Sitting of 29 April 1847

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.£For the County of Galway, v. Thomas Martin, Esq., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS,£2° Police Clauses; Cemeteries Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Norwich, for Alteration of Law respecting the Registration of Voters.£By Mr. Dennistoun, and Captain Duff, from Scotland, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.£By Lord J. Manners, from Keighley (Yorkshire), and Cardiff (Wales), in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.£ By Mr. Brotherton, from Padstow, and Uxbridge, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries.£By Sir A. I.. Hay, from Shipowners of Peterhead, for Reduction of Lighthouse Dues.£By Mr. Dennistoun, from Distillers of Glasgow, respecting the Drawback on Spirits, and the Bonding System.£By Mr. Grimsditch, from Blackburn, respecting Remuneration to Tax Assessors and Collectors.£By Mr. Deeds, from Farmers attending Canterbury and Ash ford Markets, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.£By Mr. Ferrand, from Inhabitants of Wibsey, for Repeal of the Anatomy Act.£By Visct. Ebrington, from Ratepayers of the Districts of St. Peter, Saffron Hill, and St. Andrew, Holborn (Middlesex), for Extension of the Baths and Washhouses Act.£By Mr. Divett, from Exeter, for Regulating the Qualification to become Chemists and Druggists.£By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Manchester, and Mr. Morris, from Cardigan, against, and by Mr. V. Smith, from Guardians of the Northampton Union, in favour of the Government Plan of Education.£By Colonel Fox, from Trustees of the Parish of St. Leonard, Shored itch, against the Health of Towns Bill; and by Sir G. Grey, from Devonport, and Mr. W. Patten, from Warrington, in favour of the same.£By Captain Duff, from Magistrates and Inhabitants of the Burgh of Macduff (Banff), for Alteration of the Law relating to Highways, Bridges, and Ferries (Scotland).£By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham, in favour of the Hosiery Manufacture Bill.£From Petworth, in favour of the Juvenile Offenders Bill.£By

127
Mr. Ferrand, from Archibald McDonald, of Aberdeen, for Redress.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from William Henry Brown, M. D., in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill—By Sir De L. Evans, from Chelsea Pensioners, for Inquiry.—By Lord R. Grosvenor, and Mr. A. Duncombe, from Poor Law Officers of several places, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers—By the Marquess of Douro, from Norwich, and Mr. Gisborne, from Nottingham, for Re-peal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Captain Duff, from Inhabitants of the Port of Burghead, in favour of the Ports, Harbours, &c. (1846) Bill.—From Liverpool, for Alteration of the Punishment of Vagrants, &c. (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from John Reddie, of Glasgow, for Redress.—By Captain Duff, and Sir R. Ferguson, from several places in Scotland, against the Registering of Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill; and from the Parish of Auchterderran, for Alteration of the same. By Sir R. Ferguson, from Fife, and Sir. J. McTaggart, from Presbytery of Stranraer, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and Marriage (Scotland) Bill.

THE JAMESTOWN.
MR. BROWNseeing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in his place, rose to inquire of that right hon. Gentleman, if the American Government had taken the guns out of a vessel of war called the Jamestown, and placed her, as well as another vessel of war, at the disposal of a certain number of American gentlemen, citizens of the United States, who had formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of affording relief to the suffering population of Ireland. He wished to know whether those vessels or either of them had yet reached any of the Irish ports?
MR. LABOUCHEREthought that, previously to answering the question which had just been put to him, and of which the hon. Gentleman had given him notice, he should do well to read to the House an extract of a letter which he held in his hand. The writer of the letter was Mr. Everett, whom they all remembered for many years as Ambassador in this country accredited by the Government of the United States. The letter was in the following words:—
"Cambridge, March 26, 1847.—I address you this letter for the purpose of commending to your protection and good offices the commander of the Jamestown, R. Bennett Forbes, Esq.. This vessel will sail to-morrow for Cork from Boston, with a full cargo of provisions for the relief of the sufferers by famine in Ireland, and another equal quantity will soon follow. The funds for these supplies have been raised by voluntary subscriptions, about one-half in Boston, and the other half in the interior towns and villages in New England, to the amount in the whole of about 100,000 dollars. Large supplies, not included in this estimate, have been sent, and are on their way, from New York, and other places further south. The Jamestown is a vessel of war of the United States. Her armament has been taken
128
out for this voyage, and she has been placed by the Secretary of the Navy at the disposal of the Boston relief committee. Mr. Forbes, who takes command of her, and who will have the honour of delivering to you this letter, or its duplicate, is a merchant of great worth and public spirit; a gentleman of high consideration in the community, who has volunteered his services for this occasion. The officers associated with him in navigating the vessel, are also volunteers—substantial citizens of great respectability. The cargo is placed under Mr. Forbes's exclusive control; and he and his brother officers have gratuitously devoted themselves to this benevolent service at considerable personal inconvenience, from the sole motive of appropriating the supplies in the most economical and effectual manner."
The Jamestown, after performing that important service at Cork, and having deposited her cargo in that city, took her departure, and was now on her way to the United States. The other vessel also had arrived and landed her cargo in Ireland. But even the large supplies brought by both those vessels, formed only a small portion of the contributions—the spontaneous and voluntary contributions—which the people of Ireland bad derived from the benevolence of the people of the United States.

PUBLIC REVENUE.
DR. BOWRINGrose, pursuant to notice, to move certain resolutions touching the collection of the public revenue. He had sought various opportunities to bring those resolutions under the notice of the House, or at least a Motion similar in tendency; but he regretted to say that his labours had not yet been attended with success. The object which he had in view was best expressed by the resolutions on the Notice Paper of the House, and he should, before he proceeded much further, read those resolutions to the House. He need scarcely remind hon. Members that, with respect to the revenue of the country, there were two great sections—one connected with the receipt, and the other with the expenditure of the public revenue. The groundwork of his resolutions was, that receipt and expenditure should on no account be confounded; that, as the services of receipt and expenditure were in their nature of a separate character, so the functions of the two departments should be wholly and effectually separated. Parliament would not perform its duty unless care were taken that all the money which the people contributed to the exigencies of the State, found its way into the Queen's Exchequer. The Exchequer was an insti-

129
tution which, as far as he knew, no other country possessed, and it was one from which the greatest possible public advantages might be derived; it might be made the banker of the State. Into the Exchequer every department of revenue should be required to pay all its receipts, without any deduction; and from the Exchequer all payments should be made, under Parliamentary authority, with the sanction of the Treasury derived from that Parliamentary authority. He should, however, now, with the permission of the House, read his resolutions, as the best text upon which to found his observations. They were as follows:—
"1. That it appears, by official returns which have been laid on the Table of this House, that a sum exceeding 7,000,000 l. sterling is annually expended in the different departments of Government, without being paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer, or subjected to any preliminary Parliamentary sanction or control.
"2. That it appears, by the returns ordered to be printed in the last Session of Parliament, that sums amounting to 6,152,394 l. 14 s. 9½d. were deducted by the various revenue departments from their gross receipts, and intercepted in their progress to the Exchequer, for disbursements in the said revenue departments, in the year ending the 5th day of January, 1846.
"3. That it appears, by the same returns, that in the said year the sum of 909,610 l. 12 s. 2d. was received by various departments of expenditure from sources independent of Parliamentary grants or issues from the Exchequer, and that such sum has been, or may be, expended without previous Parliamentary examination and control.
"4. That for the security of the public revenue, and the accuracy, simplicity, and completeness of the public accounts, it is desirable that the gross receipts of all the departments of revenue should be paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer.
"5. That no department of expenditure should be allowed to receive money from any quarter other than Her Majesty's Exchequer, under Parliamentary vote; and that all sums received for stores, fees, fines, or from any other similar sources, be paid into Her Majesty's Exchequer.
"6. That every department of receipt be required to present an annual estimate of anticipated expenditure, and that such estimate be submitted to the sanction and approval of Parliament.
"7. That as this House has, by its Resolutions of last Session, recognised and approved of the principle, and directed it to be adopted in the Crown colonies, that the gross revenues should in all cases be paid into the public Treasury, there is no sufficient reason for delaying the application of the same principle to the revenues of the United Kingdom; and that this House concurs in the recommendation made by the Commissioners of Public Accounts in the year 1831, 'that no portion of the public treasure should be arrested, on any plea or pretence whatever, on its way to the Exchequer; and that no portion of it should be issued from the Exchequer without previous Par-
130
liamentary sanction;' and 'that it is only by the adoption of this principle that any really efficient and complete control can be introduced into the different departments of the public service.'"
Unless the resolutions that he had just read were founded altogether in error, he must take the liberty of saying, that after reading them no one could deny the obligation under which the Government of this country lay, not to allow a shilling of the public money to be paid away without the sanction of the representatives of the people. All financial abuses, in fact, were traceable to one of two sources—to the power of raising or applying funds without the authority of Parliament, in the departments of expenditure, such as by the sale of stores, or other appropriations in aid (as they were called); or, in the departments of receipt, by the detention of funds in their progress to the Exchequer; all which funds, he contended, ought to be paid in without any deduction whatever. It was the bounden duty of the Commons of Great Britain to see that all the taxes levied on the people of Great Britain were paid into the Exchequer; and, once collected, then that the money should not be issued until legislative authority was given for its distribution. Many years ago, a commission was appointed to examine into the state of the public accounts. In the year 1831, they made their first important report to the Sovereign of that day. In that report the Commissioners stated, that in order—
"To accomplish with perfect security and efficiency these objects of safe custody, legal appropriation, and record, it is obviously necessary that all public moneys whatever should in the first instance be paid into the Exchequer. But it appears, from the accounts laid before Parliament, that the whole amount of the public income is not so paid, but that amounts derived from divers sources of revenue are received and disbursed without the intervention of this institution, or being in any way submitted to its control. It is also certain that considerable sums arising from taxes and other matters are deducted from the gross receipts, and retained and expended by several departments, which only account to the Exchequer for the net amount after such deductions. We think this practice should be discontinued; and we recommend that the gross receipts of public money, whether arising from taxes in each part of the United Kingdom, from the income or sale of Crown property under the administration of the Woods and Forests, from the sale of old naval, ordnance, or other stores, from unclaimed dividends, unclaimed prize-money, deductions from pensions, loans on Exchequer-bills, or from any other sources, should be placed without deduction in the custody of the Exchequer, and be accounted for to Parliament, whose authority should be necessary for the appropriation of the whole."
The report then went on to say, that—

