Thus they certainly had added to the quantity. But he agreed with the suggession which had been offered by the hon. Member for Wycombe, in reference to railroads. Let it be remembered that these had to pay their deposits; he would not advise the Government to lend any money beyond the amount actually subscribed by the shareholders. If the shareholders in some instances had subscribed as much as 100,000 l., there would be great difficulty in getting in the calls; and it would only increase the distress of the country to get them in. Whenever such a sum had been advanced, let Government advance by way of loan, at interest,

985
a similar sum; this would put the railroads in operation directly. This would be better than giving the people physic for nothing; food was the best possible physic; but instead of giving the poor food without work, give them the means of earning wages, which would enable them to obtain food. Thus, in the midst of this calamity, there would be an opportunity of doing good by taking the railroads which had their deposits subscribed, and advancing them an equal sum.
SIR J. GRAHAM: Perhaps I may be permitted to explain to the hon. and learned Member and to the House, what has already been done towards giving the people employment by Government and by Parliament. In the first place, I would answer the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck), with respect to the information on which we have called on the House specially to adopt this particular Bill. That information was only received yesterday; and I, on the part of the Government, shall have no difficulty whatever in laying on the Table a copy of extracts from this information. Even if the whole that we have received is not given, I am quite certain there will be more than enough to satisfy the House of the necessity for this Bill. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun), he has observed, most truly, that assistance was afforded to Ireland in 1832, partly by supplies of food, at a reduced cost, and partly by advances of money to public works. But, as has been already stated, the distress at that time was comparatively partial; it was confined, I believe, to two or three counties. But the difficulty with which we have now to contend pervades the whole of Ireland: it is to be found in every province, it is to be found in every county, it is to be found in every Poor Law Union, and, I believe, in almost every parish in Ireland. The course which Government has taken has been this. We have in particular parts of Ireland established depôts, where food can be bought at an easy price, at the very lowest price; and thinking, with the hon. Member for Wycombe, that eleemosynary relief ought to be avoided as much as possible, we propose to afford, to the utmost possible extent, either by means of public works to be undertaken, or by works already established, the means by which the people may be enabled to earn wages, and so to purchase food at the moderate cost at
986
which it will be supplied. By the adoption of these means we hope to afford very general relief. Exceptions may occur, as in the case of persons who cannot work; those in extremity may require aid of another description; but cases of that kind will not be overlooked. Now, with regard to the works in progress: the hon. and learned Gentleman has been detained in Ireland, probably by other avocations, and we have not had the pleasure of his presence here; but he must be aware that in the course of the present Session, Acts of Parliament have passed, giving either advances or loans to the extent of 300,000 l., or nearly 400,000 l. for the purpose of encouraging works in Ireland.
MR. W. S. O'BRIEN: How do you make out 400,000 l.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: The hon. Member calls on me to state the particular sums that have been so voted. With respect to Public Works in Ireland, there is an absolute advance of 50,000 l.; for the piers and harbours there is another advance of 50,000 l. Then, under the Public Works Act, there is an ordinary circulating sum of 60,000 l., which is available this year as well as in each succeeding one. Then there is a further sum of 17,000 l. or 18,000 l. which has been specially granted for the previous inspection of works before they are undertaken, which expense would, under ordinary circumstances, have been partly paid by the counties, and partly by the promoters of the works. We have also included in these Bills clauses by which drainage and improvement of inland navigable waters may be provided for; and the many great works contemplated of that description will call for advances of 120,000 l. or 130,000 l. We are willing to entertain those propositions in the present year, and are prepared to approve of advances on that account. There is, in addition, another grant which received the sanction of the Legislature only about a fortnight ago, with reference to the presentments by the Grand Jury at extra sessions, for which another sum of 100,000 l. has been specially demanded. Thus, I think, I have shown that, a sum of nearly 400,000 l. has been granted; and, as my right hon. Friend near me has stated, instructions are given, upon the responsibility of the Government, to relieve unforeseen emergencies which it would be inexpedient in me to detail. But I may state, generally, that there is no portion of this distress, however wide spread or however lamentable, for which

987
Government has not endeavoured, either by legislation, by relief given in money, or by a sufficient supply of food, to provide a remedy, or at least an alleviation. With reference to this particular case of fever, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury. I believe that the fever in this case, as almost always in Ireland, may be traced either to an insufficiency of food, or to the use of food of a tainted kind. The great object, therefore, is to check the progress of fever, by providing better food. The best mode of doing this, in reference to the people there, is by providing them with work, and giving them wages for work; and I have already stated to the House the measures which have been adopted, not only last year, but in the present Session, for that purpose. In the course of the evening, either the noble Lord (Lord George Bentinck) or myself, may move for a copy of extracts from the information we have received; and I shall be most ready to lay them on the Table of the House.
MR. W. SMITH O'BRIENwas bound to say, with regard to the sums of money mentioned by the right hon. Baronet as having been, on a former occasion, voted by the House for the relief of Ireland, that, as far as his own information went, not one single guinea had ever been expended in the manner prescribed. He was also bound to tell the right hon. Baronet that 100,000 of his fellow creatures in Ireland were famishing. He had himself departed thence only a week, and he had more than once seen whole families sitting down to a meal of potatoes which any Member of that House would be sorry to offer to his hogs. Under such circumstances, did it not become the House to consider in which way they could deal with the crisis? He would tell them frankly—and it was a feeling participated in by the majority of Irishmen—that he was not disposed to appeal to their generosity. There was no generosity in the matter. They had taken, and they had tied, the purse-strings of the Irish purse. Irishmen had been taunted and belied by the English press; and now, even in that House, he saw something of the same character. But he would not dwell on such a topic at the present mo-moment: as an individual, he thought that the Irish people were themselves able to provide for the calamity with which they were visited out of the national resources of Ireland; and he also considered that, if the House compelled the proprietors of land in Ireland to do that duty which they
988
ought to do to the people, there would be neither disturbance nor starvation. It was a measure of that kind which was wanting. They ought in the very first instance, and before all else, to compel—for nothing but compulsion would be successful—the absentee Irish landlords, squandering away their fortunes in London and in other parts of England and Europe, to return to their estates, and there to fulfil the ordinary duties which humanity dictated to those placed beneath them in point of wealth. He was indeed well aware that at such a time, in such a country, to allay such distress, individual exertion, however humane and however generous, could do little; but by something of the nature of an equitable Property Tax, which would affect not only the proprietor of land, but also those who collected and received a portion of the revenue of the land, a great deal could be done; and to such a tax neither he, nor he believed, any other Irish Member would object. If they adopted measures founded on the principle of the Bill introduced into the House of Lords last year by Lord Stanley, that of giving compensation to tenants who had expended capital in the improvement of their farms, they would be opening up sources of employment which had hitherto, and most unfortunately, been completely unknown. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) had to apologize for speaking on this subject; he would not have addressed the House at all if he had not felt himself coerced to it. He had also to apologize for speaking in a tone which could not be acceptable to the House; but he was sure, at the same time, the House would feel that, circumstanced as they were in Ireland, they could not be merely passive spectators of the contingencies with which they were threatened. He was bound frankly to tell the truth; and he, for one, was not prepared nor disposed to make an appeal to English generosity. What Ireland claimed from a British Parliament was just legislation—a legislation which should compel the landed proprietors to do their duty to the people—a legislation which, once obtained, would satisfy and appease every demand.
MR. AGLIONBYwas extremely anxious to say one word on this subject. He did not believe there was one English Member who was inclined to treat the question as one of generosity, or who would not be ready to go as far in kindness to his fellow subjects as the hon. Member for Limerick, or any one else. He very much feared,

989
however, that speeches of the nature they had just heard would only have the effect, or rather would tend to create inflammatory feelings in the minds of the Irish against that House. He hoped that the measures Government had adopted, and which the House would continue to support, would satisfy that country how deeply seated were their feelings of commiseration for that distress. They deeply felt for that distress, and deeply did they sympathize with their misery. The question, however, was how they were to deal with it. He hoped that something better might be devised than had yet been done by the Government, though he did not yet see his way clearly. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had indeed shadowed forth something, but in such vague and indistinct terms that he feared nobody had understood him, though he did not believe anybody cared whether they understood him or not. It was, that they were to bestow eleemosynary gifts, and to give large sums for the purchase of food. If this were what the hon. Member did mean, he begged leave to differ from him; for nothing could be more demoralising than to give temporary relief with any view of benefiting the people. If they did this, in his opinion it would not really benefit them, and would hardly even be received as a boon. He thought, with the hon. and learned Member for Cork, that the introduction of maize would to a certain extent afford relief to the destitute population of Ireland; but he, for one, feared that that relief fell very far short of what ought to be given. He very much feared that the alteration of the Corn Law would be inadequate to give the relief required. They must apply some more immediate remedy than giving corn cheap some months hence, and giving more some years hence. This would not meet the existing evils; still less would the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck,) to purchase oatmeal and flour for the purpose of distributing it to the Irish people.
SIR R. PEEL: I was sorry to hear the imputations passed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) who opposes the introduction of the Bill proposed by Government, on the House, and on the English Members of this House more particularly. I think nothing can have been more marked than the disposition of this House to introduce and to adopt every measure which could, by possibility, mitigate the evils of
990
scarcity, and of disease consequent upon that scarcity, in Ireland; and even those who dissented from the course taken upon many other points by Her Majesty's Government have manifested a most earnest, most eager, desire, to co-operate with us in this great object. Now, I do not think, as has been said, that the evil is of a temporary nature. On the contrary, I think you will find that it has much of a character of permanency, and that, at any rate, it will continue much beyond the present year; and my impressions, originally, were so strong on this subject, that they justified me in considering something more than temporary measures should be taken. And in the absence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Brien) we have been occupied the whole of this Session, so far as it has yet advanced, in giving precedence over every other business to those measures which had for their object giving relief to Ireland; and whatever differences of opinion in other respects may have prevailed, we were unanimous in deferring every thing else to the measures for the amelioration of Irish distress. And they passed almost, too, without, discussion. There was a wish on both sides of the House to give every facility; and now the hon. Gentleman comes down, two months or six weeks after, only to say that the Irish scorns to profit by English generosity. He has also proposed that we should have an Income Tax for Ireland. Well, will the hon. Gentleman have an Income Tax for a limited period—for six months? Will he propose and arrange the whole machinery of such a task? And how long does he think it will be before the Income Tax for Ireland, to endure for a limited period, shall pass this House? But then the hon. Gentleman will say, the reflection he makes is not on English Members, or on this House; it is upon Irish proprietors. He complains in his speech that Irish proprietors will not perform that moral duty which is imposed on them and on all great landowners—a duty which they will refuse, he states, to acknowledge without the interference of the law. Now, I say at once, that unless Irish proprietors are ready to come forward and to co-operate with the Government, all that the Government can do will be of little or of no avail. I am perfectly certain, that if Her Majesty's Government proposed, by the setting aside of a stun of money, to mitigate either scarcity or famine in Ireland, the House of Commons would grant it, if that were the only consideration, without a word

991
of dissent. But I advise you to take care that this prodigality of benevolence does not defeat itself. If you choose to say that you will, without any co-operation, without any local exertion whatever, undertake to feed the Irish people in this time of scarcity, all your efforts will be, and must be, useless. For, from that moment the proclamation has gone forth that no individual energy is asked for, that the aids of local authority are not necessary, but that Government will undertake the responsibility of feeding the people of Ireland, from that moment the Government alone will be relied on. But then you will fail: it is local exertion you must depend on. There ought to be in Ireland with the local proprietors an anxious co-operation, in place of an unfriendly disregard. There should be in every direction local committees formed, to give and to spread information, and to organize the means of seconding us in the object we have in view. I will venture to say, on the part of the clergy of all religious persuasions, that they will readily meet us and assist us. It is in vain to throw this task exclusively on the Government and on the House of Commons; without local aid and co-operation the work will not be effectually done. We have proposed various measures; we have, certainly, not advanced any suggestions of wholesale grants of money or of food, because it would be an utter demoralization of the people—creating an evil which it would be impossible to cure; it would teach habitual dependence, and looking to authority for that which is a moral duty for themselves to perform. And I say this not from placing too high a value on the mere pecuniary consideration, but because your benevolence, to be effectual, ought to be directed by caution and discretion. The aids suggested to be given to railroads cannot be of very great moment for this purpose. This distress is so wide-spread, and pervades so many parts of the country, that it would be a very doubtful and dangerous experiment to concentrate the population in the immediate neighbourhood of railroads. It is not well to make men leave their families, and to congregate together in one district, for the one object, and thus, as it were, depopulating other districts, to the total neglect of other occupations. It is a matter requiring great caution. I am disposed to think that by giving an assistance in extending smaller local works, we shall be doing that which is of far greater importance than is supposed.
992
By what we have done with reference to the coasts of Ireland, we shall be laying the foundation for considerable after-prosperity, and for a great increase in the fisheries; and 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. laid out in this way may do more than by an advance of 200,000 l. to some great line. But, considering the objects we have had in view, the manner in which the attention of Parliament has been directed to this subject, and the scarcity in Ireland, I must say I think it rather hard for an Irish Member who has taken no part in our deliberations to come at last, and declare that the Irish people scorn to take anything from English generosity, and to insinuate, in addition, that we have neglected our duty to his country. I think that had this distress occurred in any other part of the country, in Wales or in Scotland, there would not have been so unanimous a wish to afford that relief we are enabled to give—a feeling manifested amid all our many political variances; and instead of upbraiding us, if the hon. Gentleman would but address exhortations to his own countrymen, requesting their co-operation, depend upon it, he would do much more than he can hope to do by casting upon us these imputations.
MR. J. O'CONNELLadmitted that his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick had spoken warmly upon this subject; but they must remember that he had come from Ireland, where he had witnessed the distress of the people, and where he had found no practical effort yet made to mitigate it. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Every application made from Ireland had been answered the very day it had been received.] The effect of that expenditure had not yet been made visible. The hon. Member for the county of Limerick had been taunted with being absent from his duties in that House. Those who uttered the taunt, ought to have known before they gave utterance to it, that if his hon. Friend were absent, it was not only with the knowledge and the consent, but with the full approval, of his constituents. His hon. Friend had been in that place where it was believed by his constituents his hon. Friend would best discharge his duty to his country. He had been present at these discussions, and was ready to give his testimony to the anxiety displayed by them in that House to relieve the distress in Ireland—that testimony he was bound to give, and he tendered it in the most unequivocal manner. His hon. Friend had spoken under a strong feeling, excited by the taunts of a paper against the

