Sitting of 5 May 1846

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Linlithgow District of Burghs, Earl of Lincoln.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3°. and passed. Polling Places (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Ewart, from Electors and other Inhabitants of the Royal Burgh of Dundee, complaining of refusal to grant Sites for Churches to the Free Church (Scotland).—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, from the Inhabitants of Birmingham, Youghal (Ireland), Cranbrook, and Bourne, for the Adoption of Measures for promoting the more Due Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. John O'Connell, from Catholic Inhabitants of the Parish of Newtownards, and by Mr. Pusey, from Secular Clergymen and Laymen of the Village of East Hendred, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Fuller, from Inhabitants of the Parish of Llansadwrn, and by Sir Howard Douglas, from Members of the Congregation assembling at St. Martin's Church, Liverpool, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses.—By Sir Howard Douglas, from William Heap Hutchinson, of Liverpool, Proprietor of Steam Shipping plying between Liverpool and Ireland, praying that all Expenses for the Erection and Maintenance of Lighthouses, &c, be defrayed out of the Public Revenue.—From Directors and Guardians of the Poor of the Mutford and Lothingland Incorporation, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Owners and Ratepayers of the Isle of Wight, for Inquiry into the Management of the Isle of Wight Roads.—By Mr. Matthew Bell, from Ratepayers of Cornwood, Wylam, Whitley, Enmundbyers, and Bellingham, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Poor Law Guardians of the Downpatrick Union, for Relief from Payment of Loan granted for the Building of their Workhouse.

CORN LAWS—OATS.
House in Committee upon the Corn Importation Act.
On the first item, that "upon all Wheat, Barley, Oats;" and on the word "Oats" being read,
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: I rise, Sir, to move the omission of the word "oats." Our former discussions have almost entirely turned upon the species of grain with which mainly the people of England are concerned, and they have turned scarcely at all upon that species of grain in which the people of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, are more particularly interested. Sir, when we come to consider that there are 558,000 occupiers of land in Ireland, almost every one of whom is a grower of oats, we cannot but admit how important it is to Ireland that we should not hastily alter the law which protects their grain in the English market. The annual importation of oats into England from Ireland, in the last and in former years, amounted in value to a sum of money little short of two and a half millions sterling. Now, supposing that the free importation of foreign oats would only lower the price to the extent of 10
122
per cent, it would affect Ireland in a very grievous degree. In the single article of oats alone, it would amount to what we may call a tax upon the profits of Irish agricultural industry of not less than 250,000 l. a year. And in looking at the price of oats abroad, I find that the price is such in years of abundance, that 10 per cent is a very small deduction to reckon as a consequence of the importation of foreign grain. I hold in my hand a return of the prices of oats exported from the countries on the Baltic from the year 1817 to the year 1839 inclusive—a period of twenty-three years; and throughout the whole of that time I find that the average price of oats was 11 s. 7d. per quarter. Now, the freight from the Baltic differs in nothing but that it is somewhat less than the freight from the western coast of Ireland. So, upon an average of years, unless the agriculturists of Ireland can afford to compete with foreign oats at a price of 11 s. 7d. per quarter, they must be grievously injured by the competition of foreign oats. But I will not rest upon the prices of one place alone, I will take the price of oats at Amsterdam, at Hamburgh, at Dantzic, and at Riga, from the year 1841 to the last year; and I find that the lowest price—mark, not the average, but the lowest price—of oats, was:

In 1841, at Amsterdam

9s.

0d.

per qr.

Hamburgh

8s.

6d.

per qr.

Dantzic

12 s.

0d.

per qr.

Riga

11 s.

0d.

per qr.

I find that the lowest price of oats was—

In 1842, at Amsterdam

12 s.

6d.

per qr.

Hamburgh

8s.

6d.

per qr.

Dantzic

11 s.

6d.

per qr.

Riga

10 s.

0d.

per qr.

I find that the lowest price of oats was—

In 1843, at Amsterdam

7s.

0d.

per qr.

Hamburgh

11 s.

9d.

per qr.

Dantzic

10 s.

0d.

per qr.

Riga

6s.

6d.

per qr.

I find that the price was—

In 1844, at Amsterdam

12 s.

9d.

per qr.

Hamburgh

10 s.

9d.

per qr.

Dantzic

12 s.

0d.

per qr.

Riga

6s.

0d.

per qr.

I find that the lowest price of oats was—

In 1845, at Amsterdam

11 s.

9d.

per qr.

Hamburgh

11 s.

10 d.

per qr.

Dantzic

10 s.

6d.

per qr.

Riga

10 s.

6d.

per qr.

I hold also in my hand an account of the price of oats in earlier years, at various parts of Europe. The prices I have already read are derived from corn merchants' circulars; but the list I am now about to read is taken from the Report of

123
the Committee of the House of Lords in 1827. In 1827, the price of oats at Amsterdam was 7s. 6d. per quarter; at Riga it was 10 s. 4d.; at Koningsberg it was 8s. 4d. In 1825, the price at Koningsberg was 7s.; at Archangel it was 7s.; in the Elbe it was 6s.; at Dantzic in 1825, it was 6s. 6d. In 1824, at Dantzic it was only 5s. 5d. per quarter. At Stettin it was 8s. 6d.; at Rostock in 1824, it was 7s. 6d., and at Copenhagen it was 8s. 4d. [The noble Lord read the prices at several other places, to the same effect.] I have, therefore, given (he continued) twenty parts in Europe in which, in the years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827, prices were so low, that if the foreign oats had been admitted duty free to compete with the oats of Ireland, it is clear that if the oats of foreign countries had not driven the Irish oats out of the market, yet at least they must have reduced the price, to the very serious injury of the agriculturists of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has said, "If the distress in Ireland is such that even you are driven to a suspension of the Corn Laws, what possible good can protection be to the agriculturists or peasantry of Ireland?" But I do not think—I never said—that the suspension of the Corn Laws will confer any benefit upon the Irish people. I never said so; but we were asked if we would consent to the suspension of the Corn Laws; and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may have understood, no one else misunderstood me; for I clearly and distinctly said, "it will do the Irish people no good. The suspension of the Corn Laws will not admit one grain of wheat or of oats into Ireland." But I said, "You have wickedly told the people of Ireland that we who sit on these benches, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who oppose the Coercion Bill, are depriving the people of Ireland of their food—that we are the cause of their starvation." No! I emphatically said, that in the present state of things—in the present state of prices—with the present prices of Europe, where there has been real scarcity, compared with the present prices of England—the foreigners could not afford to export a single grain—and, therefore, that we would be no parties to that delusion; but as you had mocked the people of Ireland with false expectations, we consented to allay their irritation of feeling by a temporary suspension of the Corn Law, which would give a practical proof to the people of England and of Ireland that no good result
124
would follow—that in this year alone the suspension would be of no effect. But I said, that as the people of Ireland had been excited to expect good would come to them from the suspension, we would not be the party te stand between them and the suspension of the Corn Law for a given period. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my statement, that there are 558,000 holders of farms in Ireland not exceeding fifteen acres each, who have no capital but their own industry and their own honesty; but the right hon. Gentleman omitted the very important portion of the statement, that they held but fifteen acres. For how could it be possible that a fanner who holds fifteen acres can have much capital? Can he possibly have thrashing and winnowing machines, and the other requisite machinery for the management of a farm? But we must deal with such a state of things as we find. We did not make that state of things, but we find 558,000 occupiers of land in Ireland who hold but fifteen acres; and we are to say—if we may believe my Lord Essex, with whom the right hon. Gentleman seems very much to sympathize—that they ought never to have been farmers, and consequently that they may at once be sacrificed; that 558,000 farmers, employing three millions and a half of human souls, are to be sacrificed, because they do not possess the required amount of capital. But the right hon. Gentleman omitted to state, that those persons are holders of only fifteen acres. It might, certainly, have been better that there should be no small tenements in Ireland; but, as I have already said, we must deal with things as we find them. I cannot cut up human beings like a log of wood. When we find three millions and a half of human creatures, we must take care that we adopt no measure by which they will be reduced to beggary and wretchedness. But it seems that the principles of political economy go so far as to say, that these three millions and a half of human beings are not properly occupied. There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman scouted such political economy as this. I recollect the time when he approved of the description of the political economist contained in the letter of my noble Friend the Member for the City, to the electors of Huntingdon. My noble Friend, in that celebrated letter, described them as a body whose doctrine it was to buy in the cheapest market, to substitute the corn of Russia and Poland for our own

125
—as a body of men who cared nothing for the difference between an agricultural and a commercial population, and who disregarded the moral and social happiness of the people—as a body of men who counted for nothing a hardy race of farmers and labourers—as a body of men, with whom wealth was the only object of speculation, and who cared nothing for the claims and pretensions of the unprotected poor. Such was the description to which the right hon. Gentleman once gave his hearty concurrence. I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the hon. Member for Montrose, and what was his language then? "You sat for the likeness," exclaimed the right hon. Baronet, on that occasion apostrophizing the Member for Middlesex, "you present the faithful resemblance of a harsh, cold-blooded, political economist!"—"of one whose only object and exclusive aim is the development of his own peculiar system—of one who, wedded to his own theory, would rejoice, if through its practical carrying out, the produce of the fertile foreign soils, half tilled by wretched implements, and still more wretched peasantry, should displace in our own markets, the products of our agriculture." Sir, if the Member for Middlesex then "presented the faithful resemblance," then "sat for the portrait" of "a harsh, cold-blooded, political economist," I want to know whether we might not now find a no less striking "resemblance," an equally faithful "portrait" of the same character, in the person of an eminent teacher of political economy, at this moment seated on the Treasury bench? Sir, I remember that on a former occasion the right hon. Baronet said, "What has protection done for the several holders of land in Ireland?" Sir, I rather think the question to be answered is, whether the five or six hundred thousand small farmers of that country are worse off than they were at the time of, or rather till some few years after, the Union, when free trade prevailed? I do not think it is easy to dispute, that Ireland has progressed in prosperity since then. Why, Sir, Ireland previously imported grain, while now she is an exporter of grain to the amount of nearly five millions sterling per annum, and of other agricultural produce, which will be affected by the measures now in agitation, to the extent probably of ten millions per annum, though the amount has been estimated, indeed, at no less than 17,000,000 l.; but even taking it only at 10,000,000 l., what a heavy tax on the
126
people of Ireland would the free-trade policy inflict. But, Sir, to revert to the position of the small holders of land in Ireland. At the time these measure were agitated, that class was fast progressing in prosperity. Mr. Campbell Foster states, that from the secretary of the savings' bank at Cork he learnt, that in the past year 200,000 l. were paid into that bank by persons in the class I speak of, in sums not exceeding 30 l. Was not that ground for hope that Ireland was progressing? These sums of 30 l. certainly would not constitute the capital necessary to a system of farming on a greater scale, or, perhaps, even to save the class of people possessing such a small amount of capital from being sacrificed by the right hon. Baronet at the shrine of free trade. Still, this indicated a state of independence much to be rejoiced at, and showed the existence of a race of men who, though they might not, perhaps, "cultivate their land to the best advantage," or know how "to make five quarters grow where three did before," are yet a class of men whom it would be worse than unwise to sacrifice for the sake of a system. Sir, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke both exerted themselves to draw more closely the bonds of union between England and Ireland; and how was it they sought to attain their object? Sir, it was by removing the restrictions of the provision laws, which intercepted trade between the two countries. Mr. Burke sacrificed his seat in Parliament for the sake of this object. And Mr. Pitt, when he addressed the House in support of such a policy, is represented as having spoken with extraordinary power, and to have declared that of all the objects of his political life there was none which ever had engaged, or which ever could engage his mind more ardently and anxiously than the carrying of such a measure. But, Sir, we are now called upon to abrogate the laws they enacted, and to cast off Ireland, and practically to preclude her from entering our markets. We are called upon to deprive her of the partiality and favour she has hitherto been enjoying in our provision trade; and what matters it if you virtually deprive her of the power of competing in our market, whether it is by direct prohibition, or by a ruinous rivalry, she is excluded? Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke, Sir, thought that the way to conciliate Ireland, and to obtain her enduring attachment for this country, was by removing the restriction upon her trade, and by making it to her advantage to cul-