131
"A regulation upon this principle was introduced in France by an ordinance of the 14th of September, 1822, and appears to have been eminently beneficial in its operation. It provides, that under no circumstances can any branch of administration receive or dispose of any other funds than those which have been voted for its service by legislative authority; that, in case of any sale of public property, the proceeds of such sale shall be paid into the Treasury, and shall not be at the disposal of the department to which the property belonged."
Now, what was the first signature which he found attached to that document? It was that of a noble Lord no longer amongst them, but whom they all well remembered—he alluded to the late Lord Congleton; his authority, in all matters of accountancy and finance, they would not he very ready to dispute. The next name that he found attached to the report, was that of the noble Lord now at the head of the Treasury; he called upon that noble person now to carry out his own principles. The power was vested in him; let it be exercised in the way which he had declared to be "obviously necessary for the security of the public." The third signature was that of Sir James Graham, who thereby avowed, that unless the principle recognised in that report were acted upon, the public revenue would be perilled. The fourth signature was that of a gentleman of very large experience—Sir James Kemp. The fifth was Charles Poulett Thompson, afterwards Lord Sydenham. The sixth was Francis Thornhill Baring, late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the seventh was Edward Ellice, now Member for Coventry. Seven names of higher authority in matters of finance could hardly be introduced to the notice of the House. He had on those several occasions moved

I.—AMOUNTS NOT PAID INTO THE EXCHEQUER, BUT DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENTS:—

CUSTOMS:—

£.

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

Drawbacks, Allowances, Repayments, &c

…

…

301,380

14

6½

Charges of collection

…

…

1,279,943

12

2

Other payments

…

…

325,118

10

1

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

…

…

11,850

16

3

1,918,293

13

0½

EXCISE:—

Drawbacks, Allowances, Repayments, &c.

…

830,869

15

0

Charges of collection

…

…

968,382

6

8

Other payments

…

…

94,753

8

8

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

…

…

7,758

18

11

1,901,764

9

3

STAMPS:—

Drawbacks, Repayments, &c.

…

…

225,064

4

11

Charges of collection

…

…

165,346

17

1

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

…

…

851

5

8

391,262

7

8

Carried forward

£4,211,320

9

11½

for returns showing to what extent the sound principles—the principles recognised by the Commissioners of Public Accounts—had been violated. Each of these returns showed that, annually, a sum of nearly seven millions escaped Parliamentary control—that the House of Commons had no cognizance of them—gave no authority for their expenditure until after they were disbursed. In the return the amounts deducted by the different departments of revenue were—

In 1837

£6,155,417

1843

5,507,147

1846

6,152,395

And in the departments of receipt the sums raised and expended without the previous knowledge or authority of Parliament were—

In 1837

£767,439

1843

1,199,376

1846

909,610

Making together, in these years, a sum of—

In 1837

£6,922,856

1843

6,706,523

1846

7,063,005

It would be seen how little practical difficulty there would be in obtaining Parliamentary sanction for the whole amount expended thus irregularly, inasmuch as the amount did not vary greatly from year to year; so that the objection that it would be impossible to predict by anticipation the amounts required had no ground whatever; nor was it found to be an objection in those countries which had adopted a sound system of national book-keeping. But he would, with the permission of the House, read from the last return the items of which those amounts were composed.

Brought forward

£4,211,320

9

11½

TAXES:—

£

s.

d.

Repayments

128,268

0

11

Charges of collection

348,728

0

10

Other payments

21,794

0

11

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

1,122

8

1

499,912

10

9

POST OFFICE:—

Charges of collection

1,114,849

2

0

Other payments

10,745

2

6

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

2,032

19

6

1,127,627

4

6

CROWN LANDS:—

Charges of collection

41,886

11

3¾

Other payments

258,570

3

9 11/12

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

232

6

5

300,689

1

6 8/12

SMALL BRANCHES OF HEREDITARY REVENUE:—

Fines, Fees, Forfeitures

12,845

8

0

Total Amount of Deductions by Revenue Departments from the Gross Receipts, and not paid into the Exchequer

£6,152,394

14

9 2/12

II.—AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEPT PARLIAMENTARY GRANTS OR ISSUES FROM THE EXCHEQUER:—

TREASURY:—

£.

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

Amount of Fee Fund

3,400

0

0

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

404

0

2

3,804

0

2

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE AND BOARD OF TRADE:—

Amount of Fee Fund

916

14

5

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

502

4

3

1,418

18

8

SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME DEPARTMENT:—

Amount of Fee Fund

12,077

5

7

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

108

13

1

12,185

18

8

SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN DEPARTMENT:—

Amount of Fee Fund

12,077

5

7

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

474

19

10

12,552

5

5

SECRETARY OF STATE, COLONIAL DEPARTMENT:—

Amount of Fee Fund

12,077

5

5

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

92

12

8

12,169

18

1

India Board

25,300

0

0

Admiralty and Naval Departments

190,461

0

0

Army and Military Departments, including Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, Royal Military College, and Royal Military Asylum

110,053

7

2

Ordnance Department

179,453

7

3

Paymaster of Civil Services

19,062

9

1

MINT OFFICE:—

Profits on Coinage, &c.

214

12

3

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

97

13

8

312

5

11

AUDIT OFFICE:—

From Colonial Revenues, &c.

696

7

2

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

362

13

11

1,059

1

1

NATIONAL DEBT OFFICE:—

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

66

13

5

EXCHEQUER BILL OFFICE:—

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

34

11

5

STATIONERY OFFICE:—

Repayments for Stationery, &c.

43,265

1

0

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

185

2

4

43,450

3

4

Carried forward

£611,383

19

8

Brought forward

£611,383

19

8

PRIVY SEAL OFFICE: Fees

1,478

10

2

SIGNET OFFICE: Fees

3,813

1

3

METROPOLITAN POLICE AND POLICE COURTS:—

£

s.

d.

Rate levied by Commissioners, &c.

211,464

16

8

Fines, Fees, &c. from Police Courts

8,885

2

3

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

832

19

10

221,182

18

9

CONVICT HULK ESTABLISHMENT:—

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

236

8

1

AUDITOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, SCOTLAND:—

Interest on Money, Fees, and Contributions to Superannuation Fund

1,461

9

8

PAYMASTER CIVIL SERVICES, IRELAND:—

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

63

16

4

CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE, IRELAND:—

Amount of Fee Fund

2,276

18

6

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

100

18

11

2,377

17

5

CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE, IRELAND (IN LONDON):—

Amount of Fee Fund

269

16

6

Contributions to Superannuation Fund

7

13

6

277

10

0

Privy Council Office, Ireland

340

11

8

Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests

48

6

3

Board of Works, Ireland

20,247

19

3

Board of National Education, Ireland

7,546

13

11

Dublin Metropolitan Police

39,151

9

9

TOTAL Receipts by all Departments (except Revenue) from all sources except Parliamentary Grants or Issues from the Exchequer

£909,610

12

2

TOTAL of No. I. (Revenue Departments) brought down

6,152,394

14

92/12

Ditto No. II. (All other Departments) ditto

909,610

12

2

TOTAL Annual Amount expended which never reached the Exchequer

£7,062,005

6

11 2/12

On these accounts he begged to remark, that since 1843 the amount stopped by the different departments of taxes had increased to the extent of nearly 650,000 l.; that, since 1836, the amount stopped in the Stamp department had increased from 283,000 l. to 391,000 l.; that in the department of Taxes the sums detained had mounted from less than 230,000 l. to nearly half a million; that in the Post Office, the amount detained was 400,000 l. more than in 1836; it having been 1,127,627 l. in the last year and 722,025 l. ten years ago, so that the evil was one of growing magnitude. Now he doubted much, whether there was any legal authority for these detentions—whether any Acts of Parliament could be found to sanction the deductions of these enormous amounts. Sir Henry Parnell always asserted, that the power was not conferred, at all events, for the retention of a very large portion of them. And he contended, that under no circumstances ought Parliament to divest itself of the right and duty to control the expenditure of every farthing levied in the shape
136
of taxes from the Queen's subjects. They were not called upon to authorize the disposal of the balances merely which were paid into the Exchequer, but the gross amounts received from the people. They were in duty bound, first, to take care that all was paid into the Queen's Exchequer, to require its being so paid as the preliminary step; and to see that as the whole was properly received, and placed in safe custody, so that the whole was properly disbursed under Parliamentary sanction. And with special reference to one great source of expenditure, the salaries of public functionaries, he wanted to know why the salaries and pay of the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, the Foreign and Home Office, the Board of Trade and Control, and other departments, should be annually voted by Parliament; while the salaries of the officers of the Customs, of the Excise, the Stamps and Taxes, the Post Office, never were submitted to Parliament at all, until the expenditure had taken place, and Parliamentary inquiry came too late to correct an abuse, or to check an extravagance?