993
Irish; of a paper—the Times—which had aided in displacing the Whigs, and putting the present Government in office. His hon. Friend had suggested the imposition of an absentee tax. If ever there were a fair tax, that would be one; and if they proposed it, he was sure the Government would receive a considerable amount of support. At least it was worth their while to try what support they might get. If Government proposed it, they would have the support of the Irish Members—they would gain the warm sympathy of the people, for all honest men must desire to see a high tax imposed upon the heartless absentee landlords of Ireland. His hon. Friend had another cause for exasperation, though he had not spoken of it at the moment—that was the Coercion Bill which was coming down to them from the other House. That was an unconstitutional, exasperating, and unnecessary measure, and one too that would utterly nullify all the good effects that might have followed for any sympathy they had expressed for Irish distress. And he might add—that was a measure that would have the most disastrous effects upon the two countries. With regard to what was to be done at the present crisis, he would implore of the Government to let the people have food at once, whether they gave it as alms, or enabled them to purchase it by the efforts of their own industry. At this moment the people in many districts in Ireland were consuming the seed potatoes, so that there was not only the certainty of famine this season, but the prospect of it in the succeeding years. With this distress came the heavy burden of the poor rate, to be made still more heavy by the present measure, upon the occupying tenants; for in Ireland the landlords threw the burden of the poor rates upon the occupying tenants. As to stopping a portion of the rates from the landlord, he said he should like to see the condition of the unfortunate tenant who would dare to stop a single penny of poor rate from the rent of his landlord.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwished to call the attention of the Government to the inconsistency which was now manifested in the working of the new Poor Law. The burden of enforcing the rate was thrown upon the Poor Law guardians; but no power was given to them of employing the people. In making this remark, he gave the Government and the House credit for their intentions towards the people of Ireland. He wished to see the land of Ire-
994
land made liable for the maintenance of the poor of that country, who, if they had the claim upon the land which the English people possessed, would not now be in such distress. With regard to the Bill under discussion, he desired strongly to impress upon the right hon. Baronet that there was a necessity to provide for other kinds of sickness than dysentery, and that provisions should be introduced into the measure for that purpose. The House should also adopt measures which would give a stimulus to private exertion in the improvement of the lands of Ireland; and that could not be done unless the tenantry had security for embarking their capital. He very much regretted that no measures had been yet brought in founded upon the Report of the Landlord and Tenant Commission. There were various important recommendatious contained in that Report, and he would take the present opportunity of pressing upon the Government the necessity of considering the propriety of bringing in measures founded upon them.
The EARL of MARCHsaid, that though he disagreed from the general policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, he thought it incumbent to rise and state his opinions on the subject under discussion. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) had told them to-night, in the name of the people of Ireland, that he would not throw himself upon the generosity of that House. He entirely repudiated and repelled with indignation the very idea that hon. Members on that side at least were actuated by the feelings that they were "generous" towards Ireland in supporting the measures which had been introduced for the alleviation of distress in that country. On the contrary, they felt that they were doing nothing more than their duty. In the year 1822 a sum of, he believed, 250,000 l. was voted by Parliament for the relief of Irish distress, whilst nearly an equal amount was raised in this country by private charity; and he now told the hon. Member for Limerick, in the name of the people of England, and in the name of those hon. Gentlemen who were sitting around him (the Earl of March), that if Her Majesty's Government were to come down to the House, and state that it was necessary for the relief of the people of Ireland that a sum of 100,000 l., or any other amount, should be voted, they and he would have no hesitation in giving it their support.
MR. SHAWthought his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had

995
misinterpreted the observations made by the hon. Member for Limerick, respecting Irish landlords. He understood his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) not to complain of the resident landlords, but of the absentee proprietors. Moreover, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had himself cast an imputation, very unmerited, on the resident landlords of Ireland—it was, that they were not ready to do their part in co-operating with the Government, to relieve the distress of the Irish people. Now, he (Mr. Shaw) insisted that there was no class more unjustly maligned than the resident landlords of Ireland. It was true that they were comparatively few in number, not generally as wealthy as the English proprietors, and placed under difficulties to which those in that country (England) were strangers; but he maintained that, as compared with their means, there was no body which, as a whole, did more to improve the condition of their tenantry and dependants, and to alleviate the distress of the poor that surrounded him. He admitted and deplored the great evil of Irish absenteeism. He saw great difficulties in an absentee tax; and he believed that neither tax nor any other remedy could cure the evil, until there was that security for life and property in Ireland, which unhappily was so much wanting at the present time. He willingly bore testimony to the universal sympathy for the scarcity and distress in Ireland, which had been evinced by that House; but he regarded it as most unfortunate that the question of Irish famine should have been unnecessarily mixed up with the political measures of the Government relating to the general commercial policy of the country. He did not mean, as others had said, that the Government had made the potato failure in Ireland a mere pretext for measures which had been previously determined on; but he certainly thought that the Government, having been at first misled, and, as it were, panic-stricken, by exaggerated statements of the extent of the disease, had put it forward as the foundation for those measures, and then found it difficult and inconvenient to abandon that ground. He was still of the same opinion that he had before expressed in that House, in respect of the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, namely, that although there had been a failure to a considerable and lamentable extent, still that that failure had been exaggerated. He had visited Ireland since his former statement, and again consulted practical men,
996
as well as the market prices throughout the country: he would admit too, that there had recently been an increase of the disease in the potato; but he still would maintain the general correctness of his former statement—that, while there was abundantly sufficient prospect of scarcity and distress in many parts of Ireland, to require every precaution that the Government could adopt, in order to alleviate them—yet, that upon the whole, in the greater part of Ireland, there was either an average stock of potatoes remaining, or a more than usual supply of other food as a substitute for them. He knew that it was unpopular to make those statements, but truth often was unpopular—it might appear at first sight unfeeling—Gentlemen at the other side might represent it as inhuman, in the present suffering condition of the Irish people; nevertheless, none of these considerations should deter him from stating, upon a question of so great importance what he sincerely believed to be the real facts of the case. In providing for the admitted scarcity, he agreed with his noble Friend the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck), that it would have been much simpler and wiser for the Government to have purchased Irish oats, and other Irish food, where they were produced, than to have suffered them to be exported in such large quantities as they had lately been, and then to have had recourse to the roundabout course of bringing maize from America. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said, that would have had the effect of raising the price to the English artisans—but, surely, in point of general economy, it was obvious the expense of carriage and freight would, at all events, have been saved by purchasing Irish food on the spot where it was wanting: it would have been more congenial too to the taste of the Irish people; and as maize could be now introduced at a nominal duty only, the English artisans could as well have purchased it. With respect to the Bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), he was apprehensive that it might add considerably to the burden of the Irish ratepayer, which was already sufficiently weighty; but he would not oppose that or any other measure which the Government, upon their responsibility, should introduce as a temporary expedient to meet the present temporary emergency in Ireland.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman made it desirable that some further and more par-

997
ticular accounts as to the distress in Ireland should be obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had, most honourably to himself, borne testimony a second time to the sympathy displayed by that House for the sufferings of that country; and that if there was any measure the House could adopt, or the Government could propose, which could tend to alleviate that distress, and to put the people in a better position to meet the evil, the House was ready to sanction such a measure. But there was great danger, in adopting measures which seemed at first view to be most calculated to relieve distress, that they might be productive of permanent misery. He remembered a large subscription having been entered into—more than 150,000 l. he believed—upon occasion of great distress in the manufacturing districts; and upon after inquiry it had been found that great mischief had been done by the general granting of alms, without regard to the position of the recipents as regarded work; and he had been assured that many persons had become permanently impoverished and pauperised owing to the want of care with which the funds had been collected and distributed. He was inclined to attach very great importance to the opinions of Mr. Twisleton, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, and such other gentlemen as the Government had thought fit to consult upon the subject, with respect to the precise condition of the Irish population at the present moment, and in reference to the prospects that were probably opening before them; and he hoped that those opinions would before long be submitted to the consideration of the House. He was particularly desirous of knowing what reports Mr. Twisleton and those who were associated with him were prepared to make as to the extent of the distress prevailing and likely to prevail in Ireland, and as to the best method to be adopted for remedying it. He did not mistrust the measures which had been adopted by Government with a view to the relief of the Irish people. On the contrary, he believed that they were prudent, well-advised, and benevolent; but he thought it was exceedingly desirable that information should be had from time to time from persons so well qualified to form an opinion on the question as those who had been appointed by Government to inquire into the subject—information both as to the extent of the distress, and as to the effects produced by the remedial measures adopted by the Government as they came
998
into operation. He confessed he was sorry to find that any delay, though it were ever so trifling, had taken place in carrying into effect the Acts which since the opening of the Session had been passed by that House for the benefit of Ireland. It was true that those measures had been but recently enacted; but the very necessity which had created the occasion for their immediate introduction rendered it imperative that as little delay as possible should occur in carrying them into operation. He fully concurred in everything that had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury with respect to the necessity for local exertions by the affluent and wealthy, with a view to the relief of the people in the present scarcity; and he was of opinion, with the right hon. Baronet, that more was to be expected from such exertions than from the undertaking of railways or other public works. These great national enterprises, however, were not to be disregarded; on the contrary they ought to be taken in hand with the utmost zeal; and he trusted that the various district Committees that had been appointed throughout the country, and which were in communication with the Government, would see the necessity of using all possible expedition in adopting measures for commencing the works in their different localities. He also thought that it was in the highest degree desirable that such information as could with safety be relied on, should be submitted from time to time to the House, as to the manner in which the proprietors and landowners of the country were conducting themselves, and to what extent they manifested an inclination to co-operate with the Government. Such information would be satisfactory to that House, and its diffusion would be gratifying to the feelings of those amongst the landed proprietors who manifested a desire to discharge their duty in an exemplary manner, at the same time that it would operate as a stimulus to others who were tardy and reluctant.
SIR R. PEELremarked that the observations which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin appeared to imply a charge against the Government, that they had exaggerated the amount of distress prevailing, and likely to prevail, in Ireland. Now, all he had to say to this was, to express a hope that hon. Members at all sides of that House would suspend their judgment until Monday next, when

999
certain Papers which he then held in his hand, and which had been received yesterday, would be printed, and accessible to all. It would be then seen whether Her Majesty's Government had or had not exaggerated the true state of affairs in Ireland.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONrose to make some observations with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Limerick. He concurred in what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government with respect to the duty which devolved upon Irish landlords of making local exertions with a view to alleviating the distress which was impending over the Irish population. He represented a county which possessed the advantage of a resident proprietary, and he had not the slightest doubt but that the landlords in that county, and indeed in Ireland generally, would discharge then-duty in a becoming manner, and act up to the advice given by the First Lord of the Treasury. He must vindicate the Irish landlords from the aspersions cast upon them by the hon. Member for Limerick—taunts which came with a peculiar bad grace from such a quarter. The hon. Member had tonight, for the first time this Session, made his appearance in the House. He had neglected his own duties, both as a landlord and a representative, and had devoted his undivided time and attention to the task of fostering a system of agitation most pernicious to the best interests of his country. And yet the hon. Member now came over here to cast censure on the landlords of Ireland; whereas the real state of the case was this, that if all the Irish landlords were like himself, all the legislatures in the world could not save Ireland from utter ruin. The hon. Member feigned a great anxiety about the Irish people; but he was acting a part hostile to their interests, by lending himself to that baneful system of agitation by which Ireland was convulsed, and prosperity rendered unattainable to her population.
MR. SHAW,in explanation: The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has misrepresented what I said. I did not accuse the Government of wilful exaggeration. I did not even accuse those who misled the Government of wilful exaggeration; but I said, what I am ready to maintain, that the statements as to the potato failure in Ireland were in fact exaggerated; and I am persuaded that the Papers to be produced by the right hon. Baronet will not change my opinion in that respect.
SIR R. PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) said that we were deceived originally, and that we had not afterwards the manliness to acknowledge our error, but wilfully persevered in it.
MR. SHAW: I did not say that either. What I did say was, that the Government having been originally misled, had founded their great measure upon what I believed to be a false ground, and that it was afterwards difficult to abandon it.
MR. BERNALbelieved that the present condition of the Irish population was in the last degree alarming and distressing, and such as to command the warmest sympathy of that House; and this being his feeling, he had heard with extreme sorrow what his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Shaw) had said respecting reports being exaggerated. He did not require to wait until Monday next, as had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, before he made up his mind with respect to the actual condition of Ireland, for he could not bring himself to believe that any Government would be so imprudent, so indiscreet, or so malevolently wicked, as, for the sake of carrying any party or political object, to play with such a topic as the distress of millions of human beings—distress, too, which verged upon the point of starvation, pestilence, and death. He implored of his right hon. and learned Friend to approach the consideration of this question dispassionately, and, throwing aside all party bias, to ask himself calmly and deliberately this question, whether, from his own knowledge of the character of Her Majesty's Ministers, he thought it likely that any of them would be so silly and so wicked as to mingle, for a petty party purpose, truth and falsehood indiscriminately in the discussion of a topic of such awful importance as the condition of our fellow subjects in Ireland. If ever there was a crisis which demanded prompt and vigorous exertion on the part of the Legislature, the present was that crisis, for the lives of thousands upon thousands were at stake. This was no time to quibble about politico-economic objections. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had announced that he had learned from the reports of persons who were appointed to investigate the condition of the Irish people, that famine and typhus fever were rapidly approaching. This being the awful state of affairs, was the House of Commons to stand still waiting for the dilatory proceedings of railway companies, com-