127
tivate commercial relations with England. But our measures now, it seems, are to be of such a description that you must drive her agricultural produce out of the market. It may be true you are not about to divorce her; but you are going to admit into the arms of England concubines from every part of the world. Sir, the right hon. Baronet has often repeated that he feels no hesitation or humiliation in confessing his "errors" upon this subject, and acknowledging that he has hitherto been wrong as respects the commercial policy of this country. Sir, I do not wish to say much upon that head—it may not be humiliating in a private gentleman—an individual Member not engaged in the government of the country—it may not be humiliating in such a one to acknowledge that for thirty years of Parliamentary life he has been entirely erroneous in his opinions on a great branch of public policy. But I cannot, Sir, concur with the right hon. Baronet, that it is not humiliating to a great Minister—to one who aspires to be a great statesman—to be obliged to confess that the whole course of his public career has been one continued series of errors. Why, what advantage is there in having men at the helm of public affairs, if not to direct the national judgment? And if he direct it entirely in a wrong course—surely it is humiliating, and surely it cannot be otherwise than a humiliating avowal, that he has governed the country erroneously for a long series of years. Sir, it is the privilege of girls to change their opinions; but even they cannot do so without risk of damaged reputation. And does the First Minister of the Crown think that he can come down to Parliament, and confess that thirty years of experience have been so cast away upon him, that the rumour of a famine—a mere sudden and temporary emergency—can alter all the opinions which that experience established? Does he think he can make such a confession without "humiliation?" But, Sir, the right hon. Baronet said, he thought that if he had changed his opinion, and had not avowed it, that would indeed have been "dishonest," "base," and "inconsistent with his duty to his Sovereign and his country." Sir, I will not enter into a discussion as to how far that might be so. I leave him to settle that matter with his Colleagues, who have declared that they changed their opinions some year or two ago, but yet never acknowledged the fact until the eve of the present Session. For instance, the noble
128
Lord (Lincoln) the Member for Falkirk, when last addressing the electors of Nottinghamshire, declared that the discussions of 1842 had changed his views as to the Corn Laws, and that, in consequence of this change, he had never addressed the House on the subject. I repeat, Sir, I leave it to the right hon. Baronet to settle with his noble Colleague this difficulty as to the duty of a Minister in so delicate a conjuncture. I do not decide how far it would be "dishonest," or "base," or "inconsistent with his duty to his Sovereign," to continue in the Ministry without acknowledging such a change of opinion. But I presume to state, that the right hon. Baronet did remain a Member of the same Administration after his noble Colleague's change of his views on this subject. Sir, allusion has been made to a former remark of mine, on the fact of a recent import having taken place of oats from Ireland to this country; and I have been asked whether I would have intercepted such an import of food from Ireland? Sir, I retort by asking whether an export of oats and oatmeal be not, at the same time, under the auspices of the Government, going on from this country for the relief of the Irish people? and whether that export be not at the price of 18 l. or 19 l. per ton? and whether the same commodity cannot be purchased in Ireland at from 13 l. to 16 l. per ton? If, as I believe the fact to be, oats and oatmeal have been imported from Ireland, recently, by hundreds and thousands of tons, it should seem that our "Finance Minister" has been purchasing, probably Irish oats, to send back to Ireland for the food of her people; and that he has been buying oats dear in England to export to Ireland where the price is much lower. Sir, this is the converse of his own political economy. We thought the principle of that system was, to "buy in the cheapest market, and sell in the dearest." But the political economy he has recently practised is to buy in the dearest market, and sell in the cheapest. I take the liberty of suggesting that the soundest political economy, on this occasion, would be to purchase the requisite supply of food in Ireland; and thus, by relieving ourselves of the cost of transit, and by buying at the cheapest market, we should at the same time relieve the distressed portions of the country at the lowest cost, and encourage the agriculture of other districts of the country. Sir, we have been taunted with denying that dis-

129
tress existed in Ireland, and yet with suggesting measures for the relief of distress. Sir, we have never denied that partial distress existed in Ireland. We have from the first declared, that there was potato disease, and that in certain limited localities there was distress. But what we have denied, and do deny, is the truth of the statements put forth by the Minister. We deny the existence of any general distress, of any general scarcity, of anything like famine; and if the right hon. Baronet would consult those whose business it is to ascertain the state of the provision market (as corn factors and corn dealers), and who send out agents to Ireland to acquire information, he would be informed that there is no dearth of food in Ireland. I have letters here, stating, that only three days ago there were several ships unloading cargoes of grain from Ireland; and I find from authentic information, that since December 29, there have been imported from Ireland to London 117,000 quarters, or 16,000 tons of grain. From Limerick alone, 4,890 tons; from Cork, 590 tons; and to those places the Government has been actually sending grain for the purpose of feeding the people. So that the old adage of sending coals to Newcastle has been realized by the proceedings of the Government, who, perhaps, for the sake of making a great display of their anxiety to provide for what they call the dearth of food in Ireland, have been buying grain here at a dearer rate than it could be purchased in Ireland. Sir, some doubt was thrown by the right hon. Baronet on the statements I made as to the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture in Ireland. I repeat my statement, which in substance was, that there were 685,000 holders of farms in Ireland, of whom 558,000 were holders of farms under 50 acres. From the Population Returns of 1839, it appears that there were then 564,294 holders of farms in Ireland not employing labourers, and 95,300 holders of farms employing labourers, making together 659,600, which number deducted from 685,300 (the present number) exhibits an increase of 25,690 within the last fifteen years. That, Sir, is no mean evidence that Ireland is progressing, and that, if left alone, as regarded agriculture, applying remedies required for social evils, and giving a generous and liberal Poor Law, such as will meet the wants of the labouring classes, Ireland might be expected to go on progressing in prosperity.
130
But the way to make Ireland prosperous is not to take from her the protection she enjoys in our English markets. Why, Sir, in 1839 or 1840, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, while opposing some free-trade propositions, said, an 8s. duty would be no protection to the agriculture of Ireland, and that it was impossible to peril that agriculture by even such a duty without entailing on the country most serious dangers. And the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department said, no longer ago than last June, that, including Ireland, two-thirds of the people of this country were engaged in agriculture; and that the result of any measure of free trade in corn would be, at once, to throw from 500,000 to 800,000 of the people into pauperism and destitution. Sir, I want to know how the Ministers, who held such language last year, can justify their present course, adopted, as it is, without any evidence enabling them to introduce any new facts or features into the case? How can they now vindicate their advocacy of a measure which six months ago they deprecated and denounced as calculated to prejudice the interests and paralyse the prosperity of Ireland? The noble Lord concluded by moving to leave out the word "oats" in the clause before the Committee.
SIR H. W. BARRONobserved, that the people of Ireland would neither thank the noble Lord for the proposition he had made, nor for the manner in which he had made it. The people of Ireland asked themselves the question, what had they gained by protection? and that was the question which every friend and benevolent landlord in Ireland ought to ask himself. He must confess that he was at first greatly prejudiced against the measure of Her Majesty's Ministers, and had only given it his support because he put more faith in the judgment of those political friends whom he was accustomed to act with, than in his own, in such matters; but having weighed the subject maturely, he had now to acknowledge himself, from conviction, a warm and strong supporter of the Government measures. He had had extreme prejudices on the subject, for all he possessed depended on land—all his ties, early education, knowledge, and experience were with and for the land; but he had been led to see the necessity of such a measure as that introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers; and his own tenants, some of them holders of 200 and

131
300 acres of land—men of experience and judgment, and a majority of whom were, like himself, prejudiced at first against the measure—had come round to the same opinion, and to the belief that the Government measure would not injure Ireland on the whole. He believed, at the same time, that it was not unlikely it might create stagnation or a panic, such as that which occurred when the Tariff was introduced. Holders of stock suffered on that occasion from the panic, but now they were obtaining 25 per cent more for stock than they did before. He remembered also the panic that took place in the butter trade in the south of Ireland, particularly when people believed that the article would be reduced from 25 to 30 per cent, on account of the reduction of the duty to 20 s. per cwt.; but what was the fact? Instead of the butter trade being diminished, the exports from Waterford and other places had increased fivefold since that time. He could also state, that so far from land being depreciated by the change, it now sold in the counties of Waterford, Kilkenny, Cork, &c., at from four to five years' purchase more than it sold for before that change took place. A similar effect followed the reduction of the duty on wool. Great injury was expected to flow from that measure; but he could state it as a fact that sheep brought from 15 to 18 per cent more after the alteration than before it. He challenged the noble Lord to answer these facts, to the truth of which he could give his personal testimony. He asked them to look at the misery of the Irish people under the present system, by which 3,500,000 persons had been reduced to a state disgraceful to that House and to the country. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord appeal to the restrictive laws as necessary to the prosperity of the Irish people. He believed, on the contrary, that the repeal of those laws would benefit Ireland, and lead the Irish farmers to pay more attention than hitherto to the right cultivation of the soil. The climate of Ireland was not favourable to the growth of corn; and the farmer, therefore, should not depend on corn for the payment of his rent, but on the rearing of poultry, pigs, and cattle, for which the country and climate were much better adapted. The noble Lord was treading on exceedingly tender ground when he taunted Members with having changed their opinions. Why, the noble Lord himself was once a strong unflinching supporter of the Whig party in
132
that House; and, recollecting his own change, the noble Lord should be the last man to give them lectures on political consistency. Such charges came from him with exceeding bad grace; and people would be apt to ask, was this the immutable and unchangeable and unchanged man, who so long followed the Ministry of Lord Grey, and who now taunted those to whose opinions he was then opposed? He held that it was the highest honour to a man to come frankly down and state his opinions when they underwent a change. The noble Lord denied the great extent of the present calamity in Ireland. Now, he could tell the noble Lord that there had been thirteen meetings of the nobility, gentry, and land proprietors of all classes in Ireland, Whigs, Tories, Roman Catholics, and Protestant clergy, all uniting to endeavour to meet the present emergency, and who had subscribed thousands of pounds towards that object. They had also called upon Government to bring food into the market for the relief of the people. The noble Lord said Government ought to go into the market and buy food, thus raising the markets on the ordinary purchasers. A more ridiculous notion, with all deference to the noble Lord, he had never heard mooted in that House. To speak of benefiting the Irish people by sending Government Commissioners into the market to buy up provisions for the use of the people, was the most extravagant proposal he had ever listened to. He had thought the natural course for Government to pursue, in order to reduce the markets, was to procure food from other countries as remote as possible, and send it from time to time into the market to keep the price of provisions moderate. This the Government had done to some extent; and he regretted they had not done so to a greater extent, and at an earlier period. He could assure the noble Lord that the famine in Ireland was no mockery, no delusion. He had not the slightest doubt that, were it not for the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government, instead of having oatmeal at 18 l. a ton in the south of Ireland, it would have been nearly 30 l. a ton; and he might state that 18 l. was about one-third more than the usual price. The noble Lord, however, said there was no actual distress, but in a very trifling degree. Now, he could state from his own knowledge and observation as to the state of four counties, on the borders of which he lived,