137
He had seen with satisfaction one improvement in the estimates, mentioned in the extract he would take the liberty of reading from the very excellent report on naval and military establishments:—
"The appropriations credited on the estimates in aid of the votes, are to be the sums actually realized and brought to account during the year preceding the estimate, instead of the prospective receipts expected to be realized in the year for which the estimate is voted. The ' credits in aid' have already been put on this footing in the Navy, Ordnance, and Commissariat Estimates; and when a similar change shall have been made in the War Office Estimates, there will be nothing left to be desired on this point."
But this reform must go much farther. There should be no appropriations in aid whatever. In 1843, the appropriations in aid in the Ordnance Department alone amounted to 535,925 l. When the gallant Officer the Member for South Staffordshire had moved the Ordnance Estimates for the present year, he had acknowledged that it was desirable to get rid of the system, and had expressed a hope that no future estimates would exhibit that now-recognised defect; and he congratulated the House upon the avowal. Now, in order to introduce a satisfactory system, proper forms of estimates were most important, and uniform modes of proceeding were likewise of the highest value. From the reports on the French accounts laid before the House of Commons in 1831 and 1832, they learned
—"that the whole of the public accounts of France, whether relating to income or expenditure, are kept on one uniform plan; that the processes of preferring, examining, admitting, and paying public claims, is the same in all departments; that their forms are framed on one model; that the principle on which the returns of all the departments are compiled being uniform, they are blended without difficulty in the general balance-sheet of the Finance Department; that the final account of every department requires the public ratification of the Court of Accounts as to its correctness; that the superintendence of that court reaches not only the cash agents who receive and pay away the public money, but those also who authorize the public disbursements; and that all the executive departments being required to lay before the Chambers accounts, showing how they have applied the credits granted to them, the control of the Legislature extends over every branch of the public finances."
As to the abuses growing out of the present system, only imperfectly reformed, he need but read extracts from the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, to whose services in the field of financial reform he must pay a grateful and cordial, however humble, tribute. On moving the estimates of the Navy for 1831,
138
he explained to the House of Commons that, "Works of great extent in the department of the Naval service had been begun, completed, and paid for, without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament, or without the subject having been once brought under the notice of the House of Commons; that those works were paid for out of the surplus of other votes which were greater than was needed for the purposes to which it was intended they should be applied." The following works were then cited, as instances in which the votes of Parliament had been exceeded, or in which no vote had been obtained:—Weevil, expended without a vote, 155,534 l..; Cremill, expended beyond the vote, 225,441 l.; Ascension, expended without a vote, 10,000 l.; Woolwich, expended beyond the votes, 141,443 l.; Leith, expended without a vote, 7,908 l. It was further shown, that since 1820, the sum of l,243,100 l. had been expended for "sea wages," beyond the sums voted by Parliament, and that this excess was caused by employing year after year a larger force than Parliament had sanctioned. To meet these excesses, it was explained that larger sums than were needed had been voted for naval stores and for army provisions; the excess of grants beyond the expenditure for those services having amounted in four years to 1,835,000 l. His proposition was, "That the Admiralty should, on the 30th November, transmit to the Board of Audit the accounts of the Treasurer of the Navy closed up to the 31st of March; and that the accounts, together with all vouchers, should undergo an effectual audit; and that it should he the duty of the auditors, on the 31st January of each year, to lay on the Table of the House of Commons a report. That the report would embrace a balance-sheet, comparing the expenditure with the estimates; that it would show what surplus remained unexpended, and what had been expended beyond the estimates under each head. That the auditors should also state any discovery of improprieties they might have made, and submit any interrogatories which they might think ought to be put. That, within the period between the 30th November and 31st January, it would not be possible to make a full and effectual audit; but that it would be sufficient to enable Parliament, first, to convert what was now a nominal responsibility in the officer who brought forward the estimates into a real responsibility; that the interrogatories, secondly, would enable Members

139
to ask questions; and the person who moved the estimates would have to give answers to those questions, and explain the interrogatories of the auditors." The second principle is laid down in page 19 of the Report—a principle the non-recognition or abandonment of which had led to various and grave abuses:—
"No executive department is authorized to exceed the sum appropriated by Parliament under each general head or vote in their respective estimates, or to apply any surplus which may exist under one vote to supply the deficiency on others, without the express previous sanction of the Treasury to be given on a written representation of the circumstances which render the adoption of such a course indispensable for the public service."
There was one other subject connected with the reform of public accounts to which he must refer at some length, namely, the general introduction of the system of double entry. He deemed it so important that he must quote from the Report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts their emphatic recommendation:—
"As we have not the slightest hesitation in advising the employment of the commercial system of book-keeping in its purest and most simple form in all the public departments, and as we consider its application as forming the necessary ground-work of any really important improvement, we shall refer somewhat in detail to the reasons which have induced us to recommend it so decidedly and urgently to the approbation of your Lordships. The peculiar excellency of what is denominated the mercantile system of book-keeping by double entry consists in the facility with which it embraces accounts, however complex, various, and extensive, giving to all their differences of detail a unity of result, and cencentrating them at last in the most condensed shape, while it enables the examiner to trace them without difficulty to their remotest ramifications. In the initiatory or auxiliary books of account, a correct system will admit of all the modifications suited to the particular service; but as soon as the principal or double-entry books take possession of the facts of an account, however intricate and varied, they become subjected to its general and harmonious law. Its machinery is employed to obtain an ultimate balance-sheet which will present in a concise, correct, and intelligible form all the centralized facts of receipt on the one side, and of expenditure on the other, under their special heads. Of the efficiency of this system, the trading world in its infinite variety of commerce and concerns gives unanimous evidence. Into every well-regulated manufactory, into every extensive mercantile establishment in every part of the civilized world, it has gradually, but peremptorily, forced its way. The revenues of no Government have been safely administered, the accounts of no Government have been intelligibly kept, the business of no Government has been promptly and satisfactorily despatched until the commercial system has been introduced with its order and uniformity into the different departments. Several of the Governments of Europe have adopted this method, after repeat-
140
ed and vain attempts to accommodate, by other means, the dissimilar usages of their various public offices to one general system; and there is no instance of a Government having abandoned the mercantile practice after having once employed it. On the contrary, every Government that has introduced it, has borne testimony to its adaptation to national concerns, and its complete efficiency for all fiscal and financial operations and records. It is the system adopted by the East India Company, both at home and in the dependencies abroad; and we need only refer to Mr. Bowring's report on the public accounts of France for irresistible proofs of its value, practicability, comprehensiveness, clearness, and efficiency. Indeed, it appears from his statement that a succession of Ministers of Finance have borne unanimous and cordial testimony to the excellent workings of the commercial system of accounts in all the departments of Government; that the objections originally suggested against it by persons who have not attentively considered its bearings, on the ground of its not being adapted to public official accounts have all given way before the evidence of its sufficiency and superiority, in the words of Count Chabrol (the late Minister of Finance): 'Simplicity and rapidity in the progress of the public accounts have been accompanied with clearness and regularity of result. Incompleteness and delay have been succeeded by publicity and promptitude.'"
And again:—
"We have said thus much in recommendation of this system, from the strong conviction we entertain, that its general adoption in the public departments is the great, prominent, all-important, improvement, without which every other will be necessarily and essentially imperfect. This system, properly understood, leaves nothing to the caprice of the accountant; it subjects all the elements of an account to an undeviating self-corrective operation, the result of which is, as we have said, their centralization under their appropriate heads. It provides against all confusion between contingent and positive claims, between payments ordered and payments made—in a word, compels the grouping together of all facts which are of a similar or homogeneous character."
The late Board of Treasury in their Minutes of the 14th of July, 1829, recognise the plan of double entry as the principle proper to be adopted, and state the propriety of substituting for the numerous account books now in use a regular cash-book, journal, and ledger, as the foundation of a system of book-keeping upon the plan of double entry; and again they declare "that a thorough knowledge of book-keeping by double entry is above all indispensable to the success of the new measures." One would have thought that recommendations so urgent would have led to the introduction of the double-entry system into all the departments of Government. He had moved in 1844 for a return of the changes which had taken place in the different public offices in the manner of keeping the public accounts, and of the