1001
missioners, and boards of works? It was all very fine to talk of teaching the Irish people to depend on themselves, and to buy oats and barley for their own use. Where were they to get money to purchase food? A vast proportion of the Irish population had no money in their pockets to buy either such provision as was indigenous to the soil, or such as might be imported. What arrant nonsense it was, then, to bid them buy food! Were they to be starved to death pending the arrival of the period when riches would come upon them? Extraordinary cases must have extraordinary remedies. Let the nostrums of political economists be flung aside. If famine and disease were approaching, these, evils should be met in time, and, if possible, averted. Were the people to starve and rot in pestilential lazars? Certainly not. He was anxious to know whether the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to explain, by means of the Reports which he intended to lay upon the Table, the reasons why there was not a more accelerated progress made in carrying into effect the measures which had already been passed in that House to facilitate the employment, of the Irish people in public work? [Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that the Bills in question had not received the Royal Assent until within the last few days.] The question then was, what were the Irish poor to do in the interval? They were told that it was useless to depend on the landlords. In what a dilemma were the sufferers placed? For his own part, he would declare that there was no proposition, whether conformable or irreconcilable with the principles of political economy, which he would not support, if its tendency were to secure the welfare and the salvation of the Irish people.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not wish to detain the House by any lengthened remarks upon the subject, with respect to which general unanimity appeared to prevail; but as the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to be under the impression that some unnecessary delay had taken place in carrying into effect the measures which had been lately passed by that House for promoting public works in Ireland, he felt himself called upon to say a single word in explanation. The Bill under which authority was given for increased grants had only been passed a few days ago, and no delay which was at all avoidable had taken
1002
place. Three days since authority had been given to the Board of Works in Ireland to undertake important public works in the county of Clare and the county of Meath, these being the districts of the country in which the distress appeared to be most oppressing; and if any delay h taken place it had unavoidably resua from the necessity of ascertaining what description of works it was most desirable should be undertaken.
MR. POULETT SCROPEobserved that there was no measure which the Government could adopt with a view to relieve the distress and difficulty in which the Irish people were now placed which would not command his warmest and most cordial support. A noble Lord opposite had censured the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) because of his taking part in the repeal agitation; but if anything could justify an Irishman or an Englishman in advocating the repeal of the Legislative Union between the countries, it was the contemplation of this fact, from year to year, that the Irish people were not treated as the English people were by that House. He put it to the conscience of the Members of that House to say whether they had dealt with the people of Ireland as they had dealt with the English people. In England the peasantry had the first claim on the produce of the land, and justly so, because their labour went in a great degree to create it; but in Ireland, where the agricultural produce was created by the toil of the agricultural classes in a much greater degree even than in England (for in England the soil was more indebted to the expenditure of capital than in Ireland), the population were treated with no such respect or consideration. In England the claim of the agricultural classes to food was—so to speak—the first charge upon the soil. No man could starve in England as long as means for his support were to be found in his parish. Before the landlord could touch one penny of rent for his estate, especial care was taken that the poor man should not be reduced to starvation. But this unhappily was not the case in Ireland. In Ireland there were many considerations which intervened between the poor man's claim and the produce of the land; and as long as this was so, how could they censure the Irish people for being discontented, and for complaining that the same measure of justice was not granted to them which was awarded to the people of England? The right hon. Baro-

1003
net the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated his intention of introducing a Bill, one of the provisions of which was to give to boards of guardians additional power to grant relief; but this additional relief was only to be granted to such of the population as had been prostrated by disease, and were actually stretched upon the fever-bed. It occurred to him that a much wiser and more humane proceeding would be to adopt some measures to prevent the population from being reduced to such a dreadful condition. It was an essential condition to the right of enjoying the relief which was to be in the gift of the boards of guardians, that the applicants should be prostrated by disease; but this he considered an impolitic, cruel, and most unwise economy. In England the mere fact of a man being in a state of destitution was sufficient to entitle him to relief. Why should it not be so in Ireland as well? Why should illness be added as a necessary condition? If any person came before a board of guardians who was supposed to be an impostor, let them apply the same test to him in Ireland as was applied in England. Let them put him to hard work, and they would soon find out whether he was an impostor or not; or they might apply the further test of outdoor employment on public works. Let them apply both or either of these tests, if necessary; but let them not refuse the poor man in Ireland the food that was necessary to keep him in health until he was suffering from fever, and then take him in as a fever patient. It was proposed that an absentee tax, or a property tax, should be established; but in his mind the best tax to be applied for the purpose was an ordinary poor rate. If the landlord found that he must maintain the people on his property if they could not maintain themselves, he would come to look after his property. The means of bringing the absentees back was to make them responsible for the due safety of the people on their estates; and, inasmuch as that would be a tax on the rental of Ireland, it would be the best property tax that could be applied for the purpose. He conceived that the poor rate should be applied for the support of the destitute out of the workhouse when the workhouse was not capable of affording them accommodation. The proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury coincided with that which he attempted to urge upon the House, namely,
1004
that the poor rate should be applied in the first instance for the relief of this extreme destitution. It had been said by the right hon. Baronet, "let the landlords do their duty;" and he was one of those who said it was the duty of the landlords of Ireland to provide for the poor. He repeated the maxim, "that property has its duties as well as its rights," and he felt it was the duty of landlords to see that the people on their estates did not starve. He was not one of those who wished to impeach the humanity or generosity of the landlords of Ireland. He did not wish to say anything against them as a body; but he defied any one to deny that the landlords of Ireland, however they might do their duty as a body, individually did not do their duty. He repeated, that he thought the property rateable for the relief of the poor should first be made subject for the support of the poor; and if the destitution became so great that contributions were necessarily required from individuals and from the Government, he should not, in a great emergency, object to it. He asked what was the amount of the poor rate at present made in Ireland? He doubted very much if it reached twopence in the pound—he was sure it did not reach threepence; but in England the poor rate, on an average, was from two to three shillings in the pound; and until something more than twopence in the pound was contributed towards the relief of the poor by the property of Ireland, why should it be said that the property of Ireland was overburdened by the very natural and just responsibility that was imposed upon it?
MR. BANKESsaid, it appeared to him that there was now forced upon the attention of the House that which must have occurred to the minds of many people, namely, when the Government was in possession of that important information with reference to Ireland, and when they had it in the month of October last, surely it was their bounden duty to call together the Parliament in the month of November, by which course of proceeding those difficulties of which they now complained would not have occurred. Those votes of public money would then have been taken, and long before this time that money would have been transmitted to Ireland, and those beneficial measures which were contemplated would be now in operation. Instead of now discussing the consequences of the want of food in that country, namely, the

1005
fever which had arisen amongst the people, caused by their privations, they might have the hope of preventing, instead of curing, those mischiefs which now called for their attention. He was at a loss to know what answer the Government had to give to the observation which so naturally arose on this subject. They were in possession of that full information which did produce considerable uneasiness and disquiet in their minds; and surely the natural course to have been taken with reference to Bills to furnish employment to the people of Ireland was to call together the Parliament at the earliest possible period. If they did so, the money would now be circulating in that country, and the people would not now be in the state which was represented. As he (Mr. Bankes) had risen to make this observation, he would say, that having heard the speech of his right hon. Friend the Recorder of Dublin, he must say, that in his humble opinion the comments made in that speech were most unfairly made. He did not hear his right hon. Friend make any statement stronger than this, that having been last week in Ireland, he felt it a relief to his mind to be able to say, that he thought the extreme accounts of distress had been exaggerated; but that he did find the distress to be great, and, in fact, greater than was usual at this period of the year. He (Mr. Bankes) thought there was nothing in that statement which should cause an imputation to be cast on the benevolence of his feelings, when he declared it was a relief to his mind to be enabled with truth to make such a statement. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which gave rise to this discussion, he (Mr. Bankes) must say it had his cordial concurrence. He agreed in the hon. Member's observations. He coincided not only in the tone—and everything that fell from him was always in the tone of humanity—but in the spirit of his observations. He must say that the hon. Member's speech had been much misrepresented. The hon. Member did not say that the suggestion he offered was to be considered as one of a permanent nature. The hon. Member merely proposed that it should be of a temporary nature, with a view to afford the most efficacious remedy for the evils which were now prevalent. The hon. Member said, instead of physic, try what food will do. He concurred in that suggestion, and he trusted the Government would give it their attention.
SIR VALENTINE BLAKEagreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that food was the thing required in Ireland. He suggested the improvement of waste lands in Ireland by the Government, and declared it to be his opinion that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) had been hardly dealt with.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENbegged to be permitted to say a few words, but he was not going to reply to the personalities of the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone. He could not think of taking up the time of the House by observations of such a nature; but he would say, with reference to the expenditure of money in Ireland, to which the noble Lord had alluded, that the people who subscribed that money were the best judges how it should be employed. He wished that what he had said should be distinctly understood. He confessed that his feelings, in common with a large number of his fellow countrymen, had been greatly exasperated by the tone—not so much taken in that House as by the press of England—with respect to those miserable grants. But the fact was, that Parliament had only granted them 100,000 l., for all the rest were loans; and he, on the part of the people of Ireland, so far as one individual could speak in their name, said, let them pass a law to give them the four or five millions which were now drawn by absentees out of their country, and they would give them back their 100,000 l. He considered it to be the duty of Parliament to give them good laws, that would bring the industry of the country into operation; and if Parliament met in the month of November to enact good laws, instead of now coming forward with a Coercion Bill, they would not be under the necessity of making those painful appeals to Parliament.
MR. W. MILESsaid, if the hon. Member for Limerick had been in his place during the late discussions, he would have found that every Member on both sides of the House had been ready to come forward in every possible way to assist the Government in providing for the distress of the people of Ireland. All the information the Government had on the subject had been brought forward, and Government had received the ready assent of the House in moving to take off the duty on maize and all food necessary for the people of Ireland. Moreover, he would tell the hon. Member that, if instead of 100,000 l., the Government had thought it necessary to ask for a

1007
vote of ten times that sum, he was certain the British House of Commons would have readily assented to it to relieve the distress of the population of Ireland. But the measures which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. O'Brien) proposed, were the very worst that could be devised to meet the exigency; for months must be spent in their discussion, during which time hundreds and thousands of the Irish people might perish of disease and famine. What was to be done should be done immediately. Sanatory establishments for diseased persons should be established in all parts of Ireland, more particularly in those districts where the disease was already prevalent; and not only this remedy, but all remedies should be brought at once into operation. It would be necessary, also, that they should be assisted in these efforts by the local board and the Irish clergy and priests; for without their aid the Government could do little or nothing to stave off the famine which was about to reach the Irish people. Before he sat down he wished to ask what had become of a Return he moved for about the first day of the Session? He then moved for a Return of the highest price of potatoes in the different market towns in Ireland on the 1st of February, for each of the last seven years. He thought great advantage would result from the production of these Papers. It must meet the observation of every Gentleman that the people of Ireland were starving in the midst of plenty. Only look at the imports from Ireland into this country. He thought this was the most lamentable position of the people of Ireland, that they should export so much, and yet be starving. It was a most anomalous position. It was only by these Papers that they could see the extent of misery which prevailed in Ireland, and the necessity for measures to render it of less frequent recurrence. He wished to know also the capacity of the different Poor Law houses now existing in Ireland, and the number of their inmates. As he understood they were about to establish new poorhouses there, he thought it well that they should first know the extent of the present accommodation, and whether some of the existing houses could not be advantageously appropriated for the purpose.
SIR J. GRAHAMbegged to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Votes of the 9th March. On that day he would find the Return he moved for respecting potatoes was presented, and ordered to be
1008
printed. He would also find a statement appended to that Return, to which he would take the opportunity of calling the hon. Member's attention—namely, that it afforded no safe criterion for the future, inasmuch as it was stated, that from the progress of the disease many of the crops would be utterly destroyed in the course of the month following. With respect to the number of workhouses, he had no objection to a Return, if it were wished for; but he must observe, it would be altogether useless. The hon. Member must see, that as the inmates of the present workhouses were not affected with disease, there would be the greatest danger in introducing amongst them persons who were suffering from it, and that, consequently, it would be necessary to erect others for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the object of the measure, which was not to throw the expense of providing these hospitals on the British public, but upon the poor rate in Ireland.
MR. R. A. FITZGERALDobserved that if his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick had expressed himself strongly, every allowance must be made for his feelings. If that Parliament sat in Dublin, and English Members came over there to press on the Legislature the distress of their country, he should hope, for the honour of humanity, that they would express themselves in terms not less forcible. As an Irish Member, he, for one, begged to thank his hon. Friend for his speech; and to say that he believed him entitled to the heartfelt gratitude of his countrymen for the course which he was taking, both in the House and out of it. He had heard it said that the distress of the Irish people was exaggerated. For his own part, he believed no language could adequately describe it; and he knew for a fact, that, in his own county of Waterford, there were 40,000 people with little or nothing to support them.
MR. VILLIERSsaid, one observation which fell from the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) seemed to him so remarkable that he would ask the attention of the House to it. The hon. Member said, that it was a distressing thing that, while there was so much distress among the people of Ireland, we should be importing their produce. Now, he would just suggest to the hon. Member a mode of correcting this evil. Let them get that produce elsewhere. But it was the business of the hon. Member's life to prevent