133
that very nearly one-half of the poor labourers were living on the charity of other labourers and farmers; and that were it not for that charity so prominent in the Irish character, there would be thousands of the poor dying from starvation. But the farmers and other classes found it their duty, as well as their interest, to give support to the famishing poor in the districts around them. But the present scarcity was greater than any that had previously been known, and the farmer himself was pinched; and he was afraid the farmer could not render the aid to the poor he had been accustomed formerly to render. The landlords in his neighbourhood had not shrunk from their duty on this occasion. The Marquess of Waterford had been one of the first to come forward; and he employed a great number of additional hands in draining. Lord Stuart de Decies, and other landed gentlemen about his neighbourhood, had acted in the same way. With regard to the price of provisions, he could say, that about Waterford the measure of potatoes called a stone, which usually sold at this season of the year for 3d., was now selling at 7½d. or 8d.—more than double the price they had been selling for at any period within the last six years. That was the case also in the neighbouring counties. As to the destitution, he could mention a mountain district, seventeen miles long by from four to seven broad, containing a population of from 12,000 to 15,000, in which there were not above 100 families that had the means of subsistence from day to day. Now, in this case, it was quite impossible that the landlord could step in. To maintain the people in that case would require double or triple the landlord's income. Besides, these people were squatters, and had no legal claim on the estate. With respect to the effect of the measures of Government on the condition of the Irish people, it was only that morning that he had read of the arrival at Liverpool of two or three American vessels laden with precisely the kind of food that was wanted in Ireland—namely, maize and Indian flour, and other articles of cheap food. Would that importation have taken place Were it not for the knowledge of what was doing in the House of Commons? Did not the noble Lord know that these cargoes must have an important influence on the price of food in Ireland? The noble Lord could not but know it, for everybody must know it. Accordingly the people of Ireland had no
134
sympathy with the present Corn Laws. He could not recollect that more than one public meeting had been called in Ireland to support them; and not more than three petitions in favour of them had been presented from that country. In the conviction that this measure would ultimately tend to improve the condition both of landlords and tenants, and also to ameliorate the relations between them, he should give his most cordial support to the Government on this occassion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not rise to pursue the debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord; he would only say with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that it was satisfactory to him to hear so strong a confirmation of the opinion entertained by the Government of the real state of Ireland at the present moment; and he thought the hon. Baronet's statement could not but have its influence on those who doubted what the real state of that country was. He wished merely to say one word respecting the Motion of the noble Lord, to which he should confine himself entirely. He thought the noble Lord could hardly be aware of the effect of leaving out the word "oats" from the clause. The real effect of that Motion would be, that after the 1st of February, 1849, oats, instead of paying a 1s. duty, as proposed by the Bill, would be admitted without paying any duty at all. The House would observe that in lieu of the duties at present payable on all corn, grain, meal, and flour imported into the United Kingdom, the duties set forth in the schedule of the Bill were to be paid up to the 1st of February, 1849; but the Bill went on to provide what the duties should be after that date; viz., 1s. upon all wheat, barley, bear, or bigg, oats, rye, peas, and beans, for every quarter. In lieu, however, of that duty the noble Lord proposed nothing; therefore the effect of the Motion would be that the duty on oats would be lost altogether, and that oats would be admitted without paying any duty. Probably the noble Lord did not contemplate this effect of his Motion: and thinking so, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), after consultation with the best authorities, had felt it his duty to state what would be the real effect of the alteration, if carried, in order that the time of the House might not be wasted in a fruitless discussion. Under these circumstances he thought it better to abstain from entering into the

135
argument upon which the noble Lord founded his Motion.
LORD G. BENTINCKwas not quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in his construction of the Bill. The Bill was not a Bill to repeal the Statute of the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 14—the present Corn Law, and consequently after the passing of this Bill, that statute would remain in force, with the exception of such parts of it as were specifically repealed by this Bill. In the preamble of the Bill there was nothing that went to state that all the existing duties should be repealed. The preamble merely stated that "from and after the passing of the Act in lieu of the duties now payable upon the entry for home consumption, &c., of corn, grain, meal and flour, there shall be levied and paid, &c., on all corn, grain, meal and flour, already or hereafter to be imported, &c., the duties set forth in the schedule of this Act annexed," until the 1st of February, 1849. There was nothing in that to show that the Bill was to repeal the existing duties; but as the point was a doubtful one, he had asked the opinion of the learned Attorney General, which he had understood to be in his favour. But perhaps the learned Gentleman would state what was his opinion as to the proper construction of the Bill. He (Lord G. Bentinck) must say he thought that where several articles were enumerated on which the duty was to be altered as in this Bill, an article which was not enumerated must be held not to be affected by the Bill in which such enumeration occurred.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought it was rather hard that his noble Friend had brought forward his opinion, because his noble Friend, a short time ago, had come and sat by him, and said that he (Lord G. Bentinck) had put a construction on the Bill in which some learned Friends of his differed from him, and that he should be glad to find that he was the better lawyer, and his noble Friend then mentioned his construction of the words; but he (the Attorney General) said that it was a nice question, and that he should not presume to give an opinion upon it. He did not, however, express any doubt, or say anything that could reasonably be brought forward as an opinion on the present occasion. But he must say now, that his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) appeared to him to have stated the matter so clearly, that it did not require the opinion of a lawyer to make it more manifest. It was not ne-
136
cessary to have a repealing Act in order to substitute one duty for another; but if there was a subsequent Act, in the affirmative, which was inconsistent with a prior Act, that necessarily repealed the prior Act, so far as it was inconsistent with it. Now, the words of this clause were, "That from and after the passing of this Act, in lieu of the duties now payable upon the entry for home consumption, &c., of corn, grain, meal, and flour, there shall be levied and paid, &c. on all corn, grain, meal, and flour, already or to be imported, &c., the duties set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed," &c.; and that oats were intended to be comprehended within these general terms was perfectly clear, because in the schedule was a distinct head for oats. Therefore it was perfectly clear that oats were included in the general words—"all corn, grain, meal, and flour." Then as there were certain duties to be substituted on all the articles included in this general description, the duties, namely, that were specified in the schedule, up to the 1st day of February, 1849, and from and after that day certain other duties in the clause afterwards specified were to be paid, and when they came to the enumeration of such duties, the article oats was to be omitted, it would follow that no duty would be payable on oats at all. On the whole, therefore, he was perfectly convinced that there was no difficulty about the matter; but that on his noble Friend striking out of the Bill the word "oats," no duty on oats would be payable.
CAPTAIN LAYARDsaid, as the noble Lord had turned out the best free trader of all, he should certainly give the noble Lord his support if he went to a division.
MR. J. S. STUARTwas not quite sure that he understood the position of the present question. He understood that the first clause, which granted that up to the 1st of February, 1849, the duties on corn aud grain should be those specified in the schedule, had received the sanction of the Committee.
The CHAIRMAN: The question now before the Committee is, that in the fourth line of the first clause, the word "oats" stand part of the Bill.
MR. BORTHWICKapprehended, that if after the words "corn and grain," in the preamble of the Act, the words "excepting oats" had been inserted, the Motion of his noble Friend would have had the effect without question of retaining the existing duty on oats. The question, then,

137
was, whether that portion of the clause which had already passed the Committee had the effect of repealing the duty on oats. If the duty had been repealed by that part of the clause, then the opinion of his noble Friend was right. He should like to hear the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General as to whether this was not the case. Again, the clause provided that instead of the duties now levied on all corn, grain, meal, and flour, certain other duties "hereinafter specified," should be levied; and if from the hereinafter specification they omitted oats, he could not see how it could be argued that oats were free from all duty.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould not say that the clause, if amended in the way proposed, would expressly relieve oats of all duties; but the words of the clause showed a manifest intention to substitute different duties for the duties at present existing on all corn and grain; and, supposing that no different duties were substituted on oats, the effect would virtually be to repeal all former duties on that article, although not in express terms repealed.
Amendment withdrawn.
Remainder of the clause agreed to. On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
LORD G. BENTINCKmoved that it be omitted.
MR. FINCHconceived that anything which affected the sister country and her prosperity, and the maintenance of the Union between the two countries, was one of the most important subjects that could occupy the attention of the British Senate. It appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford had rather confirmed the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, than weakened them. He seemed to think that Ireland's prosperity was involved in doing away with a great portion of the corn agriculture of the country. If he conceived that Her Majesty's Ministers entertained this notion, and were desirous to see Ireland cease to be the granary of the United Kingdom, then he should consider the hon. Member would be a very useful ally to Her Majesty's Government. But it appeared that the view taken of Ireland's prosperity by the hon. Member and Her Majesty's Government singularly differed; for the latter, as well as all true political economists, considered it would be in the highest degree detrimental, not only to this, but also to the
138
sister country, if such a change took place in her corn agriculture as that this country would cease to derive from her those large supplies of corn at present received, and to that extent make us dependent upon foreign countries. If they passed the measure now before the House, they would, to use the words of Mr. Grattan, sever the strongest link of the Union between the two countries. Indeed, it would be a strong argument in favour of Repeal. A great deal had been said about the justice of the measure. But he would ask, where would be the justice of depriving 550,000 poor Irish tenants of protection, and involving them in ruin? It was very well for a noble Lord having a princely fortune to say, that persons of small capital ought never to be farmers. Here, however, they had 550,000 tenant-farmers with small capitals; and according to the view of the matter taken by the noble Lord to whom he had alluded, they ought to be swept away. Why, Parliament after Parliament, and Ministry after Ministry, had assured them, that in order to get a good supply of corn for England, they should have ample protection; and on the strength of that promise they had invested their all in agriculture, and now, without a moment's notice, they were threatened with annihilation. He contended, that if protection was taken away, the farmers, particularly those of Ireland, ought to be relieved from the malt tax, county rates, poor rates, and other taxes, the justice of abolishing which, on a former occasion, the right hon. Baronet had admitted. They were told that the way to meet foreign competition was by agricultural improvement. This showed how little inquiry into the subject had been made by those who made such a statement: to carry out the improvement would not take a less sum than 300,000,000 l. In the first place it was said there should be a consolidation of the small farms into the larger ones. Then came the draining of land, and then there was a certain expense for manure, and other incidental charges. The expense of tile draining amounted to not less than 4l. per acre; and there were in England and Wales 31,000,000 acres of cultivated land; in Scotland, 9,000,000 acres; making a total of 40,000,000 acres. Striking off 10,000,000 acres already drained, left 30,000,000 acres at 4l., which made the total expense 120,000,000 l. The improvements consequent upon the consolidation of small farms would not cost less than 6,000 l. for every farm of a rental of 1,000 l.