141
Treasury orders to the effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. He was glad to see in that return new evidence of the value and desirableness of the improved system. He found in the Treasury Minute of 27th of November, 1840, the following words. Sir H. Parnell observes—
"I am somewhat surprised that the Committee should have entertained the notion that the establishing the double-entry system in the War Office would be attended with an increased expense. In appearance, the introducing of new duties, and the keeping of new books, naturally may lead to the conclusion that new expenses must be incur-red; but experience has fully proved that, in all instances where the double-entry system has been substituted for any other system of accounts, it has always been attended with a large reduction in the expense of account keeping. This has been the case in my office; the quantity of clerks' work has been very much diminished, and the establishment considerably reduced. The attention I have bestowed on the difference of expense of keeping accounts between the old office system and the double-entry system, leads me to think that, with proper management of the change from one system to the other, a saving could be made of at least one-fourth of the expense now incurred in keeping the whole of the public accounts."
Mr. Anderson, in his valuable practical answers to objections, says—
"There is a strong opinion in many quarters, that the chief obstacle to the introduction of the double-entry system lies in the want of proper persons in each department for keeping the books; and that the clerks on the several establishments do not possess sufficient practical knowledge of the system to give a hope of their carrying it out with success: an equally strong opinion prevails, that there is a disposition to offer unfair opposition to its introduction; and these opinions appear to derive confirmation from the fact, that among the attempts made to establish the system, some have proved unsuccessful, and the failure has been supposed to have arisen from these causes. I am quite prepared to admit that strong prejudices against the system do exist; but I should attach by far too much importance to them were I to apprehend that they could oppose any formidable obstacle to the introduction of the double-entry system in any department, if the Treasury were to make a serious attempt to establish it, and adopt the proper measures for that purpose."
Is it not surprising that the Home Department, the Colonial Office, the Board of Control, the Customs, the Stamps and Taxes, the Post Office, and the National Debt Office, should hitherto have turned a deaf ear to the communications from the Treasury? In the case of the Stamps and Taxes, they give the copy of a Treasury Minute, dated in 1840, requiring that "all clerks shall possess a competent knowledge of the mercantile system of book-keeping by double entry," and yet themselves report that "no changes have been made in
142
the system of keeping the accounts of their department since 1832." It was impossible there should be any central accounts kept in a satisfactory manner at the Treasury, unless the subsidiary accounts of all the departments were kept in one uniform double-entry system. He had to apologize for the length of a speech on so unattractive a subject; but its importance must be his excuse, and he submitted his resolutions to the approval of the House.
MR. WILLIAMSconceived, that after the case which had been made out by his hon. Friend, it would be impossible for the Government to resist the resolution. The principle on which it was founded had been approved, among others, by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Dorchester and Portsmouth, and by Sir H. Parnell. Few questions were of more importance; and the wonder was, that the improvement now suggested, had not long ago been adopted. Millions were annually interrupted in their course to the Treasury, of which no account was rendered to the House; and even if it were said, that the Treasury exorcised some sort of control over these vast amounts, it was clear that no proper or efficient control could be secured until the change now recommended took place. During the last three or four years, upwards of forty new places had been created in the Office of Stamps and Taxes alone, at an annual expense of 30,000 l.; nearly 100 in the Customs, at an annual expense of 60,000 l.; while in the Post Office the increase had been actually astounding, for upwards of 4,000 new places had been created. In 1790, the present Lord Lansdowne (then Lord H. Petty) had stated that each department had absolute power over the national funds; and really this appeared to be the case at present. He thought that it would be advisable that all the different departments should form a joint board, assisting each other by their united advice in the management of the respective offices. He pressed the subject most earnestly upon the attention of the Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member for Bolton had brought forward the same Motion in former years, and had brought it forward with his usual ability. With regard to the report alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, he was disposed to pay great attention to the recommendations of the Gentlemen whose names were appended to that

143
report; therefore he was not disposed to quarrel with the principles on which it was founded. But it had been referred to the late Lord Congleton—a man well versed in the details of accounts—and it was found impracticable to carry out, in a practical manner, the whole of the recommendations of that Committee. Although those recommendations had not been fully carried out, still from time to time the Treasury, whenever an opportunity offered, had made great advances in the right direction towards improvement in the mode of keeping the accounts of the country. It was only last year that a great improvement had been introduced, a Bill having been passed providing for correctly auditing the accounts of the Army, the Ordnance, and the Commissariat, on the same plan as the accounts of the Navy. He could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, that he and his Colleagues had not the slightest desire to impede the progress of such improvements; but the heavy duties which had of late devolved on them, and the extent to which they were occupied last autumn, had prevented them from carrying out many improvements which they had in view. He was far from wishing to object to the general principles of the hon. Member for Bolton with respect to this subject; but he thought that it would be more expedient if the public departments were allowed to carry out the improvements as they found them practicable. Having said that much, he could not agree in the calculations of the hon. Member for Bolton. There were many sums alluded to by him as if expended needlessly in costs of collection, but which really went to the public service. With regard to the present mode of paying drawbacks, he did not see that an alteration of the existing mode would afford any greater convenience. The hon. Gentleman complained that the House of Commons had not a previous knowledge of the items of expenditure in the departments of Stamps and Customs; but, for his part, he could not believe that it would facilitate the transaction of public business if the House of Commons were to examine in detail the salaries of all the surveyors, comptrollers, and similar officers. There were, indeed, very detailed explanations of the items of expenditure published in the annual accounts. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton in thinking the expenses of collecting the revenue were so great as the hon. Member stated. If
144
there were an increase in the expenditure of those departments, there was also an increase of income; but in the expense per cent of collection there had been a considerable decrease since 1836. The gross amount of revenue in the department of Stamps and Taxes in 1836 was 11,091,000 l. whilst in 1846 it was 17,849,000 l., showing a very considerable increase. The cost of collection in 1836 was, in the department of Stamps, 21. 1s. 11 d. per cent, and in 1846 it was 21. 0s. 10 d.; in Taxes, the cost was, in 1836, 5l. 3s. l½d. per cent, and in 1846 it was reduced to 31. 11 s. 6d., whilst the cost of collecting the whole revenue in 1846 was but 61. 15 s. His hon. Friend had spoken of the great increase of the expenditure in the Post-office department of late years; but he ought to recollect the change which had been made in the system of postage, the increased number of letters consequent upon that change, and the greater number of persons that were necessarily employed in order to give this increased accommodation to the public. His hon. Friend might recollect that if they were desirous to increase the accommodation of the public in the Post-office department, it was necessary to incur the expense of employing an additional number of persons over and above those who were employed under the old system. The cost of collecting the Post-office revenue was, in fact, 57 per cent. He might, if he pleased, go into large details in order to show that he could not agree with all the calculations of his hon. Friend, however he might agree with him on general principles. It was desirable to introduce improvements into the public accounts; but his hon. Friend would see that the best manner of introducing these improvements was to allow them to be introduced by the Government in the different departments, as the Government found them to be practicable. That was infinitely the best mode of proceeding, and would necessarily be a more advantageous course than pressing on those improvements before their introduction was found to be practical by the departments, consistently with their other duties.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he had not heard one good reason from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the wishes of his hon. Friend should not be complied with. The recommendations of the Commissioners of Public Accounts were either right or wrong; and if they were right, they ought to be carried out. The right hon. Baronet

145
opposite (Sir J. Graham) had introduced the system contended for by his hon. Friend into the Navy with great success; and he saw no reason why all other departments should not follow the example then set them; but the truth was, that the heads of departments found it gave them too much trouble. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know any merchant in the city of London who did not put on the credit side of his ledger all the money which he received? Why, then, should not the same course be pursued with respect to the public? The mischief arose from the complicated state in which the public accounts were kept; and if a simple debtor and creditor account were kept, it would immediately disappear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would not do to enter into details respecting the pay of clerks in the public departments; but did not the House enter into details respecting the pay of officers and sergeants? He thought that his hon. Friend was perfectly right in the views which he took; and he hoped that the Government would not be influenced to resist the Motion by the flimsy pretences put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR G. CLERKthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a perfectly satisfactory answer to the statements of the hon. Member for Bolton. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had shown that there had been a very considerable reduction in the per centage for the collection of every branch of the public revenue, with the exception of the Post Office, the cost of that department having increased in consequence of the great additional accommodation afforded to the public. The hon. Member for Bolton contended, that no department of the revenue ought to be allowed to expend any money whatever, but that the whole of the gross receipts of every department should be transmitted to the Exchequer, and that whatever payments were made should be afterwards re-issued from the Exchequer. To that proposition he (Sir G. Clerk) could not give his assent. If he could believe, as the hon. Member for Bolton seemed to think, that sums were intercepted by the public departments without the sanction and knowledge of Parliament, he would agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, was altogether mistaken in his supposition; for no payment could be made by any public department
146
except under strict rules and regulations, which were perfectly well known, and most of which were adopted under the direct authority of Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member for Bolton had expressed his surprise that there was no general balance-sheet of the receipts and expenditures of the year. He could only recommend the hon. Gentleman to follow the advice which had been given him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to take a cursory glance at the financial accounts which were periodically laid before Parliament and the country. It was true, that at a period not very remote, there was no balance-sheet showing the gross revenue and expenditure of the country; but in 1822, a Committee of that House was appointed, including Mr. Tierney, Mr. Huskisson, Sir H. Parnell, the noble Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), Mr. Vansittart, and other Gentlemen conversant with accounts, who prepared the form upon which the public accounts were now made up. That form presented as clear a balance-sheet as could be made out by any mercantile house; it showed the total amount really taken out of the pockets of the people, the expense of collecting the revenue, the payments made by the authority of Parliament, and the sum actually remitted to the Exchequer. According to the theory of the hon. Member, it would give a more distinct notion of what the public receipts and expenditure were, if the whole money collected were remitted to London, and if whatever money was paid away were paid by orders from the Treasury, even to the smallest sums. He asked, whether that would be the system followed by any house of trade, or any Gentleman in that House who had property in a distant part of the country? Would he require his agents to remit to him in town the whole of the rents in the first instance, and then send down to his agent in the country the money for the necessary charges and outgoings of the estate? The gross amount of the whole sum collected was laid before Parliament; and they knew exactly what was the money taken out of the pockets of the people, and what were the payments made by authority of Parliament, and then they had an item of the amount paid into the Exchequer, which was applicable to the ordinary current service of the year. Any other system would lead to inextricable confusion. What, he would ask, was the system pursued at the clearing-house? According to the hon. Member for Bolton, a banker ought to re-