1009
this. He believed the price was not higher here than in Ireland. Then let their produce remain there, and let the Irish people consume their own produce. Then the hon. Gentleman said another thing. In his benevolence towards the people of Ireland, he would restrict the commerce of the country, forgetting that without the employment it afforded, the people would have still less money in their pockets to buy food. Let the hon. Member inquire into the matter, and he would find that whenever there was distress in the manufacturing districts the Irish people were more distressed than at other periods. Let the hon. Member reflect that there were 600,000 Irish people in this country who were dependent upon the prosperity of our manufactures, and that it was that prosperity which enabled them to put money into their pockets when they returned to Ireland. He had heard two hon. Members (the hon. Members for Limerick and Stroud) advocate the repeal of the Union, They offered two reasons in support of that measure. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) said he did not wonder the gentlemen of Ireland were for repeal, when he considered how different was the condition of the people of Ireland to that of the people of England. His hon. Friend entered into a lengthened detail of his views on the subject; but be asked him whether it might not all be summed up in this, that he thought it necessary to have a poor law in Ireland? But he would ask his hon. Friend, if they were to repeal the Union, and there was a Parliament sitting in Dublin, and legislating for Ireland, whether he believed the first measure they would adopt would be a law taxing themselves for the support of the poor? He believed that if they were to have the advantage of an efficient Poor Law in Ireland, they must be indebted for it to the Legislature of England. There was another great evil they had heard of as the second reason, and that was the absence of landed proprietors from Ireland. Now that was really not the fault of the Legislature of England. But he would ask his hon. Friends from that country if they did not find some estates there of non-resident landlords better managed than those of residents, and that it was not a condition of residence that the poor should be taken poor of, and estates be well managed? For himself he thought there was no necessary connexion between these matters.
MR. SCROPEexplained that he did not
1010
advocate the repeal of the Union. He merely said that if be were an Irishman, and saw the interests of Ireland were not regarded by the Imperial Legislature, he should advocate that mode of obtaining justice for his countrymen.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the ideas of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) were so concentrated on the one object of free trade, that he could not see any circumstances which might render its adoption more or less advantageous at one time than another. The argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was, in his opinion, a perfect fallacy.
MR. FINCHsaid, if all the Irish corn were to be driven out of the English market, he did not see how the people of Ireland would be benefited by the prosperity of English manufactures. The great cause of Irish suffering was the want of a demand for labour; and the greatest curse that could be inflicted upon Ireland would be the introduction of the produce of Polish or Russian labour. In his opinion Her Majesty's Government had taken the fittest course in the measure before the House to remedy the existing evil; and though he differed with them upon other points, he considered that they deserved the thanks of the country for their prompt exertions to put an end to famine and disease.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

CUSTOMS AND CORN IMPORTATION REPORT.
The Report on the Customs and Corn Importation Resolutions was brought up. On the Question that they be read a Second Time,
MR. SPOONERthereupon rose to move that the Resolutions be read a second time that day six months. He felt bound to make this Motion, because he considered they were about striking a fatal blow at the prosperity of this country, and to put at hazard the national credit, by the removal of protection to British industry—that system under which commerce, agriculture, and manufactures, had attained their present state of greatness and renown. It was under that principle of protection to native industry, that they had been able to compete successfully with foreign countries; under that system had grown up their ships, their Colonies, and their commerce, which had excited even the envy and admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte,

1011
who declared he would give half of his empire for them. He thought that by abandoning that principle they would be in serious danger of losing these advantages. What grounds had been urged for abandoning this principle? They had been told that experience had proved that those articles from which protection had been removed, had increased in price; in fact, that by the removal of protection, the price of the article had universally increased. [Sir R. PEEL: The price universally increased! I did not say so.] He regretted if he had misrepresented the right hon. Baronet; but he certainly understood the right hon. Baronet to argue from the fact, that the price of cattle had risen under the provisions of the late Tariff—that the diminished protection had proved a benefit rather than an injury to the interests for which protection had been taken. He thought that the argument of the right hon. Baronet had been already fully answered. It was proved, beyond a doubt, that the price which butchers' meat had maintained, had arisen from causes very different from the removal of protection. He would not weary the House by details upon the subject; but he might just briefly state, that, owing to disease and a dry season, graziers were obliged to send their cattle to market before they were fat—they had no food for them: added to this, a panic had seized the graziers on account of the Government measure—a low price was the natural consequence of these things at the time, and a short supply in subsequent years, which short supply naturally increased the price. He would not go at length into a refutation of all the arguments that had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet, showing how the removal of protection had favourably influenced trade and manufactures; but he would just mention one department of manufactures, which came under his own immediate knowledge—the glove trade—for he resided in the neighbourhood of the largest glove manufactories in England. This experiment was the first tried in free trade; and the effect of this experiment was, that out of 100 manufactories existing at that time in Worcester, there were only forty now remaining; and by the last census, there were 800 houses vacant in that city. He knew a number of glove manufacturers, who were maintaining their families in comfort, contributing their shares towards the public burdens and to an increase of the wealth of the country, who were thrown
1012
out of employment, and driven into indigence for the remainder of their days, by the removal of protection. What became of the poor operatives who had been brought up to this trade, and could do nothing else? Their labour was their capital—their skill had been rendered valueless—they were thrown out of employment, could work at none other, they became a burden upon society, and were reduced to the utmost destitution. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London, had, in his work on the Constitution, shown the fallacy of the argument, that when one employment fails, another can be taken up; he stated that it could not be done—the blacksmith could not become a silk weaver; he showed that it was not safe to be guided by general principles, but that they should look to practical effects, and take care how they meddled with trade. Not only in Worcester, but in Hereford and the adjoining neighbourhood the glove trade was extensively carried on; but in many of the latter districts there was not now a vestige of it. Was it not mere clap-trap, therefore, to talk of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets? They bought cheapest in the French markets, in this instance, and they paid very dearly for it, indeed, for they ruined a very important branch of their own manufactures. Cheapness did not always consist in the small quantity of money paid for an article; for although at a low price, the article was often too dearly bought, when at the expense of their own trade: to the money paid must be added the cost of the destruction of capital, and the ruin of the individuals whose skill, whose capital, and whose labour was involved in the issue. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn had shown so clearly and so ably the evils which the removal of protection had caused in the silk trade, that he felt it unnecessary to enter upon it. No one could have listened to the unanswered and unanswerable speech of that noble Lord, without being convinced of the evil which resulted from what was called buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market. The arguments of the noble Lord had not been answered—they were irrefragable. It was a vain anticipation for hon. Members to expect that any measures under the present monetary system, would ensure continued prosperity to trade and manufactures. Every year showed that some branch of industry was in great distress and depression. Manufactures suf-

1013
fered one year — then agriculture; they probably both revived in another year; and then it was imagined that the country was in a prosperous state. But it was all a false prosperity. After the termination of the war in 1815, very general and extreme distress ensued. Of course, causes for this were sought. First, they blamed the change from war to peace; but the evil remained so long that practical men began at length to see that it could not be attributable to that cause, and they were forced to find out another. It was next attributed to over-abundant harvests; the bounties of Providence were blamed as the cause of national suffering. Then followed the time of wet seasons, and the distress was ascribed this time, with too much truth, to the bad weather; but that temporary evil passed away, and still the nation suffered; and then they were driven to search for some other cause. It was next attributed to our having too many people; and emigration was proposed as the remedy. We were to ship off our surplus population. But of what did that surplus consist? Not the drones of society. They would have been of no more use abroad than they were at home. No; it was the industrious, the skilful, and the small-capital men of the country that were to be exported; and to show how little of real knowledge, or of sound judgment, were brought to bear on the subject, he would mention the singular fact, that at the time to which he alluded, two Committees were sitting upstairs, who carried on their deliberations next door to each other, the one for the purpose of preventing more corn from coming into the country, and the other to send away the mouths. Too many loaves, and too many men—such was the singular paradox which these Committees attempted to meet. Such were the remedies which, from time to time, had been adopted for these ever-recurring evils. Now, what was the master evil—what was the cause of all their distress—the cause which was even now in operation, and which would certainly not be removed by the propositions that were now before the House? He did not know whether he dared to mention it; but he would throw himself upon the kind indulgence of the House. He never had in that House at any length entered into consideration upon the subject, and he would entreat them to hear him, while he briefly explained what he really thought was the cause of all their distresses, and, having done that, he would
1014
leave it. The monster evil was the Currency Bill of 1819. [Laughter, and cries of "Hear, hear!"] He knew that it was his misfortune, and a deep and a heavy misfortune he felt it to be, to differ from a large majority of the House; but he would not shrink from stating his opinions in opposition to theirs; for, as long as he held a seat in that House, he felt it to be his duty to declare his opinion. He, therefore, would not shrink from stating as his opinion, that to the Bill of 1819 was to be attributed all those alternations of false prosperity, and consequent reactions of adversity, they had been struggling with. Ever since the Bill of 1819, remedies had been applied to the ever-recurring evils, and applied in vain. They had refused to inquire into the real cause of these evils, and till they did so, they never would find a remedy: and he warned his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) that his present propositions would prove as complete a failure as any of the remedies that had been formerly proposed. They might say Committees had been appointed. But how had those Committees conducted their inquiries? Would it be believed, that on the first inquiry, which was instituted in the House of Lords, the following incident occurred between a noble Lord and a director of the Bank of England. The director was throwing out a hint that it might be a dangerous step to adopt the course then proposed of returning to a gold payment. He was met by Lord Grenville in this curious way. His Lordship said—
"Sir, we sent for you not to toll us of the consequences of returning to a gold standard—not to give an opinion as to the propriety of the attempt; but we sent for you to ascertain the best way of carrying out this object — an object which we have already resolved upon."
That remark at once shut the mouths of practical men; and those who saw the dangers which were coming were prevented from laying before the country their opinions on this essential point. In order to a real inquiry into the merits of this subject, they must call before them practical men, not pseudo-philosophers—men who bigotedly adhered to abstract principles, without regard to the obstacles that lay in the way of reducing them to practice. He would illustrate his meaning by an idea that just occurred to him. Suppose a man were in a wood on a fine starlight night; he did not know his way out, except generally that his way lay towards the north. He fixed his eye, therefore,