139
per annum. The total landed rental of the United Kingdom was, he believed, 45,000,000 l., so that here would be an expense of 270,000,000 l., making, in all, 390,000,000 l.; and he would venture to say, that if the project of the free traders for the improvement of agriculture were carried out, it would not cost a less sum than 300,000,000 l. He should give his support to the Motion of the noble Lord.
MR. O. GOREsaid, that the question before the House was one of so much importance to the commercial interests of the country, that he could not allow it to pass without making a few observations. He considered it to be a measure of greater moment than any that had been brought before the Legislature for the forty years he had had a seat in that House; and he looked upon it as the era from which they might date the decline of this great Empire. The effect would be ruinous to Ireland, would tend to the loss of their Colonies, and prove detrimental to their shipping interests. In this country it was considered good farming to take three crops of oats from newly reclaimed land; but in Ireland they took no less than ten crops from it. If he could prove that this measure would reduce the price of oats, then he thought he should have shown that it would effectually discourage the reclamation of waste lands. His noble Friend the Member for Lynn had already proved this in an admirable manner—such, indeed, as his proofs generally were; but he would submit other arguments; and first, he would quote the testimony of no less a person than the present Colonial Secretary (Mr. Gladstone), who said, in 1842, in the discussion upon the Tariff, that he could procure annually from the Continent 793,000 quarters of oats at 11 s. 3d. per quarter. To this 5s. must be added for freightage, which the right hon. Gentleman said would make the price of continental oats in this country at something like 16 s. per quarter. Now, let them see what would be done in Ireland. In that country oats were sold by the barrel of 196 lbs.; so that it would take a barrel and three-quarters to make one quarter. Oats were now selling there at from 13 s. to 14 s. the barrel; so that, if they deducted from this price 5 per cent for kiln-drying, the barrel of Irish oats must, in competition with foreign oats, be sold for one-half of its present price. He could very well understand the Repealers supporting this measure (it would be enough to make him one if he had not English
140
property); but he could by no means perceive how Irish Members, who were anxious for the connexion of the two countries, could support these commercial innovations. If an Irish Parliament were sitting in College Green, and such a measure was recommended by the English Parliament, it would be indignantly scouted as a grievous attempt to injure their country. The Repealers would say, "You see what your friends in England do for you." To say that this measure would benefit Ireland, was nothing short of downright humbug—a gross and palpable delusion. But he would quote a still higher authority than Mr. Gladstone, or than any of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench—Mr. Pitt. What did Mr. Pitt say?—
"They (meaning the Irish) have no manufactures but one—namely, their agriculture; and the Irish agriculturists must be protected. Ireland must fall, and be a clog on this country, if her agriculture ceased to receive support."
There was no statesman of any renown who advocated such a system. The free-trade doctrines were quite new—they were innovations, of which, God knew, he had seen enough. There was hardly any part of the Constitution that had not been innovated—the Legislature had been remodelled—the Church had been encroached upon; but, thank God! the throne, which was filled by the most amiable and exalted of Her sex, was yet saved.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, it was a strange way of furthering the interests of Ireland to advocate a measure which must infallibly reduce the price of her produce. Nothing was more likely to cause distress there than bringing its grain into competition with that of the foreigner, who could grow it at half the cost. It was said that protection had done nothing for Ireland; but, let it be recollected, that forty years ago Ireland imported corn for her own support. Within the last four years Ireland exported no less than 6,000,000 quarters of oats into this country, and, in the same period, 5,000,000 of cwt. of oatmeal. He could very well understand how Repealers would be anxious for the measure; but he could not conceive how a Minister of the Crown, who had been placed in his high position to preserve the connection between the two countries, could advocate a measure which tended to the dismemberment of Ireland.—Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Report to be received.
The House resumed.
House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Burghs (Scotland).
3a. and passed. Railway Companies Dissolution; Exchequer Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Hereford, from Clun, and several other places, against the proposed Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.—From the Spalding and Louth Unions, for the Adoption of a Measure making the Landlords of Cottages where the Rents are under £6 liable to the Poor Rates.—By the Duke of Cleveland, from the Governors of Christ's Hospital, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—By Lord Campbell, from Lord Provost, Magistrates, and others, of Edinburgh, in favour of the Burghs (Scotland) Bill.—From Members of the Blairgowrie Congregation of the Free Church of Scotland, Perth, and from Earl's Colne, for the Better Observance of, and for the Prevention of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on, the Sabbath.

THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE—PENSIONS TO VISCOUNT HARDINGE AND LORD GOUGH.
The Order of the Day that Her Majesty's most Gracious Message should be considered, read.
The EARL of RIPON: My Lords, I am about to perform a duty which is no less gratifying to myself, than I hope it will be to your Lordships. It will not, however, be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any length upon the subject I am about to mention; because, in the course of the present Session, upon no less than two occasions, I have been called upon to detail to your Lordships the eminent services of the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief in India. I then thought it my duty to state to your Lordships the circumstances under which those glorious victories had been recently achieved by the British arms in that part of the world; and your Lordships were pleased to receive the statements I made, and the Motions with which I concluded, with such cordial unanimity, that it would be an idle waste of time were I to travel over the same ground upon this occasion. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will have felt that, when Her Majesty was pleased to raise to the honour of the Peerage those two distinguished individuals, it was upon every account a most appropriate exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It was one which it was as natural for Her Majesty to grant, as it must have been gratifying to those individuals to receive; and I am quite certain that you will feel it to be not less an honour conferred upon yourselves than it is upon the individuals to whom I have alluded, to have seats in this House of Parliament. I venture, there-

95
fore, to presume that, in submitting the Motion for an Address to Her Majesty with which I shall conclude, your Lordships will be heartily inclined to concur in it. That Address will be to the effect that your Lordships will concur in taking measures for carrying into effect the object Her Majesty states in Her Message She has in view in recommending Viscount Hardinge and Lord Gough to your consideration. But, my Lords, Her Majesty in that Message refers not merely to the brilliant services which it has fallen to the lot of these two gallant men recently to perform, but She adverts also, amongst the motives which induced Her to bring this subject by Message under your consideration, to other and earlier services which it has been in their power to render to their country; and I think it will be right that I should shortly advert to those earlier services, in order to show to your Lordships that the merits of these two distinguished officers are not confined to their late efforts, but that they have been in both cases manifested in a long career of noble, gallant, and successful exertions in the profession to which they belong. My Lords, neither of these gallant officers is young—the younger of them has been forty-two years in Her Majesty's army—I refer to Viscount Hardinge. He entered that service at a very early period of life—at the commencement of the present century; he joined his regiment before he was fifteen years of age; he joined it in Canada, and came home a lieutenant after the peace of Amiens, when so large a portion of the troops who were then on foreign service returned to this country. But he was not desirous of wasting his time in idleness, or the enjoyment of the comforts of home; and he therefore took advantage of the institution which is now the Military College at Sandhurst, for the purpose of there pursuing that scientific course of study which is so advantageous to those who wish to acquire all that is necessary for efficiency in the service, and which has sent forth to the army such a number of distinguished individuals. In 1807, I think it was, he was appointed to the staff of the corps commanded by Sir Brent Spencer, which was then destined for foreign service; but the destination of that corps was afterwards changed, and it was sent to Portugal, to serve under my noble Friend the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Wellington), and Lord Hardinge was present as a young lieutenant, I believe, in the first two battles fought in the
96
Peninsula, at the commencement of that campaign, the memory of which will never expire in this country. He was present at the battle of Vimiera, and there he received his first wound; for he has had the misfortune—I will not say misfortune, for that would seem to be an inappropriate term—but it has been his fortune to be wounded three times. However, at Vimiera, he received his first wound; but he continued with the army in its inarch into Spain under Sir John Moore, who was so struck with his bravery and talents as a young officer, that he placed him on his own staff; and he was one of those who had the melancholy task of witnessing the expiring breath of that gallant and distinguished commander. He came home with that army when it returned; but no sooner were reinforcements sent out, and further military operations contemplated in the Peninsula, than he made application to accompany them. He was then appointed Assistant Quartermaster General of the Portuguese army under Field Marshal Beresford; and no doubt he was selected for that duty on account of the peculiar skill he had displayed in the management and formation of troops; and he continued in that situation for the greater part of the remaining campaign in that country. He was present, I think, in almost every battle that was fought; his name was mentioned in several, and he did his duty in all. He was present at the battles of Vimiera and Corunna: at the passage of the Douro; at the battle of Busaco; and at all the operations connected with the defence of the lines of Torres Vedras; and next at the famous battle of Albuera, one of the most remarkable specimens, I think, of gallantry and success that has ever been exhibited. He was colonel at that time, I believe; but whatever his rank was, high or low, the share he had personally in directing some of the operations in the course of that battle can never be forgotten by those who witnessed them, or by the army to whose victory he so essentially contributed. He was present at both the first two sieges of Badajoz, and at the siege and capture of Ciudad Rodrigo; he was also present at the third siege of Badajoz; at the battle of Salamanca; at the battle of Vittoria, where he was severely wounded; and at the battle of the Pyrenees, that desperate affair, which lasted no less than three days, and where there was more or less of the variety of fortune, but which ended in a victory over one of the most