147
quire that a draft paid to him, and drawn upon another hanker, should he paid in cash, while he himself paid in cash all checks drawn upon him. It was well known that that was not the plan followed out, because such a system would create a great additional degree of trouble and expense. But then the hon. Member said, that we ought not to have these appropriations in aid. Now, that was a point which engaged the attention of the Committee which sat in 1822. There was at that time no uniformity of practice in the different departments. The Naval Department followed that course which the hon. Member now recommended, and a whole sum was voted for the expense of the Navy, the receipts from the sale of naval stores being paid into the Exchequer as part of the ways and means for the year. In the Ordnance Department, on the other hand, the same course was followed which now prevailed; and whatever sums were received from canteens, &c, were deducted from the amount of the vote taken for that department. The Committee of 1822, therefore, had both systems under consideration, and they came to a unanimous recommendation that the system of the Ordnance was the preferable one. The practice had, accordingly, since prevailed in the naval service; and he thought that the principle was much sounder than that which the hon. Member for Bolton recommended. The hon. Gentleman said, that Parliament had no control over the expenditure or the collection of the different branches of the revenue. He apprehended, however, that if such a control were exercised, instead of leading to economy, it would tend to a great increase in the number of public officers. Upon these grounds he could not agree to the resolution, in which it was broadly stated that 7,000,000 l. of the public revenue was intercepted, without having any Parliamentary sanction or control. The reason why the estimates for the Army and Navy were laid before the House every year, was the extreme variation which occurred in the amounts which circumstances rendered it necessary should he granted for the two services; but this was not the case with the Customs or the Excise. He might add, that since the recommendations made by the Commissioners of Public Accounts in 1831, very great improvements had been effected in the mode of keeping the public accounts; and under all the circumstances of the case he could see no reason for
148
agreeing to the proposition of the hon. Member.
MR. F. T. BARINGconcurred in opinion with the hon. Member for Bolton, that the adoption of a system of book-keeping by double entry would be a great improvement. With regard to the other points he wished to say a few words, because he had been one of the Commissioners referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and he wished to explain the grounds why those recommendations had not been carried out. The first of these recommendations was, that all the gross payments of revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that from the Exchequer all payments should be made. This recommendation was fully considered by the late Lord Spencer and others; and in the conversation which took place he must say that the general opinions of the Commissioners were materially modified; for while there could be no question that upon paper such a system was the best that could be devised, yet in practice it was felt it would have no such advantages as would counterbalance the disadvantages and the expense attending it. The next proposition was, that the whole expenses of all the departments should be voted by Parliament. Now that in principle was a perfectly right proposition. He quite agreed with the old constitutional maxim, that no money should be spent without the authority of Parliament; but then the House must remember that this money was not spent at least without the knowledge of Parliament. It was perfectly clear that if they voted the expenses of these establishments at all, they must vote them in a very loose manner—they could not vote, for instance, that a certain number of officers should be sent to a particular post—they must vote them in the mass, and in such a manner as would hardly give Parliament any control over them. But he must further confess that his young notions as to the control of Parliament over the public money had changed somewhat since his experience of office. This question was argued as if, where there was no Parliamentary control, there must be a profligate waste of money. But what were the facts? In 1822 the expenses of those establishments which were not under Parliamentary control amounted to 5,688,000 l., while in 1846 those charges had decreased by something more than a million, being only 4,639,000 l. But when he looked at those establishments over which Parliament had control, he

149
found that, so far from decreasing, they had increased from 18,000,000 l. odd in 1822, to 22,800,000 1. in 1846. He must, therefore, say to the lovers of economy that this state of things offered no temptation to bring these establishments under Parliamentary control. He believed the practice of bringing these establishments under the control of Parliament was constitutional; but then that gave rise to a pressure from different quarters which prevented reductions from taking place. Look, for instance, to the pressure that had taken place on the Post Office. He had been a party to carrying the benefits of the Post Office into every rural village, which was certainly a great convenience; but then it could not be done without greatly increased expense, so that the revenue of the Post Office was now nearly absorbed in its expenditure; and, indeed, such was the state of things that the Treasury now exercised a control over the expenditure of Parliament, rather than the Parliament over the Treasury. The last point was the question of appropriations in aid. Now, there was no difficulty with regard to this matter; for he believed there was no real advantage to the Treasury one way or the other. It was a mere matter of opinion; and the reason which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given for continuing the present practice was the real reason—that it acted as a stimulus to the different departments to sell their stores to the best advantage, if they received the credit of them, and were thus enabled to show that they kept down their respective estimates; whereas, if the produce of the old stores were thrown at once into the Treasury, and no credit given to the departments for their careful management, they would have no anxiety whether those stores sold well or ill. That was the real reason of continuing the system—that was the benefit which they received from continuing this practice; and not, as the hon. Member for Montrose appeared to suppose, because they were allowed to put any money into their own pockets. For these reasons he could not support the resolutions.
SIR J. GRAHAMwas not surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) should look upon the report that had been referred to with something like parental affection. With respect to the mode in which the public accounts should be kept, he most cordially and entirely agreed that the system of double entry
150
was the right way of keeping the accounts generally; and he had taken the earliest possible opportunity of introducing that system at the Admiralty, after the report to which allusion had been made. He was much mistaken if the accounts of the British Navy might not now challenge comparison with those of any branch of any public service. The present Government, following up the example of their predecessors, had introduced the same system both into the Army and the Ordnance; and he believed it would be introduced progressively throughout all the great departments of the public service. If it was said that no such system had been adopted at the Home Office, he would observe, that in connexion with the Home Office there was a branch of the public service with very large and complicated accounts, viz., the Police; and in that department he had the satisfaction, aided by Mr. Anderson, of introducing that most approved system of keeping accounts. To the principles laid down in the report of 1831 he adhered. He had not, however, at that time, had practical and official experience; and when that most upright public servant the late Lord Spencer passed the whole subject under careful review, he came to the conclusion that the recommendations in that report were opposed by many and great practical disadvantages. With respect to carrying to the account of expenditure small receipts arising from sales in the different departments, that appeared to him (Sir J. Graham) a matter of minor importance; he could not conceive that there would be much objection to give practical effect to the principle in that matter, and, for one, he should not object to see the recommendations of the report of 1831 carried into effect as far as that went. There remained the great question whether the revenue departments should or should not pay the charge for their establishments before paying into the Exchequer the amount of their receipts; and, upon the whole, though his experience was not so extensive as that of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. F. T. Baring), yet he must say, from the inquiries he had made, and from his general knowledge of the subject, that great inconvenience and expense would arise from the adoption of that recommendation. The matter was regarded by Lord Spencer with all his predilection in favour of the adoption of a sound system; and he was only deterred

151
from adopting it by a regard to practical considerations. It would be impossible—time and space would forbid it—to go into minute details of those extensive establishments. A great deal, too, would escape notice; and, if a public department desired to conceal a job, it would be much easier to do so under a large annual vote than in the course now adopted, under which a most ample account was laid on the Table of the House year by year after the money was expended.
LORD J. RUSSELLrose only to express his general concurrence in the view taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Baring and Sir J. Graham). On principle, the better way would seem to be, that the whole of the receipts should be brought into the Exchequer, and the whole of the payments made out of the Exchequer; but there was found to be so much practical inconvenience in that, and the expense and trouble would be so great, without any adequate countervailing advantage, that that plan, or that part of the plan, was given up, conformably with the opinion of Lord Spencer. The hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) likewise wished that all the departments connected with the collection of the revenue should present estimates to be voted in the House. For the reasons that had been already given, he (Lord J. Russell) conceived that that course would not be expedient; and that there would not be any equivalent advantage gained. It must not be supposed that it was the uniform and unbending rule that all public expenses should be agreed to by vote of the House on estimates; on the contrary, there were a great number of sums, such as the expenses of the Civil List, and pensions and payments out of the Consolidated Fund, which were established by Act of Parliament, and were not brought before the House in estimates to be voted year by year. However, he (Lord J. Russell) merely rose to state, with respect to the opinion of his which had been referred to, that although he entirely concurred in that view at the time when he signed the report, he had long since thought that Lord Spencer took the more correct view of the subject, and that he (Lord J. Russell) was in error when he signed that report.
DR. BOWRING DR. BOWRING, in replying, insisted that the departments of receipt and expenditure were kept separate in France, and ought to be so here also. No doubt, hon. Members might trace the 7,000,000 l. after
152
the money was gone; but he wanted to have the accounts looked into before the money was spent. But he would not divide the House; he thought this was one of those questions that were making progress.
Motion withdrawn.

NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.
MR. HUMErose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for an—
"Inquiry into the state of the Navy since 1832, as regards the building, alterations, and repairs of Her Majesty's Ships."
The Motion, though comprised in two lines, comprehended the whole question of the system of naval architecture in this country, and the manner in which it had been conducted since 1832. He had no hesitation in saying that the system of naval architecture in this country, and the management under which it had been conducted during that period, had been most unsatisfactory. Unlike every other department in this or in other countries, matters had not been progressing from a bad to a good system, but had stood still, if they had not retrograded; and he should be able to prove to the House, and expose to the country, mismanagement to a great extent, entailing vast loss upon the nation in money, with great discredit in character. He must first take the House back to the period when the Navy Estimates were before them fifteen years ago. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was then at the head of the Admiralty, and had most unadvisedly put an end to the School of Naval Architecture, which had existed for about twenty-one years; he had also openly, in the most extraordinary manner, depreciated the characters of those who were then pupils in that school; and had committed himself to an opinion which could scarcely have been believed by any one who did not hear it—that he did not consider science could be applied in the way proposed in that school to the purposes of naval architecture; the right hon. Baronet stated that he thought a captain in the Navy was as good as any other person to conduct that department. He had not been aware that he himself had spoken so distinctly and strongly on the subject as he found that he had done; on the 29th of June, 1832, when the subject of Sir William Symonds' appointment came before the House, he stated that the appointment was most unjust to the