1015
upon the polar star, and proceeded confidently onwards, but before going far he came to a deep river over which he could not pass, and thus in spite of himself he was obliged to turn back to the south. That, he thought, was an exact illustra-tration of the value of abstract principles without regard to practical difficulties. Yet this was the course now adopted. They were all for free trade, never minding the difficulties into which these principles and a circulation based on bullion would throw the country; not caring for the destruction of capital, manufactures, and trade: they had resolved to go back to the ancient standard of value, caring nothing for the consequences that ensued, showing that without hesitation they would destroy a nation rather than abandon what they called a principle. He called upon the House not to expect any good from the plans that were now proposed, for he believed they would produce a great and severe aggravation of the evil. He hoped they would rather follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who once thought as he now did. It was that right hon. Baronet who taught him on this great subject; and though he might now think proper to dispense with his former speeches and publication, he could not got rid of the impression those speeches and that publication had made upon him. He was the admiring pupil of the hon. Baronet of Netherby. He could not be an unconvinced follower of the right hon. the Secretary of State. But it might be said, what was wrong in the Bill of 1819? He would tell them in a few words. They commenced the war with a debt of 300,000,000 l., and with a trifling depreciation in the currency. They went on, and during the war the debt increased to 800,000,000 l., and they had created a depreciation in the currency of more than 33 per cent. What did they do at the end of the war? They resolved at once to go back to the ancient standard of value. They said the public faith required it, and that they had always intended to go back to that ancient standard. But how could hon. Gentlemen hold that opinion when they recollected what took place in 1810 and 1811? In the first of these years, after a debate of five nights, and in the second year, after a debate of six or seven nights, they came to this memorable conclusion—and he was not sure but his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury himself had voted for
1016
the proposition—that there was no depreciation in the currency—that there was no departure from the standard value—that a 1l. note and a shilling were for all legal purposes of equal value with a golden guinea; and yet after this, in 1819, they called upon the country to recognise the depreciation which before they denied to exist. They said that justice required them to return to a point which they formerly declared they had never left, and to find a remedy for an evil which they before declared had no existence. But it ought to be remembered that country gentlemen and others confiding in the Resolution of the House in 1810, had made settlements for their younger children—had entered into mortgages and agreements, having no fear of the country returning to the ancient standard of value, because this House had declared that they had never moved from it. They expected, therefore, that the charges they had made, and the burdens they had consented to, would remain in force to be measured in the currency in which they had been incurred. But these persons were at once turned round upon by the House, who said to them, we must return to the ancient standard of value. But they were not even content with that—they did more than return to the ancient standard of value. The ancient standard consisted of gold and silver jointly, with precautions against melting and exportation. He knew that those precautions were evaded; but he knew that the evasion took place at considerable risk; but now they had altogether thrown the trade of exportation open, and removed the moral checks which formerly existed; and the effect of the present measure would be to aggravate the evil, as the bullion would more than ever be exported for corn. He knew this was denied on the other side, as it was argued that foreigners would take our manufactures in exchange; but he thought such results would not ensue. Foreigners bringing their corn to this country would have the option of taking the taxed manufactures of this country in exchange; or they had another option, and that they would make use of, of going to the Bank of England for gold, and then carrying that gold away and buying with it the untaxed manufactures of other countries. That was the process which would go on; and he warned his right hon. Friend, that many and great as were the difficulties which pressed upon him now, he would have this one added,

1017
that the gold would go out of the country which ought to be spent in the wages of labour at home; causing a want of food on the one hand, and on the other a want of the means of paying the wages of labour. With reference to the subject in hand, he begged to say, that he agreed with his hon. Friends near him on this important point—that protection to native industry was essential to the prosperity of all classes in the country. He would say more—that it was essential to the maintenance of the public credit—essential to the safety of the Crown—essential to the well-being of the community. On what principle could they defend the introduction of foreign, labour to compete with home labour, unless the two were placed on equal terms? He believed they were all agreed in this, that taxation fell ultimately upon labour; and therefore he claimed protection, not for any class, but he claimed it for the British labourer; for as he bore a large share of the taxation of this country, no foreigner ought to be permitted to compete with him, unless he contributed the same share to the taxation and the local burdens of the country. That principle this country had always maintained, and it was by the maintenance of that principle that she had risen to such a high station—that she had been enabled to establish her ships, Colonies, and commerce. He wished to preserve them. It was essential to maintain the principle of protection, if this kingdom were to be, as she had ever been, the mistress of the seas, the envy and admiration of the world. He hailed the passing of the Canadian Corn Bill, for he thought there ought to be free trade with all our Colonies. They ought to be treated, as what, in fact, they were, parts of the British Empire: like counties, as much an integral portion of the kingdom as Dorsetshire and Hampshire. They had adopted that principle with respect to Canada; but what were they now doing? They were about to take the cup which they had raised to the lips of the Canadians, and to dash it to the ground. Canada was preparing for the new corn trade—she had built mills—she had sown a greater breadth of land; but now the corn to compete with the produce of this country would come, not from the Canadians, who would take our manufactures in return, but from countries on the Continent, who would take our gold in return. In illustration of this, he stated that he met, two days ago, a gentleman in a railway carriage near Coven-
1018
try, who told him that several large orders for watches from Canada had already been countermanded, because the Canadians saw that the necessary effect of the proposed measures would be to stop the importation of corn from Canada. He (Mr. Spooner) thought it right to say, that while he agreed with his hon. Friends near him on the principle of protection, he differed from them on the question of the sliding-scale, which he thought militated against the only principle on which protection could be claimed. Protection was claimed and given on this principle, that whatever articles came into this country must bear an equal share of taxation with corresponding productions of this country. Now, that was not the principle of the sliding-scale. The duty was not laid according to the taxation bearing on the home produce, but according to the price which the home produce brought in the market. He believed that the sliding-scale aggravated the evils of the monetary system, because under it corn was kept up till it reached its highest average, and then a great glut was suddenly let in upon the market. He thought the sliding-scale bad in principle, and it had been proved to be bad in practice; but much as he preferred a fixed duty, even that, under the present system of currency, would be totally inefficacious. These, he begged to state, were no new doctrines of his own. They were opinions which had been published in the year 1826 by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and he would assure his right hon. Friend that nothing would remove from his mind the impression his writings had produced; and he would tell his right hon. Friend now, that he did not believe he would rise and say he had altered his mind. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote the following passages from Sir James Graham's work on Corn and Currency:—
"It is impossible to establish a fixed protecting duty with fairness, when the standard of value is itself unfair. This appears to me," said the right hon. Baronet, addressing the landowners, "the very core of the whole subject—the point on which you have committed the most fatal errors. Yon have fought for high prices, and concurred in measures which render them impossible. You have retained your monopoly, but consented to a change in the value of money, which must destroy its efficacy. The ground which you still endeavour to defend is no longer tenable; and the points which you surrendered, ensure your defeat. If I might venture to allude to the conduct of the landed interest in this last Session of Parliament, I should say, that it affords conclusive evidence of the blindest adherence to the single object of high prices, coupled with an entire misapprehension of the means

1019
by which this object might be attained, and of the general principles on which prices must depend. The price of commodities, and of corn amongst the rest, is compounded of two ingredients—of the supply in the market compared with the demand, and also of the value of money; itself the measure of value, liable, however, to great variation, in proportion to its quantity."
He found also that the right hon. Baronet, in speaking of the compact which he affirmed to have been made between the landlords and those who concerted and maintained the monetary measures introduced in 1819, thus expresses himself:—
"For it is well known, that in this last Session (1825) they bargained with the King's Ministers to support the further contraction of the currency, on condition that the Government did not destroy their monopoly by a repeal of the Corn Laws."
And then further, the right hon. Baronet remarked—
"So far from urging the Government to bring separately under the view of the Legislature the questions of currency and corn, it was the decided interest of the landowners to have insisted on a careful revision of both these subjects conjointly. They are in themselves intimately blended; it is absurd to talk of price without reference to money; and it is impossible to alter the quantity of money without affecting prices. Disjointed discussion on these two vital points is the precise cause of the dangerous conclusions now sanctioned by Parliament, which threaten with ruin and degradation the whole class of existing proprietors."
Now, he would appeal to his right hon. Friend, whether he still held those opinions. If his right hon. Friend did not, he hoped, before this debate was brought to a close, his right hon. Friend would give the House some clear and substantial reasons for his change of opinion; and if his right hon. Friend did so, he would not say that he would not be converted, but he would not surrender his opinions while unconverted, and he must continue to hold his present views. Much had been said of the danger that had pressed upon them a few years ago, when they had a bad trade and high provisions. No one could be more sensible of that danger than he was, living at the time in a manufacturing district, and being an active magistrate in the neighbourhood; but he could tell the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government that the high prices of provisions did not cause the bad state of trade. No, the bad trade arose from circumstances which could be easily explained in Committee, or, in that House, if he were not afraid of trespassing upon their indulgence. But if they would give him a Committee to investigate these matters, he would show that that distress had been
1020
occasioned by circumstances which would again occur—which had compelled the Bank of England to withdraw the circulating medium to force prices down to the level of the Continent, in order to retain gold in this country. Hence the misery, the discontent, which they all so deeply deplored; and he warned the right hon. Baronet that at no distant period he would see the same distress recurring. The nation was again upon the eve of a great change. Many plans had been tried to cure evils pressing upon the nation, but without avail. A large, sudden, and evanescent amount of trade had recently manifested itself in the country. This could not last. Commerce would again languish; and if the moment recurred when a high price of food followed a reduction of wages, the consequences would not be obviated by such measures as were now introduced by the right hon. Baronet. The evil would then be enhanced by the loss of the gold which would leave the country. That evil would be greatly aggravated by the disappointment which would be felt by the working classes, who were led to expect from the proposed measures a low price of food, and a continuance, at least, of the present rate of wages. In this they would be sorely disappointed. Before he sat down, he would say a few words to his noble and hon. Friends on his right hand, who more immediately represented the landed interest. Did they wish that the aristocracy should maintain the position they had so long held—a position essential to the preservation of our ancient institutions—the integrity of the Constitution, and the safety of the Crown? Did they wish to retain their titles and estates, and to hand them down inviolate to their descendants? Let them examine this question, use the power they possessed, and force the Ministers to institute a searching inquiry into the cause of the evils of which they complained. They must not trust to a continuance of the system which had ever proved, and would prove inefficient for the purposes for which they advocated it. He would call also on the fundholder, if he wished his property to be rendered safe, and if he desired that public credit should continue unassailed, to oppose the measure now before the House, and to join the landlords in compelling the Minister to institute inquiry. He called upon the merchant and manufacturer, if they desired to secure a trade to themselves and their dependents, by which steady profits were to be realized,

1021
and to put down that system of wild speculation by which, though some had made large fortunes, multitudes had been ruined—to join in calling for and in forcing this inquiry. To the statesman he would say—if he were desirous to restore harmony, to put an end to the unconstitutional proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and to other dangerous meetings—if he wished, by restoring prosperity to all classes, to maintain peace, safety, and prosperity—to yield this inquiry, and no longer delude himself by expecting efficiently to remedy the evils under which we had so long suffered, while a system was maintained that had so long been the great monster evil, aggravating every other evil, and paralysing every remedy. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, the original Motion, to which the hon. Member had moved an Amendment, was, that they should take into consideration the Report upon certain Resolutions which had been agreed to in a Committee of that House, for the purpose of making alterations in the duties levied upon the importation of certain articles of Customs. Before that Report was brought up, numerous petitions had been presented to that House, setting forth the inconvenience which every description of trade in the country was suffering in consequence of the uncertainty which prevailed as to whether any or what reductions were to take place. He believed, though a difference of opinion might exist as to some of the propositions included in the Resolutions before the House, yet that with respect to the propriety of a very large proportion of those reductions in duty, there was no difference of opinion whatever. The hon. Member for Birmingham, the representative of one of the greatest manufacturing and commercial towns in the country, had professed to meet those Resolutions by proposing that they should be reported that day six months; but the main argument of his speech was that a great mistake had been committed some years ago with regard to the arrangement of the monetary system of the country; and he contended that a Committee should be appointed to inquire whether all the causes of the distress of the country were not owing to the measure of 1819? It was no doubt a matter of the greatest importance to this country that our currency and monetary system should be placed upon a substantial and sure foundation; but he confessed he was
1022
extremely surprised that upon that occasion, when every hour was of consequence, the hon. Member should have attempted to divert the attention of the House from the question properly before it to that subject. He should have thought that the hon. Member would have attempted to have shown that some injurious consequences would have arisen to the country in consequence of the adoption of certain of these measures, [Mr. SPOONER: I intend to do so by and by.] If the hon. Member meant to do so by and by, he felt it to be quite unnecessary to consume the time of the House now. He was obliged to the hon. Member for saying that this was only a preliminary step. When the hon. Member referred to particular items, he should feel bound to state the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to propose these deductions. As it was, after the explanation which the hon. Member had given, he felt that he should be only wasting the time of the House if he went on now.
MR. NEWDEGATEdid not know whether many hon. Members were aware of the fact, that contemporaneously with the introduction of these great free-trade measures a Bill had been proposed and read a second time for extending the operation of the Bill of 1819 (of which the hon. Member for Birmingham complained) to Scotland and Ireland. The course adopted by the Government was this—that whilst they brought in measures to expose our domestic industry to foreign competition, and thereby to reduction of price, they at the same time introduced measures restrictive of the currency, which would also depress prices; thereby doubly attacking native industry and the value of its products. He knew the subject was distasteful to the House; but he was quite confident that they could not fully appreciate the effect of any great measures like the present, which would cause a considerable reduction in the price of the articles produced by the labour of the country, if they looked solely at the question of price as a matter between the supply and demand for those articles, and knew nothing of the relation of the medium of exchange to articles which were to be exchanged; for price consisted of two elements: the relation of the articles to be exchanged to each other; and, secondly, of their relation to the medium of exchange—of the value to be given by each party for the use of it. Those who considered price without reference to this second element, saw only half its bearing.
MR. SPOONERdid not wish to press his Motion to a division. He only desired to point out the real aspect of matters, and in some degree to point attention to the injury which had arisen from measures that had hitherto been passed. He would, therefore, withdraw the Motion he had proposed.
Amendment withdrawn. Resolutions to be read a second time.
On the Question that Bronze Manufactures not enumerated, be charged with a duty for every 100 l. value, 10 l.,
MR. SPOONERsaid, that if the proposed reduction of duty with regard to articles of bronze of foreign manufacture were agreed to, several valuable manufactories in Birmingham would be destroyed, and a great many men thrown out of employment. He would move the omission of the article, and that the present duty be retained.
MR. MUNTZhoped his hon. Colleague would withdraw his Motion. He could not understand upon what principle they could abolish protection as regarded land, and not as regarded manufactures. He had told his constituents that if the duty on foreign corn were taken off, they would have to submit to the duty on foreign manufactures being reduced, or perhaps abolished. He had called upon them to deliberate upon the subject, and to decide one way or the other, and they had accordingly decided on trying the policy of reduction. The only fault which he found with that policy was, that the whole of the protective duties were not equally reduced, and upon that point he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite whether he would take measures at the end of three years for accomplishing that object?
SIR R. PEELwould answer the questions of both hon. Gentlemen. The first hon. Member for Birmingham had stated that if the protective duty on foreign bronze articles were reduced from 15 l. to 10 l. several bronze manufacturers in Birmingham would be ruined. Now what had been the effect of the present duty? The whole amount of duty paid on the importation of articles of bronze of foreign manufacture during the last year was only 78 l. They were now going to continue a duty of 10 per cent, and the hon. Gentleman had undertaken to prophesy that the bronze manufacturers of Birmingham would be ruined. He hoped that prediction would be recorded, for it would, perhaps, be worth while to remember it. He would
1024
venture to say, that with a duty on the foreign article of 10 per cent, the bronze manufactures of Birmingham would not be ruined; and that in a year hence the amount of duty paid, though it might exceed 78 l., would not be such as to cause the slightest apprehension. With respect to the question of the other hon. Member for Birmingham, he thought he had very wisely dissented from the opinion of his Colleague. The hon. Member had asked him the question which the noble Lord opposite had asked him the other night—viz., whether he was prepared to fix any particular period when the protection now continued should terminate? That was a question for the consideration of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman and those who represented the manufacturing interest should come forward and say that there should be a particular time at which such protection should absolutely cease, he was not at all sure that he would not acquiesce in their views.
MR. MUNTZwished for free trade in the true sense of the word, and thought that as the duty had been reduced on the manufactured article, the duty on copper ore, a raw material, should also be reduced.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that upon the question now before the House, he wished to observe that he had consulted a portion of his constituency residing in Birmingham, because he had, of course, been desirous of not advancing opinions on matters on which he did not possess the opinions of practical persons; and he could assure the House that, day by day, as the measure was more fully seen, so, day by day, did the opinion gain ground that distress must follow, if passed into a law; and that those who felt its effects would not easily be able to recover the injury it must do them. In support of the statement made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, he would read a letter to the House he had received from a person to whom he had applied for information: not feeling himself capable of affording a practical opinion, he had obtained the judgment of one far better versed than himself in the matter. This letter, as he had before observed, would support the statement made by one of the Members for the town of Birmingham; and it had emanated from one of the largest manufacturers in the place, who said he had also consulted several of the principal merchants there, and their conviction was, that in those cases—
"Where much manual labour was required, free