97
gallant and distinguished officers of the French army, Marshal Soult. He was afterwards at the passage of the Nivelle, at the battle of the Nive, and at Orthez. In every one of those actions he bore a part; and the situation he held enabled him to acquire more knowledge of the art of war upon a large scale than falls to the lot generally of the regimental officer; for the duties he has to perform are generally confined to the regiment to which he is attached; and I am bound to presume at least that it was the knowledge of his capacity for the discharge of duties of that kind that induced my noble Friend, the noble Duke, in 1815, to attach Colonel Hardinge to Marshal Blucher's army; and I recollect that, in one of those letters, which, happily for the honour of this country, for the benefit of future history, and for the eternal renown of the author of them, have been preserved, my noble Friend, the noble Duke points out Colonel Hardinge to Marshal Blucher, and says, "I send him to you, and he has my entire confidence." Now, my Lords, did any man ever acquire the confidence of that noble Duke without deserving it? And I think there cannot be a greater proof of the talents Lord Hardinge displayed in whatever situation he was placed, than the fact of his being selected by the noble Duke, and enjoying all his confidence to fulfil a most important duty at a most critical period—for it was just before the battle of Waterloo, upon which the fate of all Europe depended. In the execution of that duty with Marshal Blucher, he was present at the battle of Ligny; and there he was for the third time severely wounded. He lost his left hand, which rendered a most painful operation necessary; but he did not abstain from doing his duty in spite of that. I believe he was present at the battle of Waterloo, or some part of it, although he had been under the necessity of undergoing that most painful operation, which to a less ardent spirit would have prevented his taking a share in those operations. My Lords, he has received as a reward for those services, nine medals, one cross, and five clasps. They were given for his service at Badajoz, Albuera, Busaco, Salamanca, Vittoria, the Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive, Orthez, and last, though not least, Waterloo. Now, I think it may fairly be presumed that a man who has been presented with these nine medals, for services in nine battles which are connected with the history of the last war in Europe,
98
is a man whom we may safely deem to be deserving of the notice which his Sovereign has taken of him, and of the compliment which your Lordships have been called upon to pay him, in conferring upon him the rewards which have been proposed. I do not know, my Lords, that it is necessary for me to say more with respect to Viscount Hardinge; for I am addressing those who do not require to be instructed, but who know as well as I do what his merits are. With respect to Lord Gough, my Lords, he also is an officer whose whole life has been passed in the service of his country. He has been fifty-two years in the army. In the earlier part of his career he was employed in foreign service; he was in a great variety of instances exposed like others to the chances of war; and always performed his duty so as to gain the approbation of the officers under whom he served. In 1806 he joined the army in the Peninsula with his regiment, the 87th, and served with that regiment through the whole of that campaign; and he was present in command of that regiment at Salamanca, Barossa, Vittoria, and Nivelle. He was present also at the siege of Cadiz, and the siege of Xarifa. At the battle of Talavera, his horse was shot under him, and he himself was afterwards severely wounded in the side. At Nivelle he was severely wounded for the third time. It has been his lot, as well as Lord Hardinge's, to suffer three times by severe wounds. He afterwards commanded the land forces in China, and, as your Lordships are well aware, your Lordships were pleased to vote him your thanks, within the last three or four years, for the services he performed; and no doubt those thanks were richly deserved. He is now colonel of that regiment with which he served in the Peninsula; and that regiment, my Lords, is an Irish regiment, and Lord Gough is an Irishman, worthy of Ireland, because whatever differences there may be amongst that gallant and high-spirited people, I believe there is no instance on record in which, in the service of their country, by land or sea, these differences have ever produced the slightest relaxation of their exertions, or impaired the efficiency of them. The sound of the trumpet and the roll of the drum appear to silence all differences whatever; and they have but one contest then, and that is who shall best do the duty entrusted to them. Lord Gough is an officer, as I have stated, of long service—of gallant and distinguished

99
merits, and he is a fine old gentleman. [Laughter.] Your Lordships may smile; but I do not think that that characteristic of an Irish soldier is deserving of a smile, except of approbation. He is a man beloved by the troops he commands, and by all the officers who serve under him; and I will mention a circumstance which occurred, when it was proposed to grant him the honour of the Peerage, which is strongly characteristic of the old Irish gentleman. When one of his friends—I believe it was his son—was asked what title Sir H. Gough would have, he said, "My father was always called 'Old Gough,' and I do not think he would like to go to his grave under any other name." That is a fact which makes me think cheeringly of the man; and although it has nothing to do with the high honour he has attained, yet I do not think it misplaced to allude to that little circumstance. My Lords, Her Majesty in this Message invites your Lordships to co-operate with the other House of Parliament, in making some provision for these two distinguished individuals. It is not for me to state to your Lordships what the precise nature of that provision may be: originating as it does in the other House of Parliament, it will doubtless find its way here; but I do wish to state to your Lordships that the Court of Directors of the East India Company, under whom Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough immediately serve, have felt it to be their duty to take such steps as are in their power for granting a pension to Lord Hardinge for life, and one also to Lord Gough; and I am bound to say, in justice to the East India Company, that it was their own spontaneous act. I might, recollecting what had been done in other cases of a similar kind, have felt it was probable, and I did so feel, that the same course would be pursued in the present instance; but I said not one word directly or indirectly to them upon the subject; the liberality they are prepared to show is entirely their own spontaneous act, and is, I think, an honour to them, as it is to those upon whom their liberality is bestowed. Those acts on the part of the Directors of the East India Company cannot, according to the law which regulates their proceedings, take effect immediately; but after having been agreed to by the Court of Directors, must be brought forward by the Directors at the Court of Proprietors, and a certain time must elapse between sending it there and their entering into consideration of it.
100
Still there can be no doubt that the Court of Proprietors, who are never wanting in liberality upon occasions of this kind, will cheerfully and readily concur in what is proposed by the Court of Directors. That, however, is a circumstance which does not render it fitting that we should abstain, whenever the opportunity arises, from recording our sense of the services of those officers; and, therefore, all branches of the Legislature will have done their duty, and the East India Company will have done theirs; and I am sure there can be but one feeling in the minds of these two distinguished officers, of gratitude for the confidence, the approbation, and the liberality of Parliament. The noble Earl then moved the following Addresses:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most Gracious Message, informing this House 'That Her Majesty, taking into Consideration the important Services rendered by Henry Viscount Hardinge, a Lieutenant General in. Her Majesty's Army, and the Governor General of India, in the course of the recent Hostilities which have taken place on the Banks of the Sutlej and in the Punjaub, is desirous to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour, for these and other distinguished Merits, upon the said Henry Viscount Hardinge, and the Two next surviving Heirs Male of the Body of the said Henry Viscount Hardinge,' and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in such Measures as may be necessary for the Accomplishment of this important Purpose."
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most Gracious Message, informing this House, 'That Her Majesty, taking into Consideration the great and brilliant Services performed by Hugh Lord Gough, a Lieutenant General in Her Majesty's Army, Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's and the East India Company's Forces in India, in the course of the recent Hostilities which have taken place on the Banks of the Sutlej and in the Punjaub, is desirous to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour for these and other distinguished Merits, upon the said Hugh Lord Gough, and the Two next surviving Heirs Male of the Body of the said Hugh Lord Gough,' and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in such Measures as may be necessary for the Accomplishment of this important Purpose."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to say a very few words upon this subject. I have already had the opportunity of expressing the deep sense which I entertain of the eminent services and heroic actions of both the individuals who are the subjects of this Message; and I have the satisfaction to be made aware that, in expressing that sense, I was only expressing the unanimous feeling of this House; and, my Lords, I feel now, that it

101
would be to run the risk of being wearisome to your Lordships, if, indeed, any sense of weariness could be entertained in connexion with a consideration so conducive to the glory and the future prosperity of this country, were I now to repeat all that I then felt, and which I still continue to feel, upon the subject. My noble Friend who has moved the Address in answer to this Message, has most fully and particularly, and I must say, most naturally, taken this opportunity of adverting, not only to those great events which are immediately present to your Lordships' recollection, and have recently demanded your attention, but he has also taken this opportunity of adverting in detail to that series of actions which in both the cases now before your Lordships have marked from the earliest dawn of their career the life and conduct of these two eminent individuals. It is the fortune of the great majority of those who are engaged in public life, whether military or civil, that it is only at the close of their career, and when death has put an end to their efforts, that the public are excited to a general review of their past conduct, and are enabled justly to appreciate the whole of their career, and to weigh and pronounce upon the qualities and extent of the merits they have displayed. But some are so fortunate that, as in the present case, it happens that some great and brilliant achievement is performed, which throws a light so intense, so vivid, and so brilliant, that it is at once reflected back upon the whole of the past career of the individual by whom it is accomplished, and that the more recent transactions are viewed only as the crowning halo of past glory, and as placing the capital on the summit of the column. Such is the case in the present instances; and we are enabled to feel not only that we are admitting among us persons whose recently earned honours no one will be found to depreciate, but persons who, through a long course of usefulness, and in many distinguished services, have never ceased to prove their title to the dignity they have ultimately attained. My Lords, I say, with the fullest confidence that I am speaking the sentiments of all your Lordships, that at no time has this House by Her Majesty's command, ever opened its doors to two more noble spirits, or two more welcome guests. Having said that, I can add nothing to what my noble Friend has stated; but as it is notorious, and as it has been stated by my noble Friend, that the Mes-
102
sage has been presented with the view of calling for your Lordships' concurrence in proceedings which it is expected and hoped will take place in the other House of Parliament, for the particular purpose of conferring pecuniary rewards upon these two eminent persons, I wish to take this opportunity of stating, that, concurring in the Message in this respect, I do not do so to confer any pecuniary reward for exclusively military services; I do so because, in consequence of the advice of Her servants, Her Majesty having been led to promote these two eminent individuals to the Peerage, I think it fitting that this grant should be made to enable them to sustain the dignity which is their reward. I think it is at all times necessary that when a Peerage has been conferred for services, care should be taken by Her Majesty's advisers that the persons so elevated should be able to maintain themselves in the rank in which they are placed. The rank and situation thus given absolutely disqualifies the heirs of these persons from seeking an honest and honourable livelihood in many of the various professions in this country which are open to others; and therefore that it is more especially incumbent on Parliament to take care, as far as they can, that their independence should be preserved, and that there should be provided not only the honour, but such a fortune as is necessary to secure that independence. It is not for me, however, to condemn or to object to the act of liberality of Her Majesty's Government; it should be in their discretion to grant any rewards of this sort; and it is a discretion which ought not in such instances to be exercised by either House of Parliament. I neither mean to call for its exercise or to object to it, but wish to place the vote I am about to give, on the Answer to this Message upon the consideration that the great honour of the Peerage having been conferred, it is in all cases incumbent on Parliament and upon each House to take care that it should be conferred on individuals whose independence should be perfectly secured, and who should be, as to circumstances, on a footing of equality with the great body of your Lordships. My Lords, I will add no more, save that I most cordially concur in the Address which my noble Friend has moved, and which will, I am sure, meet with our unanimous concurrence.
The DUKE of CAMBRIDGEwished to occupy the attention of their Lordships for a few moments. He was the more desirous