153
country, which would he deprived of the scientific skill that might have been available, and that our great naval power would be in jeopardy by being placed in hands utterly incompetent; that he did not wish to disparage Captain Symonds, who was a distinguished naval officer; and that he objected to him, not as such, but as Surveyor of the Navy—an office for which he was unfit, because he was ignorant of naval architecture. The report made in 1806 by the Commissioners on the Civil Affairs of the Navy showed a marked contrast between England and France in the application of scientific principles. There was no department of manufactures which in the present day did not afford numerous proofs of the great progress made in this respect. It was only in applying science to naval architecture that England was backward. He was prepared to prove his case before either a Committee or a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester had stated when Captain Symonds was appointed, that Captain Symonds was entirely unknown to him, but had been brought under his notice as a man of talent. Objections having been stated to the appointment by himself (Mr. Hume), Sir Byam Martin, and others, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his confidence that when the Navy Estimates were brought forward the following year, it would be admitted that the experiment had been made most wisely. The right hon. Gentleman's words were—
"He was perfectly unknown to me, except in his profession, and I have selected him on account of the inquiries which have been made, and on account of the highly-approved ships which Captain Symonds has built. But I am perfectly ready to admit that the merits of this appointment are about to be put to what is the fairest test. There is a ship now ready for sea, built tinder his own immediate inspection, and I am quite willing that the merits of the appointment should rest upon the fate of that experiment. I am quite confident that when I shall meet the hon. and gallant Officer again on the Navy Estimates of next Session, he will admit that the result of that experiment has proved that this appointment was made most wisely."
His own opinion, on the contrary, was that it had been most unwisely made; that it had proved lamentably ruinous to the interests of the country; and that the time had arrived when it was necessary to arrest the progress of the evil. The right hon. Gentleman had also observed that he did not believe the Surveyor of the Navy was required to be a practical shipbuilder. Such were the views of the right hon.
154
Gentleman. Before showing the nature of the school and the system which that right hon. Gentleman had destroyed, he wished to explain why the School of Naval Architecture was originally established. He had a strong sense of the injustice done to individuals by its abolition. A breach of public faith, indeed, had, in his opinion, been committed; for the young men who sought admission to that school came forward with qualifications such as those required of young men entering Hailey bury College. Promises were made to induce them to induce them to qualify themselves for the public service. Expectations were held out, that offices of emolument would be opened to them, affording opportunities of acquiring distinction as well as of obtaining support. The Third Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, dated 24th of June, 1806, described the then existing system of education for shipwrights as exceedingly defective, and proposed to alter it, so as to secure the services of persons more liberally educated. The report stated—
"We find that apprentices are admitted at the age of fourteen; that at their admission many of them cannot read or write; few have much education. As apprentices they serve seven years; no care is taken to teach them anything during that time but their business as shipwrights. At the end of the apprenticeship they generally serve two or three years, working as shipwrights, after which time those reckoned fit for it are commonly employed as overseers of ships building in the merchant yards. In the whole course we have described, no opportunity will be found of acquiring even the common education given to men of their rank in life; and they rise to the complete direction of the construction of the ships, on which the safety of the empire depends, without any care or provision having been taken on the part of the public that they should have any instruction in mathematics, mechanics, or in the science or theory of marine architecture."
Such was the account of the state of naval architecture in 1806, and this was the remedy suggested:—
"To put an end to this want of foresight and due consideration, which may finally lead to so much danger to the country; to bring into our dockyards apprentices of more liberal education than has hitherto been required; to instruct them while there in mechanics, in mathematics, in drawing, and in everything connected with the science of naval architecture; to employ them during a portion of their time in working with the shipwrights, in the building and repairing of ships, so as to add the practice of the art of shipbuilding to the study of the theory; and, by these means, to enable them to form the plans of our ships of war consistently with scientific principles, and render them at the same time competent to judge of the labour that must necessarily be bestowed on the execution of every part of a ship, the

155
wages that by proper exertion may be earned by those employed on it, and the quality of the work when completed; these we consider to be amongst the most important parts of the duty which your Majesty has been pleased to commit to us, and we propose what follows as the best plan for the attainment of those objects, that, after the fullest attention, has occurred to us."
What followed? His Majesty's Government, in 1809, stated what were their intentions on the subject, and, in 1811, established the School of Naval Architecture. At that time, the state of science, as applied to naval architecture, was so greatly superior in France, that the only good ships England had in her service were copies of ships taken from other countries. Taking such considerations into account, and cherishing the spirit of Englishmen, who would not allow themselves to be dependent upon others, the Commissioners acted wisely in recommending, and the Government acted wisely in establishing, the School of Naval Architecture. When the Order in Council was issued on the subject, the prospect was held out that those who were studious and attentive would be rewarded in due time by appointments to the employments which existed in the dockyards. The Commissioners of Naval Revision recommended that the number of students should be so great as should be sufficient to supply the places of officers who might die or be removed. The situations to which they might aspire were the following:—Master Measurer, since abolished; Foreman of Shipwrights, Master Boat builder, and Master Mast-maker, now foremen of the yard at 250 1. per annum; Assistants to Master Shipwrights, 400 l. per annum; Mechanist in the office of Inspector-General of Naval Works, abolished; Civil Architect and Engineer, 800 1. per annum; Assistants to the Surveyors of the Navy, abolished; Master Shipwright,650 1.; per annum; Second Surveyor of the Navy, abolished; Inspector General of Naval Works abolished; First Surveyer of the Navy, 1,000 l.. per annum. These were the prizes which were held out to the young men who should enter the service. The right hon. Gentleman had said the school had entirely failed. It was a proper matter for inquiry whether imperfections existed in the establishment; but why destroy it? What ship had been produced worthy of being called an improved ship under Captain Symonds? And what was the result when the pupils of the School of Naval Architecture were allowed to try their skill in the construction of ships? Com-
156
plete success had, he believed, been the consequence. Yet after twenty-one years' service they did not receive any one of those appointments which Government had pledged itself to give them. The last Board of Admiralty had allowed them an opportunity of showing how their art and science could be applied. Let naval officers state what was their opinion of the Esipégle and the Thetis, as compared with the ships of Captain Symonds. Then there were at least five or six who had distinguished themselves by the knowledge they had shown of subjects immediately connected with the branch to which they had devoted themselves. Hon. Members, on comparing the principles laid down in the Catechism of Naval Architecture, by Sir William Symonds, with those laid down by pupils of the School of Naval Architecture, in their publications, would be able to satisfy themselves of the great superiority of the latter. The work of Chatfield seemed to throw the character and conduct of Sir W. Symonds, as a naval architect, into the shade. When had a better treatise been produced than that on masting by a pupil of the same institution? Where had papers appeared like those of Mr. Cruize? The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, had thought proper to put an end to the publication of those papers, which had proved so beneficial. Having ascertained the total number of ships built since 1832, and having obtained, so far as he could, the history of each ship, he was prepared to prove that in almost every instance there had been a failure in construction; that the objects required in respect of stowage, floatage, fighting—everything requisite in a ship of war—had in the great majority of instances been completely missed. Then the alterations were interminable; the expense was enormous; and scarcely any of the ships answered the purpose for which they were built. Such being the case he wished to bring his charge, not against Sir W. Symonds, but against the Admiralty, who had allowed such proceedings. Could it be said that they had exercised a sound discretion? One of the statements in his possession set forth the amount of money voted for wages and naval stores during fifteen years. If it had been properly applied, he should have thought little of the largeness of the sum, which amounted to 22,000,000 1. He was prepared to prove that a Large portion of that had been wasted. Since 1833, 8,000,000 1. had been voted for wages, and 14,000,000 1.

157
for naval stores; making 22,000,000 l. altogether. Deducting the votes for 1847, it appeared that, under Sir William Symonds, 19,900,000 l. had been expended. The statement as to the ships laid down during the same period showed the following results:—

Ships of the line, on Sir W. Symonds' design, laid down since 1832

9

On designs by the former Surveyors, laid down in 1812 to 1828

10

On the French model of M. Sané

1

Total launched

20

Frigates, on designs by Mr. Fincham, laid down in 1843

1

On Sir W. Symonds' designs, laid down since 1831

15

On designs by the late Surveyors, laid down in 1820 to 1828

6

On the French model of Pestal, laid down in 1828

1

On design of School of Naval Architecture, laid down in December, 1844

1

On design by Admiral Hayes, laid down in 1836

1

On design by Captain (now Admiral) Elliot, laid down in 1842

1

Total launched

26

Corvettes, on designs by Sir W. Symonds, laid down since 1834

4

On designs by the late Surveyor, Sir R. Seppings, laid down in 1830

1

On designs by Professor Inman, laid down in 1827

1

On designs by Captain (now Admiral) Elliot, in 1836

1

Total launched

7

Brigs, on designs by Sir W. Symonds, laid down since 1831

24

On designs by Captain Hendry, R. N., laid down in 1842

1

On designs by different Master Shipwrights, 1843

3

On designs by School of Naval Architecture, 1843

1

On designs by Private Builders, laid down in 1831, one—in 1843, one

2

Total

31

Brigantines, on designs by Sir W. Symonds, laid down since 1835

3

On designs by Sir R. Seppings, laid down in 1829

1

Total

4

Packets, on design by Sir W. Symonds, laid down since 1832, and launched

9

The following ships were building or in progress:

Ships of the line, on Sir W. Symonds' models

19

On French model of Sane

1

By Mr. Lang

1

By School of Naval Architecture

1

By the late Admiral Hayes

1

Total

23

158

Frigates, on Sir W. Symonds' models

10

Mr. Fincham

1

Mr. White (private builder), Deptford

1

Mr. Blake (late master shipwright), Portsmouth

2

Mr. Lang, junior, Woolwich

1

Total

15

Corvettes, on Sir W. Symonds' model

1

Brigs, on Sir W. Symonds' model

11

Brigantines, on Sir W. Symonds' model

1

The steam navy was not included. The charge was, that failures in building ships had taken place to au enormous extent. Scarcely one ship had been laid down by Sir W. Symonds which had turned out other than a failure. The Vernon was the first great ship, and had already been made a subject of remark in that House. On the 4th of March, 1842, Captain Rous
—"condemned the Pique as a bad sea-boat, and not a good ship at her anchors. She floated one foot deeper than the calculation, with only four months' provisions (he commanded her). She shipped so much water as to wash away her head-rails, and put four feet water on the main-deck. Obliged to be put two feet by her stern to make her dry and easy. He said the Vanguard was endeavoured to be improved from this. His steamers would be swamped if caught in a heavy gale of wind. (The Gorgon he referred to)."
With regard to the Vernon, he was prepared to prove that in the first cruise, under Sir F. Collier, she pitched so heavily that she even broke off her head-rails short, leaving the fastenings secure, and the quarter-gallery from the stern; her labour-some qualities were fearful. When she bore the flag of Sir G. Cockburn, she pitched her bowsprit-cap into the sea, and shipped so much water in the forecastle that it ran down to the gunner's-room below, and nearly drowned his mate; the seas she was accustomed to ship at her fore-channel on the left of the bow when dipping into the water before she was able to rise again, ran aft to the quarter-deck; her lines were similar to a frigate constructed more than fifty years ago, and found not to answer. In fact, she was the copy of an old French vessel that had been tried, and had completely failed. He, therefore, said, that the right hon. Baronet, in getting hold of Captain Symonds, rested his merit—if any merit he had—upon a test which had completely failed. He thought he could show that, in 1831, Captain Symonds stated he knew nothing about shipbuilding, and that the Pantaloon was built on lines supplied to him by another. He was then unworthy to take the place of men whose education had fitted them for the duty, and who had subsequently proved

159
themselves good builders. He (Mr. Hume) thought, also, he could show that Sir W. Symonds' ships had completely failed in their object, when he said that almost every ship built for the East India Company's service, and for private merchants, had floated and answered, without material alterations; whilst almost every ship built by Sir W. Symonds had required alterations and improvement. With respect to the Queen, which was laid down as a 110 gun ship
—"she was first laid down as Caledonia's class, and called the Royal Frederick, 120 guns, a new midship body given, and the extreme breadth increased to sixty feet, besides other expensive alterations. The great error of this ship's construction was, her want of displacement at the load-water line. Six feet additional breadth increased the weight of hull most materially, certainly close upon 200 tons. The load displacement remained nearly the same as the Caledonia's class; consequently when all the stores and equipments were placed on board, the midship-port was but six feet five inches from the water, instead of seven feet. This ship, by the reports of Sir E. Owen and Captain Rich, did not fulfil the great expectations anticipated, and on most occasions she was beaten by the Rodney; besides, the reports on her steerage were very indifferent, carrying lee helm. In 1844, so far as sailing went, when she came from Plymouth she was beaten by the St. Vincent; but this failure was trifling when compared with other failures. A trial was made between the Queen, the Caledonia, the St. Vincent, and the Albion, and the result was altogether unfavourable to the Queen."
The first portion of the report respecting the ships of Captain Symonds was probably correct, and that they were good ships in smooth water, fair weather, and when lightly loaded; but what was their worth when laden with stores and guns and altogether fit for service? They were then found to be lamentably defective. This ought to have induced the Admiralty of the day to have instituted an inquiry, when they would have ascertained the erroneous principles on which these ships had been built. After the trial, the Queen was brought into dock at Chatham. Alterations were made which cost nearly 10,000 l.: the midship magazine was taken away; the rudder enlarged; she was lengthened forwards and aft; the masts were shifted; the foremast moved aft three feet, and the mainmast fourteen inches; nearly two feet given to the sternpost, besides throwing out the stem eighteen inches, and four feet additional forefoot, up to the load-water line. These alterations amounted to nearly 9,000 1. The subsequent trial showed that these alterations had somewhat improved her; but the question was,
160
whether the removal of the mid-ship magazine did not effect all the good by throwing the proper weights in the centre of the vessel; yet the bow was lengthened, the rudder extended, the masts were altered, and, indeed, there was scarcely a portion which was not altered, and yet the Admiralty of the day allowed all this to be done without complaint. He said, that when individuals pointed out these errors, it was the duty of the Admiralty of the day to ascertain the principles on which Captain Symonds had laid down his ships. He wanted to see whether there was any Minute for allowing the expenditure of this 10,000 l. or 20,000 l., and showing its application; for if the Admiralty did allow it, and did not test its efficacy, they did not do their duty. It was difficult, therefore, to know which party was most to blame; and for this very reason it was important to appoint a Committee. A great deal had been said about the Vanguard. She had been praised on all hands, and had been held up as perfect. He had gone on board of her at St. Helens; she swam prettily on the water. He was not a naval man, but he was told that she was perfect. Whilst she was a sailing yacht she did very well; but when she got her crew and stores in, it was very different. She had been praised and held up by all parties nearly, until the late trials in 1845 and 1846, as the most wonderful vessel ever constructed. He recollected Lord Minto declaring her to be perfection. Admiral Bouverie reported her equal to carry six months' provisions with great ease, with upwards of 400 tons of water; and her other qualities not to be surpassed, never straining a rope yarn. But what had turned out to be the fact? After the first trial in 1845, in the summer months, and a few months from the Devonport dockyard, we find she was ordered to Portsmouth to be docked; when docked, the nails of the second streak of copper were forced out by the working of the ship; and, in two instances, the copper was split, where the oakum had been forced out of the seams in consequence of the rolling and pitching, and she was compelled to be caulked all over. In this trial the Vanguard was invariably the last ship, beaten by every ship of the squadron. Sometimes the Superb, a sister ship, disputed the place of last. In this cruise the Vanguard went to sea under Admiral Parker as follows: twenty-three feet seven inches forward, twenty-four feet five inches aft, midship port, twenty-seven feet one inch; mean,

161
twenty-four feet. This return shows seven inches deeper forward, and five inches deeper aft; yet she swims one inch higher out of water by the midship port than the construction drawing in the same Parliamentary return. This draught of water was with twelve months' stores, 140 days' provisions, 384 tons of water—twenty-eight days less of water and provisions than any ship of the squadron. [Captain BERKELEY: What are the hon. Member's authorities for these statements?] He would prove them before a Committee. He would come to the hon. Captain himself presently, mid show that the Admiralty was speaking without book. The cost of the Queen appeared by the returns, No. 592, of the year 1846, and the House would scarcely believe that her whole cost had been 127,000 l. The sum of 81,000 l. appeared by the return to be the cost of the hull, and he was prepared to prove that this was understated; the total cost, with the fittings, was 95,000 l., she had been repaired three times, and the aggregate cost was not less than 127,000 l. What was the case with respect to the Vanguard? The first cost of the hull was 62,000 l., and of the hull and rigging 77,000 l.; and would the House believe that up to November, 1845, not less than 111,000 l, had been laid out on that ship? This arose from the changes which had taken place, and the bad management which had gone on. He knew that there was a difference of opinion on these matters; and it was because of this difference of opinion that he should be glad of the opportunity of proving his case before a Committee. The return clearly showed that the draught of water did not answer. There was another sailing ship in the Portsmouth yard, the Prince Albert of 90 guns, and he was prepared to prove that she was totally unfit for duty.
"Her frame was badly constructed, weak shift of timber, and inefficient stern, a mere bundle of wedges confined together by long iron bandages round the exterior of the timbers, producing extreme weakness at the after-end of the ship."
This displayed great want of professional experience, and also of the principles of construction. In Woolwich yard, the Boscawen was completed in frame and well seasoned as an 80-gun ship. She was then ordered to be taken down and altered to a frigate in November, 1832, on the lines of the Vernon, to be called the Indefatigable. The order was cancelled in April, 1834, and another given to make her a 70-gun ship, retaining the name of
162
the Boscawen, but causing great consumption and waste of timber. New timber was mixed with the old, &c. After this, part of the bow was taken down and altered in June, 1840. She had originally an upright stem and round bow. They were afterwards taken down, and the stem made to rake, and given a sharp bow. The stern was reconstructed, and put up a second time, with about two feet less rake than before. This ship had cost the country an enormous sum of money for so many alterations, and was still a poor specimen of naval architecture, although she had had an improved stern, from the model settled by the committee of master shipwrights assembled at Woolwich in 1842, similar to the plan of the Trafalgar, built there on Mr. Lang's principle. Here was a ship which had gone through five or six changes at an enormous expense; and all this had been done by the order of the Surveyor, and had been permitted by the Admiralty: and he asked whether this was a state of things with which they should be contented, or which they should allow to continue? There was the packet Cygnet, at Portsmouth. Her stern and topsides were taken down; she was rebuilt for a 10-gun brig, but carried only 6 guns. The Heroine was the same as the Cygnet. She was built for 10 guns; but after she was completed, her stern was taken down and altered. She mounted only 6 guns. The Siren, of 16 guns, had her stem taken to pieces and altered, and her quarter galleries taken off. She had still too much rake in her stern to use her guns clear. He was now showing the works of an officer who considered science to be of no consequence: these were the defects consequent on the right hon. Baronet's change; and he defied any one versed in naval architecture to go to any part of the world and find such changing and taking to pieces. The packet Express was built by contract in the river. She was taken into dock, and a large piece brought on to tin; fore part of the stem and gripe below, to make her stem more upright, the same as was done to the Queen. The Swift was built also by contract, and underwent similar alterations. The Star was built at Woolwich, and was so badly constructed that she rolled away her masts, and laid on her beam-ends; and her commander, Lieutenant Binhey, with all the men on deck, were washed overboard. The commander and fourteen men were drowned. The Hannibal, 90 guns, ordered to be