1025
competition with France, Belgium, and Prussia, would be very injurious, and unless we obtained reciprocal favours, would, in many instances, be ruinous," the labour there being so much cheaper. The writer added—"The greater part of the Birmingham and Sheffield articles are now prohibited from entering France; and on the remainder the duties are so great that very few of any kind are sent; pretty nearly the same is the case in Prussia and Belgium; the duties on all English manufactured articles have been increased within the last few years in every country in Europe, and the greatest possible efforts are being made by each Government to supply their own wants."
The document he had read might be taken as a true index of the opinion held by his constituents in the town of Birmingham, and fully corroborated the statement made by one of the hon. Members for that town.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENtrusted that the hon. Member for Birmingham would not press his Amendment. At the same time he must say, that the Resolution recognised a principle which by right should be extended to the farmer. Although the right hon. Baronet would not say when he would take off the remaining duties, he must ask what chance any other duty had of being maintained merely as a protection, and not as a revenue duty, now that the keystone—as hon. Gentlemen opposite called it—of protection was gone. The right hon. Baronet said, he expected to see the time when the manufacturers would come and ask him to take off all remaining protective duties; but even there he showed more regard to the manufacturers than he had done to the farmers, for he had not heard that the farmers had yet gone up in procession to the right hon. Baronet to implore him to take away their protection. As the right hon. Baronet claimed credit for being so far-sighted, perhaps he was also clear-sighted; in that case, the right hon. Gentleman would be conferring an obligation upon him (Mr. S. O'Brien), and his friends, by explaining by what process he proposed to distinguish buck-wheat meal from wheat, meal. He would challenge any man, even the right hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, who generally saw as far into a millstone as any man, to distinguish the one from the other by their appearance.
On the Question that the duty on Bronze Powder be 10 l.,
MR. T. BUNCOMBEsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had presented a petition, signed by 500 of the paper-stainers of the metropolis, complaining of the proposed reduction of duty on foreign paper. It was but fair that
1026
some equivalent should be given to them; and as bronze powder was an article much used in paper-staining, he would propose that it should be allowed to come in duty free. With regard to the reduction of the duty on foreign paper, he believed that the rich alone would be benefited by it. On the common paper the duty would be prohibitory, and the only paper that would come in would be that which would be used in such houses as those in Grosvenor-square. At the present moment, he was sorry to state, that a great number of the employers of these paper-stainers had given notice to their men, that they did not intend that any loss which might arise from the proposed reduction should come out of their profits, but that it should come out of the wages of those whom they employed. A manufacturer at Islington, who employed about sixty hands, had given such a notice; and in another establishment conditional orders had been accepted, the employers holding back one-fifth of the men's wages until the Tariff was settled. In the event of its being passed, one-fifth would be deducted from the wages of these parties, and that he thought would be very unfair towards them. In 1842 the duty was 1s. It was then proposed to reduce it to 3d.; but, in consequence of representations which were made to the right hon. Baronet opposite, it was allowed to remain unaltered. It was now proposed to reduce it to 2d., and with such a duty the paper-stainers of this country believed that they would not be able to compete with the foreigner. On the best sort of paper made in this country there was an excise duty of 2½d., while the foreigner paid no excise duty at all; and he thought that if any alteration was to be made, the paper-stainers should at least be allowed to import bronze powder duty free, it being, as he had stated, much used in their trade.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, he had recently received a deputation from the paper-stainers on the present subject, to whom he had explained that what they had to pay in this country in the way of excise duties did not by any means act as an injury to them, in consequence of the extent of the virtual protection which their manufacture enjoyed. With respect to the bronze powder of Birmingham, it had been admitted that that article had recently so much improved that it was now generally used in this country in preference to that of foreign production. That body had also allowed that with respect to design, the

1027
foreign manufacturers generally excelled them; and the acknowledgment of inferiority in this respect, on their parts, was calculated to encourage the public to patronise the foreign manufacture in preference to the home. But he considered that the best mode by which the manufacturers of this country would improve in the matter of design, was by exposing them to compete with the foreign manufacturer.
MR. ALDERMAN THOMPSONconsidered the silk weavers, the hatters, the boot and shoe makers, as well as the paper-stainers and every other home manufacturer, would have equally to complain of this foreign competition.
Motion agreed to.
Upon the Question, that "Butter the cwt. 10 s. stand part of the Resolution,"
MR. GROGANobjected to any reduction of the import duties upon butter. He said it formed, if he might so speak, almost the staple manufacture of many parts of Ireland, and that even with the present rate of duty the Irish farmers were barely able to compete with foreigners. How, then, he would ask, could they expect to do so when the duty was reduced from 21 s. to 10 s., as proposed by Her Majesty's Government? He argued that the effect of this reduction would be to drive Irish butter almost entirely out of the market; and he could not conceive how any Irish Member could with propriety support the proposition of the Government to receive the duty. From the years 1827 to 1841, the exportation of Irish butter into Portugal had decreased from 29,909 cwt. to 5,900 cwt., whilst the importation of foreign butter into this country during the same period had increased. Under these circumstances he thought it was not unreasonable to ask, that protection should be continued upon butter and cheese. In 1842, when the Tariff was under consideration in that House, it was considered as an act of justice to Ireland, that the articles of butter and cheese should not be interfered with. He could not see now, why, under a pretext of impending famine, the Government should endeavour to deprive Ireland of one of her most desirable sources of industry. He was surprised that Irish Members had not raised their voices against this proposition; but as they had not, he should do so, and should endeavour to exclude both cheese and butter from the Tariff. He should oppose the Motion.
SIR G. CLERKwas not surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member to the
1028
proposed reduction of duty upon cheese and butter, especially when he considered, as had been observed by the hon. Member, that they formed the staple manufacture of Ireland. The hon. Member had stated that no reduction was made in the duties upon these articles in the Tariff of 1842, because it would have been considered an act of injustice to Ireland to have done so. Now, he begged to state, that the sole ground upon which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government resisted the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, was solely upon the ground of revenue, the amount of duty being 200,000 l. per annum. He would refer the hon. Member, however, to the state of the butter trade up to the year 1816, when the duty upon foreign butter was not more than 3s. per cwt., and up to which time the butter trade in Ireland flourished; and looking to the increase in that trade in Ireland since 1816, he could not see reason to apprehend danger from the importation of foreign butter. The hon. Member had stated that the exportation of Irish butter to foreign countries had decreased; but he had not stated the quantity which had been sent from Ireland into Great Britain. Now the fact was, that the article of butter being one of prime and necessary consumption in this country, had increased in a greater proportion than the increase of population. Unfortunately, in 1825 there was no official account of the quantity of butter imported into this country from Ireland; but it had been ascertained upon data on which perfect reliance might with safety be placed, that the quantity of butter imported into Great Britain from Ireland, from 1825 to 1837, had nearly doubled, being not less at the present time than 1,000,000 cwt. The price of foreign butter imported into England was, and always had been, regulated entirely by the price of the English markets. It was well known that when trade was prosperous generally throughout the manufacturing districts, that a larger quantity of butter was required than this country was able to produce; it was, therefore, necessary for them to get a supply from other sources; but he thought, that instead of the Competition of the foreigner, in the article of butter, having an injurious effect upon the Irish producer, it would tend to stimulate him to greater exertions to improve by every means in his power the manufacture of so necessary an article

1029
of life; and if this was the result, he could only say, that the Irish would have nothing to apprehend from foreign competition, more especially with a protective duty of 10 s. per cwt., which he considered quite ample. He believed the result of this proposition would be, that Irish butter would be so improved as to be able to compete with the best foreign butter produced. He admitted, however, that, considering the article of butter to be one of necessity, the duty was only to be justified on account of the large amount of revenue.
MR. J. TOLLEMACHEhoped the hon. Member for Dublin would press the question to a division; and if he did not, he should himself feel it necessary to take the sense of the House on the proposed duty.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had stated that, after all, the hon. Member for Dublin need not be alarmed, for no great deal of butter would be imported. This reduction involved the alternative, that if no more butter was imported than last year, there would be a loss of revenue; but if there was double the quantity imported, it would compete successfully with our own production, which was deprived of protection.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Baronet had only considered the producers, but the Government would not forget the consumer. By this reduction revenue was risked, but he was confident that it would be made up by increased consumption; nor would the increased importation injure the agricultural interest, for such an injury depended on the quantity produced at home, as compared with the importation; but when the quantity of butter consumed was considered, he was sure the hon. Baronet would feel that care should be taken that there should be no scarcity of that article. It was one of those articles which constituted a comfort of the lower classes, and no such importation would ensue as would injure the agricultural interest. When he resisted the reduction of this duty on former occasions, he did so distinctly on the ground of revenue, which was so large that he could not afford to lose it, but now that there was a relaxation of duties, it ought to be among the first.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: If, Sir, one argument more conclusive than another could have been produced why we should have rejected the proposition of the Government in regard to this article, it was
1030
that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Clerk) who begins by telling you that it is the staple manufacture of Ireland on which it is proposed to reduce the existing protection by one-half; and of which, as he believes, incredible as the statement appears, 1,000,000 cwt. are annually imported from Ireland into this country. Why, good God! Sir, the price of butter, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is 80 s. per cwt.; and, if you are going to decrease the protection by 10 s. on 1,000,000 cwt. of butter, the amount lost to Ireland—if Ireland suffers the whole loss—will amount to 500,000 l. Well, Sir, and if you are not going to reduce the price of butter by taking off protection, of what good will the reduction be to the consumer? If the reduction is to be productive of any advantage to the English consumer, you must reduce the price by reducing the protection. Therefore, I have a right to presume that the object of Her Majesty's Ministers, and the object of this House in giving up an amount of duty little short of 125,000 l. per annum, must be to reduce the price of butter; and, if you do that, you must injure Ireland in a corresponding degree. I should have thought, Sir, that this was not the time when we should be disposed to carry any measures that could by possibility prove injurious to Ireland. We are told, Sir, that Ireland is, if not in a state of actual famine, at least in great distress; and we are called upon, and we willingly respond to that call, to vote a sum of 230,000 l. for the purpose of relieving, by public expenditure, the people of that portion of the Empire. If the position of the sister country is then so critical a one, is this the moment, I ask, in which we ought to carry measures that may injure her to the amount of half a million sterling per year? Which are the counties that produce the greatest quantity of butter in Ireland? The county of Cork is, I believe, more celebrated than any other. [Hon. MEMBERS: Kerry and Carlow.] Well, Kerry, Cork, and Carlow. Now, what has been the statement made a few days ago, by one who ought to be a good authority upon Irish matters—the "Times Commissioner?" We see it stated by the "Times Commissioner," that he had it from the authority of the secretary to the savings bank at Cork, that the small agriculturists—the conacre farmers, I believe they are called—the "frieze-coats" of the county of Cork, within a circuit of twenty miles round the city, have laid by no less a sum