103
to do so, because, on the former occasion, when the names of these gallant Officers had been mentioned, so many noble Lords had spoken in praise of them, that he did not wish to intrude upon their time by any observations of his own. At that moment he could not, however, refrain from expressing briefly, and it might be inefficiently, his sentiments. He wished to say that he, as an individual, felt proud to belong to the army. He felt on this occasion, as he was sure every soldier must feel—he felt most proud to belong to an army like that in the East Indies—an army that had acted so gloriously; and he was sure that there was no person, from the humblest ensign to the field marshal, like himself, who must not be proud to belong to the same army. He was sure these events must give great satisfaction to their worthy Commander in Chief (the Duke of Wellington), to witness the conduct of those officers whom he had bred and trained. He wished to say how much he approved of the conduct of those gallant commanders—of Lord Gough and the present Lord Hardinge. He could not refrain from testifying his admiration for the gallantry and bravery shown in these battles, each of which seemed to rise beyond its predecessor in fame, and to entitle them to still greater renown.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I am sure that I only echo the sentiments of all your Lordships when I say, that as the illustrious Prince has so fitly and so well expressed his satisfaction at belonging to an army in which there are such officers and such men; so we may equally congratulate ourselves that we belong to an assembly whose doors are now thrown open to those illustrious warriors; and I trust that nothing I am about to add will be deemed by any possibility to betoken any exception—it is impossible to take any exception—it is impossible to dissent from one word which has been spoken in praise of the gallant officers on whom the Crown has conferred the honour of the Peerage, or to cast a shadow of a shade of doubt on the conduct of the Government or of the House in approving of the vote about to be passed in accordance with the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government. My gratitude is great towards these men, founded partly on their great services in the field, and partly on the skilful and judicious operations of the Governor General before the army took the field; but above all, for that happy termination of that gallantry and
104
success by which an end, as we may well hope, has been finally put to a war which is in itself a great expense, which was of some duration, which has been attended with a great loss of precious blood, and which at one moment might have created alarm in the country, if indeed we could feel any uncertainty or alarm when our interests were entrusted to such soldiers as our Indian army, and to such officers as Hardinge and Gough. But I must say one word with reference to names which are almost equally famous, but which are not now before us. I feel, indeed, the infinite delicacy of any allusion to such a subject. No one can be more aware of the constitutional doctrine and of the rule, which is a rule of expediency, that all honours conferred for services ought to proceed solely upon suggestion from the Crown; yet, when we are congratulating ourselves that the temple of honour has been opened speedily and without delay to the gallant men to whom this country and the whole Empire owe a debt of gratitude which honours and emoluments could never repay, we may regret that the doors of the temple of honour are not also open to others who have already entered the temple of fame; and of whom upon this occasion, my Lords, it may be said as it was said of the absent busts of Brutus that they shine the more, quo minus eorum imagines desunt. His allusion, however, had particular reference to an individual (Sir Charles Napier), one of the most gallant of that heroic band, of those military chiefs, whose deeds were the subject of a nation's gratitude. To his course and valour testimony was not only borne by the Governor General, but by the illustrious Duke under whom he, as well as Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, were trained and disciplined to war. He named him not altogether for his great achievements, but to show that he was in the recollection of that House, as he was also in the recollection of the country, although, doubtless, for wise and fit reasons, his name was not included in the Message from the Crown.
LORD GLENELGsaid, that as he had not before given expression to his opinions on this subject, he could not now content himself with a silent vote. The time which had intervened since this subject was under the consideration of the House, was so far advantageous that we could now regard it with more calmness than was possible in the excitement and exultation of the first intelligence; and we might now, in some

105
sense judge as posterity could judge. After the most dispassionate contemplation of the events in question, he joined in the opinion pronounced not only by this country, but by all Europe—for it gave a character to this age, that throughout Europe there was heard only the voice of generous praise and high-minded approval of our proceedings; and he ventured to assert that the verdict which all Europe had pronounced would be the verdict of posterity—that the history of the last campaign in India was one of the most splendid recorded in the annals of any nation, ancient or modern. In this praise he included, of course, the matchless valour of the troops, and the singular skill of the leaders—he included all the operations of war; but he included also all that preceded and followed the war. He included that forbearance, pushed and nobly pushed to the extreme—a forbearance worthy of a great nation, conscious of its own resources, and anxious only, that if forced into a war, the cause of the quarrel should be so clear that not even envy or slander should be able to breathe a taint on its conduct. Here not a breath had sullied the purity of our motives. He included further the arrangements which followed the termination of the war, which, as far as we were yet enabled to judge, illustrated the moderation and humanity no less than the wisdom of the Governor General. He must call this a most accomplished triumph. Here, crowded and condensed into one campaign, was a series of brilliant victories, each of which singly would have crowned gloriously a separate campaign. Such was the incomparable energy of the commanders—such the irresistible courage of the troops. We had scarcely heard of the first breaking out of the war, and were awaiting the next tidings—not indeed with doubt as to the final result, but with some anxiety as to intermediate events, when victory followed victory with a rapidity perfectly astounding; and we find the forces of the enemy dissipated, his provinces subdued, and the Governor General dictating terms of peace in his capital. This is more like a visitation of nature, than one of the ordinary processes of human action. The bolt instantaneously follows the flash. The tempest sweeps by—it performs its destined work of chastisement, and is past; and all again is tranquil and serene. For these great results our thanks are due, first indeed to that Providence whose superintending care our warriors acknowledged in the very flush of victory; but next to our
106
gallant army and its illustrious leaders. The moral effect of the late campaign could not be exaggerated. It had been felt throughout the civilized world, and would be felt through many succeeding generations. In the midst of peace, and after thirty years of repose, we had been once more roused to war; and though we had long enjoyed opulence, and luxury, and ease, we were found to be still the nation which former exploits had shown us to be, and our soldiers were still the same as all experience had proved them at Salamanca, at Waterloo, and at Blenheim. Did they not owe their thanks, then, to those by whom such results had been accomplished? The nation had not been slow to pay all honour to those gallant men; and their Lordships would be eager to join in this vote of approbation. There was one circumstance which redounded highly to the honour of the army in all its gradations, especially of all the officers; and, of course, of the highest officers—that in the course of this bloody campaign, and in the midst of these bloody victories, there had not been one act of cruelty or any wanton aggravation of the calamities of war; that not one drop of blood had been shed more than the exigency required. There seems to have been but one feeling among all classes—a reluctance to engage in war; and, being engaged in it, an anxiety to close it with honour, and to heal the wounds which it compelled to be opened. With respect to Lord Gough, he could only say that he rejoiced in his success the more because he believed that his private excellencies corresponded with the glory of his military career. With respect to Lord Hardinge, his was a case of accumulated glory resulting from military and civil achievements. During the short period that he had been Governor General of India, he had acquired the confidence of the people of that country. But a short time before he left Bengal for the upper provinces he had issued a proclamation or decree declaring that all offices held by natives should be filled by those best qualified, whatever might be the seminary in which they had been educated. So well did he follow the example set by Lord W. Bentinck, one of the best and wisest governors that India ever possessed; and the effects of that decree could be scarcely appreciated at the moment; it would redound to the credit of the Governor General, and to the benefit of the British nation, and of our Indian empire. His noble and learned Friend had alluded

107
with great delicacy to a topic which it was very difficult to touch—regret that the doors of that House were not opened to other distinguished persons; and he might be allowed to express his regret that an honour yet higher than had been hitherto bestowed, had not been conferred on that distinguished officer whose name during the late campaign could never be separated from those of Hardinge and Gough, he meant Sir H. Smith. His name would always be found forming part of that illustrious triumvirate, who had carried our arms from victory to victory. Sir H. Smith's career has from first to last been brilliant: on every emergency he had shown great qualities. In all parts of the world, he has exhibited the same energy, skill, wisdom, and consummate military talent in a more limited sphere indeed; but throughout in a manner which gave the highest promise of all that has now been so gloriously accomplished. In conclusion, let him say a word with regard to those who had fallen. He thought that some memorial worthy of a great nation should be erected, on which should be inscribed the names of every individual who had perished from the highest to the lowest, including Sir Robert Sale, Sir John M'Caskill, and Major Somerset, whose career had been brought prematurely to a close, when it might well have been hoped that he would have added more lustre to a name already known to history. They ought to have a memorial, to make, as far as they could be made imperishable, the names of these illustrious men, to whom the country was so deeply indebted.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, it would be no enviable position in any one who should excite the displeasure of those who proposed this vote by interrupting in the slightest manner the unanimity with which their Lordships were disposed to accept it. It was not his wish to enter upon any discussion, or to raise any debate on points high for the consideration even of that House. He would therefore pass that question by—he would assume for the moment that they had been engaged in a just cause—he would assume that the war might be justified—he would assume all the facts for the moment, though he did not wish to be considered as admitting them without dispute; "but there was one point to which he washed to direct their Lordships' attention. His noble Friend who sat by him had most truly stated that though he would acquiesce in the vote whatever it might be—and what it was to be was still wrapped in mystery
108
—he did not mean to sanction the giving of a direct pecuniary reward to such persons as might be objects of Her Majesty's favour; but that it being Her Majesty's pleasure to elevate a noble person to a seat in that House, it was the duty of Parliament to take care—so far as pecuniary circumstances would contribute to independence—that these persons should be placed in an independent position. He was sure that there was not one of their Lordships who did not acquiesce in that opinion, and in the statement made by his noble Friend. But he felt strongly impelled to call the attention of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament to this—whether the course which it had been proposed' to them to take—whether voting this pecuniary—reward he could not call it—but whether voting this pecuniary means of maintaining those who were thereafter to be introduced into that House, was wise and dignified for the House to adopt? He wanted to know why they were to stop at the second generation? If those actions were so great as the world agreed in considering them to be, he would say that the nation ought not be niggardly in supporting the honours which were necessarily conferred upon the great men by whom those illustrious actions had been achieved. It was the duty of Parliament to provide for the individuals who were thus to be introduced into that House, not only in the next generation, but in those generations which were to follow. Why stop at the second generation? Was the nation so poor or so ungrateful as not to extend the reward to succeeding generations? Possibly it might be said that, in the course of two generations, fortunes might be amassed by the parties who succeeded to those Peerages sufficient to sustain the dignity of their position. But, with the independent views which a Member of that House and a Peer of Parliament ought to entertain, he did not see how any fortunes could be amassed. In what the House was about to do they should ask themselves this—were they proceeding in a manner calculated to enable the parties interested to sustain, in a becoming manner, the dignity of the Peerage? It appeared to him that there was great want of consideration in the manner of bestowing rewards upon public servants. If it were right to make provision for the first and second generation, why deprive others of that provision? The Peerage was hereditary, and the provision for maintaining its

109
dignity ought to accompany it as long as the Peerage itself lasted. He knew it might be said that the House of Commons would be probably unwilling to saddle posterity with a burden of this kind; but he really thought that, upon reflection, the Crown and both Houses of Parliament would see the expediency and the justice of continuing the provision so long as the Peerage lasted. Few Peerages continued in one family—that was, to the descendants of one man—during more than three generations, and therefore he said that Parliament might be generous without saddling posterity with any additional expense.
Addresses in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message were then agreed to.