1031
than 200,000 l. in savings alone in the course of the last year. Upon this authority, we find that the small farmers of the county of Cork have saved 200,000 l., which, we are told, amounts upon an average to 34 l. each. So that such is the flourishing state of the county of Cork under protective laws—under protection to the agriculture of Ireland, and protection to Irish produce of all descriptions—wheat, oats, and, above all, butter—that no less a number than 6,000 small farmers have been able to lay by from their savings 34 l. each within a year. And are you now going, by making an alteration in those laws, to check the prosperity of that large number of industrious agriculturists? I think, Sir, it would be unwise to choose this as the moment in which to withdraw protection from Irish butter. What says the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)? Why, he tells us whatever may be the duty upon butter, that exactly the same amount of Dutch butter will be imported? In God's name, then, why not take the duty from the Dutch? I cannot understand the principle upon which Her Majesty's Ministers are proceeding. They fling duties away in large sums—125,000 l. on butter, and 70,000 l. on cheese—without any object that I can understand, unless it is to bring foreign produce into competition with English and with Irish produce. I could understand them if they flung away the malt duty—a tax amounting to 60 per cent on the raw material; but they seem to be in no hurry to reduce that. The reduction of the duty on malt would be a measure of relief exclusively conferred upon the English producer and consumer. Yes, the drinkers of beer and the barley growers would divide the entire benefit, and therefore it is that Her Majesty's Ministers will not for the world touch the Malt Tax. If the object of reducing duties is to relieve the consumer, I beg of hon. Gentleman to say whether they do not think a reduction of the duty upon tea would not be as advantageous to the consumer as a reduction of duty upon butter. Yet Her Majesty's Ministers do not propose to reduce the duty upon tea; and why have they not made such a proposition? Why, for no reason that I can see, except that tea does not come into competition with the produce of Great Britain. Well, then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, depend upon it, the reduction will not injure Ireland; Ireland has a protective duty of 3s.
1032
per cwt." Why, has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that Great Britain was at war with almost the whole of Europe for twenty years before; and was not that a sufficient protection to Ireland? Was there an opportunity of importing butter from Holland, or from any other country? These, Sir, are the reasons why I cordially concur in the opposition to this article being admitted into the schedule now before us.
The House divided on the Question, that Butter 10 s. cwt. stand part of the Resolution:—Ayes 213; Noes 111: Majority 102.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Dennistoun, J.

A'Court, Capt.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dickinson, F. H.

Ainsworth, P.

Divett, E.

Aldam, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Anson, Hon. Col.

Drummond, H. H.

Baillie, Col.

Duke, Sir J.

Baillie, H. J.

Duncan, Visct.

Baine, W.

Duncan, G.

Bannerman, A.

Duncannon, Visct.

Barclay, D.

Duncombe, T.

Barkly, H.

Dundas, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Eastnor, Visct.

Baring, T.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Ellis, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Elphinstone, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Escott, B.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Etwall, R.

Bernal, R.

Evans, W.

Blake, M. J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Bodkin, W. H.

Ewart, W.

Botfield, B.

Ferguson, Col.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bowes, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Bowles, Adm.

Forster, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Fox, C. R.

Bridgeman, H.

Gisborne, T.

Bright, J.

Gill, T.

Brotherton, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Browne, hon. W.

Gore, M.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gore, hon. R.

Buller, C.

Goulburn, H.

Busfeild, W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Butler, P. S.

Greene, T.

Cardwell, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hall, Sir B.

Chapman, B.

Hamilton, W. J.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Christie, W. D.

Hastie, A.

Clay, Sir W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hawes, B.

Cobden, R.

Hayter, W. G.

Cochrane, A.

Heathcoat, J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hill, Lord M.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hindley, C.

Craig, W. G.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Crawford, W. S.

Hogg, J. W.

Cripps, W.

Hollond, R.

Currie, R.

Hornby, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Horsman, E.

Dalmeny, Lord

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Howard, P. H.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Howard, Sir R.

1033

Hughes, W. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Hume, J.

Price, R.

Humphery, Ald.

Rawdon, Col.

Hutt, W.

Reid, Sir J. R.

James, W.

Reid, Col.

James, Sir W. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Jermyn, Earl

Russell, Lord E.

Jervis, J.

Scott, R.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Scrope, G. P.

Johnstone, H.

Seymour, Lord

Kelly, Sir F.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Smith, B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Smith, J. A.

Loch, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lockhart, A. E.

Smythe, hon. G.

Lyall, G.

Smollett, A.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Macnamara, Maj.

Stanton, W. H.

M'Carthy, A.

Stuart, Lord J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Stuart, H.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mahon, Visct.

Strutt, E.

Mangles, R. D.

Tanered, H. W.

Marshall, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Martin, J.

Thornely, T.

Martin, C. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Masterman, J.

Tomline, G.

Matheson, J.

Towneley, J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Traill, G.

Meynell, Capt.

Trelawny, J. S.

Mildmay, H. St. John

Trench, Sir F. W.

Milnes, R. M.

Tufnell, H.

Mitcalfe, H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Mitchell, T. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Moffatt, G.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Wakley, T.

Morris, D.

Wall, C. B.

Morrison, Gen.

Warburton, H.

Morrison, J.

Ward, H. G.

Moystyn, hon. E. M. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Muntz, G. F.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Napier, Sir C.

White, S.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilshere, W.

O'Connell, J.

Wood, C.

Ord, W.

Wood, Col. T.

Osborne, R.

Worsley, Lord

Palmerston, Visct.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Parker, J.

Wyse, T.

Patten, J. W.

Yorke, hon. E.

Pechell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Young, R.

Peel, J.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Alford, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Allix, J. P.

Beresford, Maj.

Antrobus, E.

Borthwick, P.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Archbold, R.

Broadley, H.

Arkwright, G.

Broadwood, H.

Austen, Col.

Brooke, Lord

Bagge, W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Baillie, W.

Buck, L. W.

Baldwin, B.

Chandos, Marq. of

Bankes, G.

Christopher, R. A.

Barrington, Visct.

Churchill, Lord A. S.

Bateson, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bell, M.

Clayton, R. R.

Benett, J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Bennett, P.

Compton, H. C.

1034

Courtenay, Lord

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Deedes, W.

Lockhart, W.

Disraeli, B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Dodd, G.

Mackenzie, T.

Douglas, Sir H.

Maclean, D.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

March, Earl of

Duncombe, hon. O.

Miles, P. W. S.

Du Pre, C. G.

Miles, W.

Fellowes, E.

Mundy, E. M.

Finch, G.

Neeld, J.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Neeld, J.

Floyer, J.

Newdegate, C.

Forbes, W.

Newport, Visct.

Frewen, C. H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Ossulston, Lord

Gore, W. O.

Packe, C. W.

Granby, Marq. of

Palmer, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Palmer, G.

Hall, Col.

Pigot, Sir R.

Halsey, T. P.

Rashleigh, W.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Rendlesham, Lord

Heathcote, G. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Henley, J. W.

Rolleston, Col.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Seymer, H. K.

Hinde, J. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hodgson, F.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodgson, R.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hudson, G.

Spooner, R.

Hope, A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hurst, R. H.

Thompson, Ald.

Hussey, T.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Irton, S.

Waddington, H. S.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Walpole, S. H.

Jones, Capt.

Williams, T. P.

Knight, F. W.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Knightley, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Law, hon. C. E.

Grogan, E.

Lennox, Lord G. H. G.

Tollemache, J.

On the Question, that Button Metal for every 100 l. value, 10 l. stand part of the Resolution,
MR. SPOONERobjected to a reduction of duty on foreign buttons. He was of opinion that unless protection was continued for this branch of manufactures, our trade would suffer materially from German competition. He would not divide the House upon the subject, but content himself by recording his opposition to buttons being included in the schedule.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that when the duty received on buttons was 15 l. per cent, the amount of revenue derivable therefrom had been 9l. Under those circumstances, he could not see what apprehensions the button manufacturers could feel by reducing the duty to 10 l. If his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner) thought the difference proposed would injure the trade, he (Sir R. Peel) could not agree with him. His hon. Friend really did not give Birmingham fair play.
Question agreed to.
On the Question, that Cotton Articles, or manufactures of cotton, wholly or in part

1035
made up, not otherwise charged with duty for every 100 l. value, 10 l. stand part of the the Resolution,
SIR H. HALFORDsaid, that with regard to the abatement of duty on cotton stockings, from 20 to 10 per cent, the reduction would have a most injurious tendency upon an important article of manufacture in the midland counties. As the Representative of an agricultural and manufacturing district, and connected with land in the midland counties, he would oppose any abatement of duty on cotton hosiery. The present was, he considered, a matter deeply interesting to agriculture in those counties, because the operatives employed in framework knitting in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, resided for the most part in the country villages in the vicinity of towns, and were dependent upon the poor rates levied upon land, and not upon manufactories, when out of employment. Thus, any abatement in duty likely to cause a less demand for home produce, would have the effect of materially injuring this important branch of native industry. He could refer to documents quoted in that House to show what opinion competent witnesses had formed with respect to the withdrawal of protection from the framework knitters of the midland counties. The hon. Baronet read a portion of the evidence taken before a Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the framework knitters in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, and proceeded to say that 100,000 persons were employed in the manufacture of cotton hosiery, and that the sum of 2,287,000 l. was annually paid in wages. The exports for the three years, including 1814–15–16, amounted to 575,872 dozen pairs, and the value to 1,156,022 l.; while during the ten years from 1834 to 1843, the average declared value fell from 1,136,022 l. to 410,408 l. This falling-off was to be traced to Saxon competition; for the home consumer, to meet the low prices of the foreign article, resorted to the manufacture of a fraudulent article in order to compete successfully. The fruits of this competition resulted in an article of so inferior a description, that the manufacture got into discredit, and consequently the demand became gradually less and less. So successful had the Germans also been in producing gloves of a superior description, that gloves could be imported into England at half the price they sold for here. It was not at all unusual for a respectable London and New York house
1036
to import gloves from Germany for the wholesale trade. The trade of the framework knitters had declined between 30 and 40 per cent since 1815; and abundant evidence could be adduced to show the distress that prevailed among the persons employed in that branch of manufactures. If this abatement of duty took place, coupled with free trade in corn, the distress of the frameloom operatives would be considerably augmented; because the experience of past years testified that when the price of provisions was low, wages declined in direct ratio; and the condition of the operative population became much aggravated. He saw nothing in anticipation but misery—that misery and ruin which would follow from the competition that would result from the proposed measure. There was much said on the subject of British industry, and on the skill and perseverance of British workmen: that was all true; but the persons who indulged in that species of argument, were not those who would feel the pressure—as that pressure could only be fully felt by the operative, whose interests would be affected by the removal of that protection to which he was entitled.
MR. GISBORNEdid not rise for the purpose of contradicting the statement made by the hon. Baronet as to the misery of the framework knitters; on the contrary, he fully concurred with him that their situation could not be worse; but for many years previous he knew it had not been better. This knowledge he obtained from a long residence among them; and he feared that no measure could be introduced that would cause that branch of trade again to flourish. If anything could alleviate the misery which the hon. Baronet so truly described, it was, in his opinion, the opening of the ports, and giving to those suffering tradesmen food at the lowest price. He did not believe they were adverse to the proposed measures of Her Majesty's Government; he could say, that neither from his constituents, nor any other parties connected with the hosiery trade, had he received any remonstrance against those measures; and he was firmly convinced that the only chance left for the revival of that branch of manufacture, was the carrying into immediate and full effect the system of unshackled free trade.
COLONEL ROLLESTONcould not understand the argument that if the operatives of the hosiery trade had suffered so much under protection, the reduction of protection one-half could remedy the evil which all