COUNTY LIEUTENANCIES IN IRELAND.
LORD CAREWrose to bring forward the two Motions of which he had given notice. The first was for a
"Copy of the Correspondence that took place with the Irish Government relative to the appointment of the Custos Rotulorum of the county of Wexford, on the death of the Marquess of Ely;" and the other was, "That there be laid before this House a Return, showing the several Vacancies which have occurred in the Offices of Lieutenants of Counties, and Custodes Rotulorum in Ireland since the passing of the Act 1 and 2 Will. IV., cap. 17, and the names of the several Persons appointed to fill such Vacancies."
He begged to express his opinion that the noble Lord who had been appointed the Custos Rotulorum of the county of Wexford (the Earl of Courtown) had every claim to any compliment or favour that Her Majesty's Government could confer upon him; and he brought forward the subject not from any feeling of hostility to that noble Lord, or from any personal considerations as far as he was himself individually concerned, but from a feeling of duty towards his brother Lord Lieutenants in Ireland generally. He would beg to remind their Lordships of what had taken place when the Bill had been first introduced during the Government of Earl Grey. On that occasion Viscount Melbourne, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated, in introducing the Bill:—
"The effect of this measure would be to establish in each county in Ireland an officer through whom there should be a settled communication between the Government of Ireland and the magistracy of each county. The want of such a connection occasioned great evils. The Government was compelled to rely upon the statements of a single magistrate, or of a body of magistrates, on matters
110
in which those magistrates themselves were interested, they being persons of whom the Government could know little or nothing. From these circumstances the Government was necessarily liable to fall into great mistakes. He proposed this Bill as one step towards introducing into Ireland the constitutional Government of England, which could never be done without assimilating the institutions of the two countries. Another advantage would result in the formation of the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland would, by this officer, secure the means of informing himself of the qualifications of persons recommended for commissions of the peace. At present a strict inquiry into the state of the magistracy of Ireland was necessary, and this could be better effected by having a channel that could be relied on for obtaining the necessary information, than by the present means."
The noble Viscount afterwards, in the course of the debate, stated, in reply to the Earl of Limerick, that "he begged to remind the noble Earl that it was not proposed to abolish the office of Custos Rotulorum, but to unite that office with the other." The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) supported the Bill on the general principle. The noble Lord proceeded to quote some extracts from the speeches of the Marquess of Londonderry and the Earl of Wicklow on the same occasion, in order to show the general feeling of their Lordships' House at the time the Bill was passed in favour of uniting the two offices of Lord Lieutenants of counties and Custodes Rotulorum. As to himself, he had but to say that no case could be made, or had been attempted to be made against him as a reason why the office of Custos Rotulorum, when vacant, should not have been given to him as Lord Lieutenant of his county. Without a single exception, whenever the office of Custos Rotulorum became vacant, it had been bestowed on the Lord Lieutenant of the county. In the case of Westmeath, when the former Custos Rotulorum died, the Marquess of Westmeath, as Lord Lieutenant of the county, claimed the appointment, not as a favour, but as a right, and in this was supported by all his friends among noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl concluded by repeating that he had no intention of giving any personal offence by his Motion, and that he had brought the subject forward under a feeling that he was bound to defend the privileges of the other Lieutenants of Ireland.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS, after complimenting the noble Lord on the temper in which he had introduced his Motion, proceeded to read the clause of the Act, in order to show that it was distinctly con-

111
templated, in the passing of the measure, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should have the power of appointing to the office of Custos Rotulorum without reference to the county lieutenancy. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was left without any restriction or reservation whatever in regard to this office; and having said so much, he should here protest against the doctrine that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was to search Hansard's Debates on such occasions, in order to know the sentiments expressed by individuals on the discussion of measures. He (the Earl of St. Germans) was not himself a Member of their Lordships' House at the time alluded to; and his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was also not in their Lordships' House, having been at the time absent in a diplomatic situation. His noble Friend was bound to look to the Statute-book as his guide, for there was no other authority on which he could safely rely. If the object was to combine both offices, why were not the Custodes Rotulorum appointed to the Lord Lieutenancies of the counties? They found thirty-two Custodes in Ireland at the time; and he believed he had the authority of the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Wellington), and of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Wicklow), that these individuals were proper persons to be appointed Lord Lieutenants. If the argument of the noble Lord, that Lord Lieutenants should be appointed Custodes, held good, why should it not also apply the other way to the appointment of the Custodes to the office of Lord Lieutenant? He should also remind the House that in the case of the vacancy which occurred in the county of Down, Lord Castlereagh was appointed to the Lord Lieutenancy, though the Marquess of Londonderry was Custos Rotulorum.
LORD STANLEYsaid, there could be no doubt but that, as had been stated by his noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans), the right technically and legally remained with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to appoint to the office of Custos Rotulorum an individual distinct from the lieutenant of the county; but at the same time there could be no doubt that in 1831 or 1832, when this measure had been introduced, the intention of the Government certainly was to assimilate the law as to the local superintendence of counties in Ireland to that of England, by appointing to each county in the former country, as in the latter, a Lord Lieutenant who would be
112
also a Custos Rotulorum. It was felt to be a matter of very great importance that the Government should have some person resident in the country, and of sufficient station to ensure authority, to communicate with on matters connected with the magistracy. He believed noble Lords would recollect that in the selection of these Lord Lieutenants, though as a matter of course every Government would give a preference to individuals agreeing with them in political opinions; yet still, that under the Government of Earl Grey, whenever there were found in any county a person of the highest rank resident in that county, such person was, without reference to political opinions, appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant. [A Noble LORD: Lord Cour-town?] The late Lord Courtown was one for whom he had entertained a sincere personal friendship, and he need hardly say that he felt the same sentiments towards the present Lord; but, although Lord Courtown was a resident proprietor, yet his noble Friend opposite (Lord Carew) was a still larger proprietor, and also resident in the county; and with the exception of one having been at the time a Peer and the other a commoner, there was no possible ground on which Lord Courtown could take precedence of his noble Friend. If Lord Courtown had at the time exercised the office of Custos Rotulorum, he (Lord Stanley) had no doubt that the office of Lord Lieutenant would also have been conferred upon him. But the former office had been at the time held, he believed, by the Marquess of Ely, who was not a resident in the county, and who, besides, had by some arrangement been appointed to the lieutenancy of another county. The course pursued was to give the office of Lord Lieutenant to the person holding the largest stake in the county, or, where there were two competitors of equal rank and station, then to give it to the individual who agreed in political opinions with the Government. It was said it would be a great injustice to ask any individual to resign the office of Custus Rotulorum, and as the two offices were thus in many cases given to different persons, the law should necessarily provide that they could be so disposed of. But at the same time he begged to say that it was the intention of the Government at the time, that they, and he believed all subsequent Governments, should, when the office of Custos Rotulorum fell vacant, confer it on the Lord Lieutenant of the county. He did not think that the case cited by his

113
noble Friend supported his case; because, though when the lieutenancy of the county of Down fell vacant it had not been given to the Marquess of Londonderry as Custos Rotulorum of the county, still it should be recollected that the noble Marquess was already Lord Lieutenant of an English county, and therefore, instead of conferring the office on him, it was given to his son. This was the only exception that could be cited. He did not know whether he was himself in office at the time to which his noble Friend alluded. [Lord CAREW: The 7th of October.] He recollected hearing of it at the time, and it certainly gave him very great regret that the Lord Lieutenant had not acted differently from the course which he had taken towards his noble Friend. He regretted the course which had been pursued: he thought it was an unfortunate one, but at the same time he was sure the Lord Lieutenant could not have intended the slightest censure on the noble Lord. He said so because he felt, with his noble Friend who had just down, and whose experience of Ireland was still later than his own, that there was no one among the Lord Lieutenants of Ireland who had conducted the duties of his situation more satisfactorily to the Government, without reference to any political considerations, or who had acquired more of the confidence of the Government, and of the esteem and respect of the county over which he presided, than his noble Friend opposite. He thought it was unfortunate and inadvertent that a deviation from the usual rule should have taken place in the case of a person holding so high a position in the estimation of his countrymen, as well as of the Government, as his noble Friend admittedly held. The Government should undoubtedly have at all times in their hands an absolute and legal right of separating these two offices; but at the same time he considered that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in bringing this case before the House. He trusted that in future there would be an understanding that, unless very strong grounds existed to the contrary, or unless it would be attended by great inconvenience to the public, the two offices should not be separated.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, he certainly heard the observations of the noble Earl (Earl of St. Germans) with great regret, because, after the long time that had elapsed since the Notice of this Motion had been first given by the noble Lord, he did
114
expect that his noble Friend would have been prepared with a different answer on the part of the Irish Government. He did expect that his noble Friend would have said something to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having looked only into the Act of Parliament, and seeing there that there was no imperative duty imposed upon him of giving the office to the Lieutenant of the county, had, under the belief that he had the complete disposal of it in his own power, given it to a noble Earl whose great services and merits all should allow, but that care would be taken that the mistake should not be construed into a precedent. His noble Friend had, however, rode off on another ground. They did not want him to tell them that the Lord Lieutenant had acted according to the Act of Parliament. They did not want any one to tell them that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did not violate the law of the land. He remembered well that a distinct understanding had been expressed in the debate on this Bill, that the two offices should not be separated. He had been in the habit of doing then what he was now sorry for, of attacking the Government of Earl Grey; but if he had been as well aware then of the principles of parties and of their conduct in Parliament as he was now, he would not have done so. Earl Grey, in answer to his argument for giving the new offices to the Custodes Rotulorum, said that the Government had anxiously considered the matter, but that in many cases these latter were very old men, or not resident in the counties, and that they could not therefore be all selected, but that he would assure the House that it was the firm intention of the Government that hereafter, whenever the office of Custos Rotulorum became vacant, it should, as a matter of course, be given to the Lord Lieutenant of the county. The noble Lord has shown that in every case since that time the understanding had been adhered to. It was clearly impossible that the Marquess of Londonderry could be appointed to the lord-lieutenancy of Down, while he held a lord-lieutenancy in England. He also could confirm the statement of his noble Friend as to the circumstances attending the appointment of the Marquess of Westmeath to the lord-lieutenancy of Westmeath. He was most anxious that his noble Friend should have admitted the political error, and it was a matter of the greatest importance that this should be done. The object of this Bill was to as-

115
similate the laws of the two countries, and it was uniformly the case that the offices were united in England. The magistrates were appointed by the Custos, and not by the Lord Lieutenant. He trusted, before the discussion was over, that some Member of the Government would admit that an error had been committed, although it was a pardonable error, and should not be drawn into a precedent.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that it never had been the practice in Ireland for the Custos Rotulorum to have anything to do with the recommendation of the magistracy; therefore the evils anticipated by the noble Earl who had last spoken could not arise. The Lord Lieutenant of the county was the person with whom the Lord Chancellor communicated on the subject of any appointments to the commission of the peace. The noble Lord who had held the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that it was the desire of the Government, with whom he had held office while in the other House, to appoint the same persons to the two offices in all cases; and that the only exceptions had been in cases where the Custodes were either non-resident, or were too infirm to discharge the duties of the lieutenancy. Now, he (Lord St. Germans) was certainly not aware that either the Earl of Roden or the Earl of Dunraven, both of whom had been passed over in these appointments, were either absentees, or were men incapacitated for the duties of the office.
The MARQUESS of NORMANBYsaid, he had waited in the hope that some Member of the Government would have availed himself of the suggestion thrown out by his noble Friend (the Earl of Wicklow), who had recently addressed the House, and would have taken that only line of defence which he much regretted to see had been entirely laid aside by the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans), who had undertaken to defend this appointment, namely, that this act was an oversight on the part of the Government in Ireland. He felt it necessary to say a few words, as an additional witness, having been a party concerned in the case of the lieutenancy of the county of Westmeath, when conferred on the Marquess of Westmeath, to which allusion had been made. That noble Lord had written to him, stating frankly that he did not ask the lord-lieutenancy as a favour. Lord Melbourne, who was then Prime Minister, was written to; and his answer was clear and distinct, as were all com-
116
munications from that Nobleman—"Whether you may like it or not, after the discussions that have taken place, you have no alternative; Lord Westmeath must be Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath." What could more distinctly prove that the separation of the offices was most inimical to the public convenience, and to the due despatch of the public business, than the defence which the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans) had brought before the House—namely, the question whether the Custos Rotulorum did there, as here, return the magistracy? Did the noble Earl know the state that country was in, before the appointment of Lords Lieutenant of counties? Why, no one recommended the magistrates; the governors of the county did not recommend them; the Government only recommended them. The Custos Rotulorum did not recommend; and it was in consequence of that deficiency that the additional office had been created. In England, the office of Lord Lieutenant being always united with that of Custos Rotulorum, the Lord Lieutenant certainly, in name, was the person who discharged this duty. Did the noble Earl mean to say, that the Custos Rotulorum was the person who recommended the magistracy? Why, he was the chief of the magistracy; and, on the other hand, the Lord Lieutenant was the chief of the lieutenancy. The distinction was as plain as ever, with the exception that it had never been called into practice; for this simple reason, that there never had been so gross a violation of the common practice, which so obviously tended to the public good, as that now brought before the House. The only case in England was in the county palatine of Durham; there the Bishop of Durham was the Custos Rotulorum; and as he could not be the Lord Lieutenant, that office was held by another. But as Custos Rotulorum, he could recommend the magistrates; and, what was more, he appointed the sheriff. He exercised all those functions of a civil nature, which were combined generally in the two offices, when executed by the same individual. But the noble Lord had given hardly any defence of those "inadvertencies" which, he must say, had been of frequent occurrence in the administration of the Irish Government in the last three or four years. The House had been told, that a former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland never read the newspapers; they were now told, that the Lord Lieutenant would not be expected to read Acts of Parliament.

117
If he had no better means of information than the newspapers, rather than remain in ignorance, it would be best that he should read the newspapers. As to Hansard, it had only been alluded to as an authentic record of that which transpired in debate, and of the Parliamentary understanding duly entered into between the different parties to the discussion. He (the Marquess of Normanby) knew not how this matter would end; but he felt called upon to throw out for the consideration of the Government the fact that there was a noble Lord who might put an end to all this public inconvenience of establishing a precedent detrimental to the public service. It was not for him to suggest to that noble Lord what course he ought to take in this instance; but after the attempt at a defence which had been made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of St. Germans), he (the Marquess of Normanby) thought it desirable that that House, unless the Government gave some assurance on the subject, should come to some resolution that the proceedings which had taken place in this case should not in future be drawn into a precedent.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE(after a short pause) rose and said, he should not have thought it necessary to have said a word on the present occasion if any declaration, such as that which had been suggested, had been made on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He had naturally expected and had waited for it; but, perceiving that no such declaration was likely to be made, he conceived himself bound, after what had taken place, to concur in the astonishment which had been expressed at the solitary defence which had been set up on this occasion for the conduct of the Government. He felt it to be peculiarly necessary that the sense of the House should be marked on the present occasion. He also thought it necessary to add his testimony to that of many other noble Lords, who had been enabled to speak from their own experience, that, having sat in the House and heard all that passed on the subject of the appointment of Lords Lieutenant of counties by Act of Parliament he had understood that nothing was more clear than the intention expressed in that House (and, he believed, also expressed in the other House of Parliament) on the part of the Government at that time, that the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum should be united. The clause of the Act of Par-
118
liament referred to by the noble Earl who had defended the appointment which had been made in the present instance, was one which it would have been preposterous not to have inserted in the Act for the purpose of preserving the prerogative of the Crown; because cases might arise in which it might be most material to make a separation between the two offices. For instance, if the Lord Lieutenant was disqualified by illness, by absence from the country, or for other considerations, from duly discharging the duties of that high station, it was quite fit that the Crown, who was sole judge of the disqualification, should remain armed with power to separate the two offices. But was it to be inferred from this, that it was intended, notwithstanding the declarations of the Government, by which the measure was introduced, of which declaration the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of St. Germans) considered it to be the function of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to remain ignorant, that the rule and practice were to be set aside. At all times such a matter as that now before their Lordships must be of importance, but in the present state of Ireland it was more important than ever. It was of the utmost importance where addresses were made by high authority in Parliament, calling upon the resident landlords of Ireland to discharge their duty. If they were, as undoubtedly they were, most powerful instruments for preserving the welfare and peace of that country, was the present a time to be chosen by the Government for the violation of a rule which had been adopted by Parliament as the fittest in respect of the administration of the important functions united in the character of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum? He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) thought it most unfortunate that this deviation from that rule should have occurred at all; and most peculiarly was it unfortunate that it should have occurred in the present year, and after the discussions which had gone on in another place. He did not know in what shape or way the House could mark its sense of the opinions which had been expressed on this subject without a dissentient voice, excepting the solitary and most imperfect defence—imperfect because he had an imperfect case — set up by the noble Earl opposite. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) expected some declaration would be made by the Government which would relieve the House from further reference to the matter; if not,

119
he hoped some further reference would be made to it on the Motion of some noble Lord.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that concurring with his noble Friend who had just sat down, he wished to see the laws of the two countries, England and Ireland, assimilated. He hoped that Ministers would now speak out, and make a declaration that this matter had arisen from inadvertence; for he (the Duke of Richmond) believed that to be the truth. If they did not do so, he hoped that when the Papers were produced, some noble Lord would move a resolution to the effect that it was desirable the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and of Custos Rotulorum should not be disunited. The noble Marquess who had spoken in this debate (the Marquess of Normanby) complained that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did not read Hansard's Debates. His noble Friend had lately been abroad, enjoying himself in Italy, and seemed to know but little of what had taken place in this country during his absence. Hansard's Debates! Why, if his noble Friend had been here, he would have known that of these it had been said, "let bygones be bygones." He (the Duke of Richmond) defended the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for not reading Hansard, or the newspapers, or the speeches in Parliament, when within twenty-four hours the man who delivered a speech could entirely change his opinions, or, if not, so alter his course of proceedings as to indicate a change in opinions formally expressed and recorded.
The DUKE of LEINSTERwas understood to say, that the public convenience was much forwarded by the union of the two offices.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS(across the Table), was understood to observe that if it were intended that the two offices should be consolidated, the course for him to pursue would be to bring in a Bill to unite them.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had been misunderstood by the noble Earl, for he had expressly stated that the prerogative of the Crown ought to be preserved. All he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) asked was, that the noble Earl would state that the matter had arisen out of inadvertence, and would not be likely to occur again. This the House had a right to expect; and if that assurance was not given, it would not discharge its duty if it did not in some way see that its own un-
120
derstanding on the subject was preserved and adhered to.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, that he had not had an opportunity of talking to any gentleman connected with the Government of Ireland on the subject, and therefore he was not enabled to state how this matter occurred; but he remembered perfectly that he was in the House when the Bill in question was under discussion; and though sitting on the other side of the House, he had supported the Bill brought in by the then Ministry. He also remembered that he had stated as his opinion that the officer holding the appointment of Lord Lieutenant of a county ought to be selected from amongst the principal persons residing in the county; and he also stated that the Lord Lieutenant ought also to be the Custos Rotulorum. He knew that the person holding the office of Custos was an officer of the Lord Chancellor, while the office of Lord Lieutenant partook rather of a military than a civil character; still he had stated as his opinion that both of those offices ought to be held by the principal person resident in the particular county. That was his opinion now. He would state here and everywhere that the two offices ought to be held by one officer, and that officer the Lord Lieutenant. He could not take upon himself, without consulting gentlemen connected with the Government of Ireland, to say what should or what should not be the case in future: he stated candidly what had been and still was his own opinion. He was, however, convinced, that if any mistake had been made, it had been honestly and fairly made from a contemplation of the Act only, and without reference to any thing that might have passed in this House on the subject. It was possible that, not seeing or not being aware of what passed, his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had made what he (the Duke of Wellington) certainly thought was a mistake; but still he could not pretend to say that the thing should not happen again, without having an opportunity of consulting those connected with the Government of Ireland on the subject.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not surprised that a mistake had occurred, if it had arisen from what had taken place in that House, when first the parties who set the example of misunderstanding were the very parties who had themselves brought in the Bill. The present cry came very ill from that quarter.
Motion agreed to.—House adjourned.