1037
admitted to exist. He could not think how hon. Gentlemen who adopted such an argument, could reconcile to their own minds what involved so apparent a contradiction. But, however they might reconcile it to their own minds, or endeavour at present to explain it away to the operatives, the time would come when their interests would be so materially affected as to convince all parties of their mistake. The subject then before the House was one of no ordinary interest, as it concerned a very large class of the community; and, being so, it should not be hastily legislated on. It demanded serious attention—it required due consideration—especially when it was well known that of the working classes in manufacturing districts, even in a single town, there were no less than one thousand families totally dependent for relief either on public charity or the workhouse. Under such circumstances, the proposition of the right hon. Baronet should be well considered before ultimately decided on; a proposition, the tendency of which would be to effect a greater depression. For his part, after giving the subject due consideration, and knowing the injurious effects which must follow, he would enter against the reduction of the present protection his most decided protest.
MR. R. M. MILNESwould feel it his duty to divide the House on the subject. An unjust accusation had been thrown out against those on his side of the House, that because they were themselves deprived of protection they were indifferent about the interests of others. He was quite sure so unworthy a sentiment never passed through their minds. Before, therefore, they would give up the cause of the hosier and the handloom weaver; before they would declare their case hopeless, they should make an effort for the continuance of that protection which they now enjoyed.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, that the House must regret to hear of the melancholy picture that had been drawn by the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir H. Halford); but they must still remember that this was the state of things as they had existed under a system of complete protection. The hon. Member for Leicestershire had stated that the number of persons employed in the hosiery trade was 100,000; and that, a very short time ago, they had exported goods to the value of one million sterling. [Sir H. HALFORD: In 1815.] That in 1815 they had exported goods to the value of one million sterling; but that their ex-
1038
ports had since been reduced to four hundred thousand pounds. He had attributed that falling-off to the fact of fraudulent goods having injured the character of English goods in the foreign market. But the House would observe that the prosperity of the trade depended on its competition with the foreign trade; for if the labours of the framework knitters of Leicester and Nottingham were confined to the home market, they must remain in the greatest state of destitution; 100,000 persons being employed in the trade. The only chance of improving their condition would be by giving them a foreign trade. It was useless to prevent the introduction into this country of hosiery goods, unless means were taken to give them a foreign market; otherwise they would do no good to the framework knitters of Leicester and Nottingham. The House must consider whether these measures would have a tendency to extend the foreign trade. If so, they would confer a benefit on the framework knitters, as well as on the other manufactures of this country. For it was not competition, which the hon. Member for Leicestershire said had been the cause of their misery, but their exclusion from foreign markets. Under these circumstances, even if a complete protection were given them, and they were satisfied with the monopoly of the home market, they would be effectually prevented from introducing those improvements into the manufacture by which only they would be enabled to compete with foreign manufactures. The whole amount of duty received under the 20 per cent, had been only 700 l., showing that it was quite insignificant. Believing that the continuance of the protection would not in the slightest degree benefit the operatives, he could not consent to any alteration in the proposal.
MR. STRUTThad attended a great meeting of the manufacturers of the midland counties, a few years ago, at Derby, at which statements were made as to the condition of their trade; and those statements were equally unfavourable with those the House had now heard; and yet the object of that meeting was to petition for the abolition of the Corn Laws, and the general freedom of trade. The ground the manufactures took on that occasion was this. They said—"We are now placed under certain disadvantages, compared to foreign countries, by the operation of the Corn Laws, combined with the restrictions laid on our trade: we have thus been, from year to year, driven out of

1039
foreign markets; our profits have been thereby reduced, and our operatives have been brought to the melancholy state in which they now are." Their object was not to petition for any protection whatever, but simply to ask that they should be placed on the same footing as the manufacturers of other nations; that they should have the same means of obtaining food, and be placed exactly on the same footing; and then, they stated, they should not be afraid of entering into fair competition.
MR. WYNN ELLISsaid, he had presented a petition signed by 7,000 framework knitters, praying for the adoption of the measure of Government. He quite agreed in the statements that had been made as to the effect of those measures on the trade. In 1829 he had canvassed all parts of the town of Leicester, and nothing could exceed the misery and poverty which then everywhere prevailed. The tales told him were perfectly horrible: all this existed under a state of protection, the great panacea of the day.
SIR J. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had presented a petition from the mayor and town-council of Nottingham, which had been agreed to unanimously—also a petition signed by 12,000 of the inhabitants of Nottingham—in favour of the measure; and such was their confidence in those measures, that though they considered Government had not carried the principle to the full extent, namely, immediate repeal, yet, for the sake of the benefit which the measure would confer on the country generally, they begged that their own protection might be taken away. Though he (Sir J. Hobhouse) had received no communication on the subject, he was far from denying that distress prevailed at Nottingham. Since his connexion with that town, he had not known a single year, or portion of a year, in which such complaints had not been made; but this had been during the continuance of the protective system. There was something vicious in the system under which these attempts of the frame-work knitters had been carried on; they had been seeking to force a species of manufacture which could not be carried on advantageously under that system; and when the measures of Government were carried, they would at least have no more to complain of than any person engaged in other manufactures.
MR. W. MILESasked, if when the amount of protection was 20 per cent, Saxon hosiery came into this country, how
1040
mnch more would come in when that protective duty would be reduced to 10 per cent? Would not, he would ask, a very large quantity be imported? Would not, then, the Saxon trade deprive this country even of the advantage of a home market? Would not the natural consequence be the total ruin of the operatives in Nottingham on its reduction to 10 per cent? Total free trade, or the proposed reduction in the present protective duty for hosiery, must almost, if not altogether, drive the home manufacture out of the market. He hoped, therefore, an effort would be made on that occasion to allow those operatives to remain as they were; for if now they were not able to compete with the foreigner with a duty of 20 per cent, would it not be totally impossible for them to compete with him when it would be reduced one half?
MR. T. DUNCOMBEthought there should be a great distinction made between the state of the trade and the state of the operative. Nothing could be more frightful than the condition of the operative. How came it to be so bad? Because he did not receive his full share of the profits. Did people suppose, were the duty raised to 40 per cent, it would at all be to the advantage of the operative, that while the master manufacturer received 18 s. a dozen, the operative only received his 8s. Was that a fair share for him to receive? Last year there was a law passed called the "Ticket Act," the carrying out of which, he thought, would be of great advantage; and believing it would be useful in its operation, he would call on the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to enforce that law, which, if properly administered, would confer great benefit.
VISCOUNT INGESTREwished to know, if at the meeting alluded to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Strutt), there had been a single operative present to assert the claims of his class; if not, and the meeting consisted only of capitalists, he could view the proceedings only as an attempt to reduce yet further the miserable pittance the men still had.
MR. FREWEN,in allusion to the remark of the hon. Member for Finsbury, declared his belief there was not a magistrate in the county of Leicester who would not do his utmost to carry into effect the law of last Session.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, that that hon. Gentleman would have them believe that all the distress had originated in the pro-

1041
which was given to the stockingers; but he would like to know, if protection were that bane to the stockingers, how came it that the Saxon, under protection the most stringent, was able to enter into competition with the stockingers of England, so as to be able almost to drive them out of the market? He apprehended there was no country in which manufactures were more stringently protected than in Saxony, and yet the result was, that Saxony was able to rival England, not only at home but in all the markets of the world. He recollected the account which was given by Mr. M'Gregor, of the manufactures of Saxony, He stated that there stockings were made for 3d. a pair: while the Member for Nottingham told the House that there the charge was 8s. a dozen. He wanted to know how the stockinger of Nottingham and of Leicestershire could, under a productive duty of 10 per cent, and charging 8s. a dozen for stockings, compete with the Saxon who could sell his stockings at 3d. a pair, or 3s. a dozen? The hon. Member for Leicestershire had stated to the House that 100,000 persons were engaged in the stocking business. Was his noble Friend who asked protection for agriculture, prepared to try the experiment of free trade on the 100,000 stockingers?
The House divided on the Question—Ayes 190; Noes 102: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

A'Court, Capt.

Christie, W. D.

Adderley, C. B.

Clay, Sir W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ainsworth, P.

Cobden, R.

Aldam, W.

Cochrane, A.

Archbold, R.

Cockburn, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baillie, Col.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Baine, W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Baldwin, B.

Craig, W. G.

Barkly, H.

Crawford, W. S.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Cripps, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Currie, R.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Curteis, H. B.

Blake, M. J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bodkin, W. H.

Dennistoun, J.

Botfield, B.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Bouverie, H. E. P.

Dickinson, F. H.

Bowes, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bowles, Adm.

Drummond, H. H.

Bowring, Dr.

Duke, Sir J.

Bright, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Duncan, G.

Browne, hon. W.

Duncannon, Visct.

Bruce, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Busfeild, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Cardwell, E.

Eastnor, Visct.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Chapman, B.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

1042

Ellice, E.

Muntz, G. F.

Ellis, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Elphinstone, H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Escott, B.

O'Connell, D.

Etwall, R.

O'Council, J.

Evans, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ferguson, Col.

Osborne, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Paget, Col.

Flower, Sir J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Forster, M.

Parker, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Patten, J. W.

Gill, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Gisborne, T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gladstone, Capt.

Peel, J.

Gore, M.

Plumridge, Capt.

Gore, hon. R.

Price, Sir R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rawdon, Col.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Greene, T.

Reid, Col.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Hall, Sir B.

Russell, Lord E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Sandon, Visct.

Hastie, A.

Scott, R.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Scrope, G. P.

Hawes, B.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Hayter, W. G.

Smith, B.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Smith, J. A.

Hill, Lord M.

Smythe, hon. G.

Hindley, C.

Smollett, A.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hollond, R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hornby, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Horsman, E.

Stewart, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Stuart, Lord J.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hume, J.

Strutt, E.

Hutt, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

James, Sir W. C.

Thornely, T.

Jermyn, Earl

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Jervis, J.

Tomline, G.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Towneley, J.

Kelly, Sir F.

Trelawny, J. S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Tufnell, H.

Loch, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Lockhart, A. E.

Vivian, J. H.

Lyall, G.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Macnamara, Maj.

Wakley, T.

M'Carthy, A.

Walker, R.

McGeachy, F. A.

Warburton, H.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Ward, H. G.

Mahon, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Mangles, R. D.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Marshall, W.

White, S.

Martin, J.

Williams, W.

Martin, C. W.

Wilshere, W.

Masterman, J.

Wood, C.

Matheson, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Meynell, Capt.

Worsley, Lord

Mitcalfe, H.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wyse, T.

Moffatt, G.

Yorke, H. R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Morrison, J.

Young, R.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Antrobus, E.

Alford, Visct.

Arkwright, G.

Allix, J. P.

Austen, Col.

1043

Bagge, W.

Hope, A.

Baillie, W.

Houldsworth, T.

Bankes, G.

Hudson, G.

Barrington, Visct.

Hurst, R. H.

Bateson, T.

Hussey, T.

Benett, J.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bennet, P.

Irton, S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Jones, Capt.

Beresford, Major

Knight, F. W.

Borthwick, P.

Knightley, Sir C.

Bramston, T. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Broadley, H.

Lennox, Lord G. H. G.

Broadwood, H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Brooke, Lord

Maclean, D.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Manners, Lord J.

Buck, L. W.

March, Earl of

Chandos, Marq. of

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Churchill, Lord A. S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Chute, W. L. W.

Miles, W.

Clayton, R. R.

Milnes, R. M.

Clifton, J. T.

Mundy, E. M.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Neeld, J.

Compton, H. C.

Neeld, J.

Courtenay, Lord

Newdegate, C. N.

Deedes, W.

Newport, Visct.

Disraeli, B.

O'Brien, A. S.

Dodd, G.

Palmer, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Pigot, Sir R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Rashleigh, W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Rendlesham, Lord

Fellowes, E.

Repton, G. W. G.

Finch, G.

Rolleston, Col.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Seymer, H. K.

Floyer, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Forbes, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, S. L.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Frewen, C. H.

Spooner, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Thompson, Ald.

Granby, Marq. of

Tollemache, J.

Grogan, E.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hall, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Halsey, T. P.

Walpole, S. H.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Williams, T. P.

Heathcote, G. J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Henley, J. W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Halford, Sir H.

Hodgson, R.

Packe, C. W.

Further consideration of the Tariff adjurned till Monday.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Metropolitan Buildings.
3a. and passed. Protection of Life (Ireland) (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fortescue, from a Public Meeting of Landowners and others, assembled at Totnes, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Lord Campbell, from Inhabitants of the Parish of Rathfarnham, against the Protection to Life (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord Brougham, from James Kibble, of Greenock, complaining of Deception practised towards him by the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, and Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway Companies, and praying for Investigation and Relief.—From Master, Wardens, Freemen, and Commonalty, of the Mystery of Vintners, praying to be exempted from the Operation of, and to be heard by Counsel against, the Charitable Trusts Bill.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL.
The EARL of ST. GERMANShaving moved the third reading of this Bill,
LORD CAMPBELLdirected attention to the injurious and unjust effect which the 11th Clause of the Bill would have if left in its present form, as it made it a misdemeanor punishable with transportation for any person to be in any dwelling-house one hour before sunrise, or one hour after sunset, if in that dwelling-house there should be consumed any malt or spirituous liquors, without saying one word about being so found under suspicious circumstances. So that the corpus delicti consisted simply in being in a house in which malt or spirituous liquors were sold or consumed, although the person so offending might be there for a just and lawful purpose. But according to the wording of the 11th Clause, it would be no defence for him to show that he was there for a lawful purpose. The noble and learned Lord illustrated the injustice and inconvenience of such an enactment by observing that a person wishing to buy groceries for a family, and proceeding to an establishment for that purpose, after sunset, would not be guilty of a misdemeanor, because he could show, while on the highway, that he was about a lawful purpose;
978
but, once he entered the grocery establishment, if malt or spirituous liquors should be sold or consumed in it, he became guilty of a misdemeanor, and subjected himself to be transported for seven years.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause shall be altered.
The EARL of ST. GERMANScomplained of the noble and learned Lord for not having suggested the alteration he required when the Bill was in Committee, or on the bringing up of the Report. The clause in question had not been altered or amended since the printing of the Bill; and if the noble and learned Lord had suggested the alteration even privately to the the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, his communication would have received every attention. The clause was intended to apply only to public houses that were not licensed, commonly called "shebeen" houses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR,to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord, moved to alter the clause by leaving out the word "consumed," and inserting, instead, the words "usually sold." This alteration, he thought, would make the clause more satisfactory, and render it impossible to be applied in the cases cited by the noble and learned Lord.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSwas quite willing to adopt the Amendment suggested by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read 3a. and passed.
House adjourned.