163
built, had some faulty construction, bad stern, and weak shift of timbers composing her frame. These ships hon. Members who knew nothing of shipbuilding might think were exceptions; but he would show that the same thing took place in other yards. In the Chatham yard, there was the Wolverine, of 16 guns; when completed in frame, her bow was found too sharp, and to fall in, and was taken down, and a new bow put up. The Wanderer, a sister ship, underwent similar alterations. The Orpheus, of 46 guns, had a frame provided, but it was transferred to other ships. The Cumberland, of 70 guns, was commenced building like the Boscawen when altered, namely, with raking stem and sharp bow. She was afterwards lengthened on the keel, to make the stem upright, and the bow made round abaft, like the Trafalgar. It was worthy of remark, that the Boscawen was originally an upright stem, and round bow, for which reason her whole frame was taken down, and her stem made to rake, and her bow formed sharp. Exactly the reverse, therefore, was done with these two ships; and it was thus that the best interests of the country were dealt with. The Goliah, of 80 guns, had a sharp bow like the Vernon, and raking stem; after being in frame, her stern was taken down and altered, timbers cut off, patched up with iron bandages, bound round to keep together that which, if properly constructed, would have united with the frame, and have supported itself without iron bands, and given strength to the fabric. If he proved this single case, he showed the incapacity of the Surveyor, and the fault of the Admiralty in permitting such things to take place. The Mars, 80 guns, was at first designed as the Goliah and Vanguard, with a sharp bow and raking stem; she was altered to a round bow and upright stem. He had given these instances, because he was anxious that the Committee should have proved before them whether he was in error; but he believed that his statements were correct, and he was prepared to stand by them. The Serpent, 16 guns, was built in the river in a hurry, for experiment, by contract; she soon became rotten, and underwent considerable repair; and the Snake, 16 guns, which was built at the same place, and in the same manner, had also had extensive repairs. It was important to show whether it was better to build ships in private yards, or in Her Majesty's dockyards, though he was inclined to the opinion that it was bet-
164
ter to build them in Her Majesty's dockyards, where all facilities could be afforded. In the Pembroke yard there was nothing but chopping and changing. The Vanguard, 80 guns, was hurried off without giving proper time to season, and soon became defective; she had a large expensive refit at Portsmouth, and the ship kept in commission while it was performing. The Collingwood, 80 guns, sister ship to the Vanguard, with sharp bow and raking stem, was afterwards altered to a round bow and upright stem, similar to the Trafalgar. In the Plymouth yard, the Statira, 46 guns, was completed in frame and plank, beams, &c, provided, then broken down, and the materials disposed of, for some other purposes, to Pembroke yard. The Tigress, of 46 guns; the Daphne, of 20; the Porcupine, of 20; the Pheasant, of 18; the Redwing, of 18; Sealark, of 10 guns; and the Volcano, Devastation, and Beelzebub, bomb-vessels, had their frames cut out, but the timbers used for other purposes, with loss of time, work, and much extra expenses. The St. George, 120 guns, and the Hindostan, 84 guns, were launched before they were properly completed, to make room for two 90-gun ships, of bad construction, weak shift of timber, and inefficient stern—the Aboukir and the Exmouth. He held in his hand papers which would show the vacillating conduct of the Government; that they were planning one day, and altering another, without having any certain object in view. He found that the Flora, 36 guns, had had her stern taken down and altered, but was still very bad; the Albion, 90 guns, when completed in frame, had had her stern taken down and altered, but was very faulty still. The Aboukir, 90 guns, sister ship, had an equally bad stern, and weak shift of timbers. The Exmouth, 90 guns, same class, ditto. The Creole, Niobe, and Amethyst, 26 guns, had had the frames partly cut out, similar in form to the Spartan, which ship was so deficient in capacity in after body, that she required the ballast to be placed in the coal-hole, before the fore hatching, with as much stores forward as possible; but that in bad weather would make her a very uneasy ship. The Union, 98 guns, was taken into dock for repair, then ordered to be made a 74-gun ship; was taken to pieces in dock to be rebuilt on a slip, and removed for that purpose; ultimately she was not rebuilt, and her materials disposed of some other way: this in-

165
curred expense, and the loss of a first-rate to the service. He would now read to the House a list of ships that had been sacrificed to the service, that had been condemned and sold off; although if proper measures had been taken, and there had been a proper surveyor, they might have been saved. The first was, the Scarborough, 74 guns, built by Sir R. Seppings. She was only a few months at sea, condemned at Sheerness by Sir W. Symonds, on Mr. Finehorn's report. Her housing all over in a superior manner. Sold out of the service for 6,000 1. Taken to pieces in the river Thames in March, 1837. Found to be a sound good ship, requiring very few defects to be made good; in fact, was in excellent condition, and worth upwards of 40,000 l. The next was the Thames, 46 guns, was built by Sir R. Seppings' copy of the Hebe, a new frigate, never at sea, roofed all over, launched at Chatham, condemned there, and made a convict ship at Deptford, and sent to Bermuda as such, sound, dry, and in good condition. The Hebe, 46 guns, was built by Sir R. Seppings' copy of the French Hebe, new frigate, never at sea, launched at Woolwich, roofed all over, condemned on report in the Medway, made a receiving ship at Woolwich. The Redoubtable, 74 guns, was built by Sir R. Seppings, Ineker, and Peake, the three surveyors—a good ship, never at sea, condemned upon report at Chatham, and broken up in dock at that yard, to the astonishment of all who saw her, having very few defects. By these and similar proceedings, the Navy had been greatly depreciated (exclusively of ruining ships and hulks) from January 1830 to 1841. He held that the efficiency of the Navy was very much injured by such a system; and although it was true that a vast number of ships had been built, yet the service was much damaged by losing those vessels. He was also informed that the masting of the ships, and the plans on which they should be masted, had not been at all attended to. Certain scales for masting had been laid down in the several dockyards by the late Sir R. Seppings; but notwithstanding that, larger masts had been placed in our ships than they were capable of bearing, and they were obliged to cut them down when in the Mediterranean. Although this had been done, there were no reasons given for it, and no results in order that the Admiralty might judge how far those alterations had been attended with benefit to the vessels. The efficiency
166
of the Navy had also considerably diminished, by the Surveyor compelling all ships (although not on his plan) to take masts and yards of larger diameter and less length than formerly—having made a set of masts and yards for each rate of his own ship—which, from their extreme breadth require excessively large diameter spars (as they roll all others away); he makes the ships also that are not on his plan, take the same, and this he calls classifying the Navy—see old class 74-ships, 18-gun brigs, &c. But there were other parts of the service to which he must also allude. It was important to know whether the Surveyor had done his duty, or the Admiralty had seen that he had done it. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty, had sent him a copy of the instructions given to the Surveyor, and he found that those instructions were partly as follow:—
"1. You are to prepare, for their Lordships' consideration, drawings of such ships and vessels as may be ordered to be built by you."
"6. Having been put in possession of the number and classes of ships to be employed in the course of the year, and having made yourself acquainted with the state of the fleet in ordinary, which you are to do by a strict examination once in the course of the year, you are to submit, for their Lordships' consideration any alteration that may appear to you advisable of the number of artificers and workmen in the several dockyards.
"You are also to examine and report to the board what ships are worn out, and what shipbuilding stores are so deteriorated as to make it advisable to put both up to public sale, or to take the ships to pieces.
"The reports of all surveys of Her Majesty's ships by the officers of the yards will be laid before you; and from them and any other information you may be able to collect, you are to consider and submit your opinion of the propriety of either reprieving, selling, or taking them to pieces, as from the circumstances regarding their condition, the expense of repairing, &c, may appear to you most expedient.
"When projects for building ships, for alterations in their masts and yards, and, in short, all proposals that have relation to any of Her Majesty's ships or vessels, are submitted to you for your opinion, you are to communicate the same in writing, with your reasons for approving or objecting to such proposals "
By these instructions the Surveyor was to make an annual report to the Admiralty; but if he was rightly informed, no report had been made since 1841; and even that one made to Lord Haddington, had not been produced, because it pointed out how much many ships had been injured by neglect, and how much expense had been incurred by wanton changes. [Mr. CORRY: A return is made every year.] Where were they then? They were not to be seen, and

167
he wished to have those returns laid before the House. In the year 1803, Sir W. Rule and two other gentlemen were surveyors; but in the year 1832, a change took place in the Administration, and Sir W. Symonds was appointed sole surveyor. He certainly was a naval officer, but was altogether ignorant of the science of naval architecture, yet was still considered sufficient for so important an office. If he were able to prove that due inquiry had not taken place into this department of the service, and if he could show the public had suffered great injury in consequence, he thought his case would be made out. It would be seen that the Admiralty had given orders to stop and proceed with several ships in such a way as to show the greatest indecision. That was particularly observable in the ease of the Exmouth and the Aboukir. By a return which had been laid before the House, he found that on the 9th of December, 1844, orders were issued by the Admiralty to stop the building of the Exmouth and the Aboukir; that alone would prove the distrust of the Admiralty in the Surveyor, and yet they had not the courage to remove him. First, they appointed a commission of master shipwrights to report on his plans. Then they appointed a second commission, which made a report also; and on the recommendations contained in that report the ships which were then in course of construction were ordered to be stopped, because they were all laid down on the lines of the Albion; and she rolled so much, and behaved so badly, that it was thought improper to proceed with them. He had there a diagram, which showed the rolling of that ship, and on looking to that, it was really wonderful how any man could keep on her deck in security. The Abouhir was then three-eighths completed; and the Exmouth, according to their dockyard arithmetic—which was as barbarous as their shipbuilding—two parts and a quarter of an eighth. [An Hon. MEMBER: Merchant builders calculate in the same way.] But that was no reason why they should follow a had example. In this condition the ships remained in 1844. In 1845 and 1846, nothing was done; but in 1846 and 1847, without any general order, except placing them on the list, they were ordered to be advanced. Now, as they had been stopped by a special order, he conceived they should have been advanced by a special order also. In February, an order was given to advance the Aboukir
168
two-eighths, and the Exmouth three quarters of one-eighth. On the 28th March, orders were again issued that the works should be suspended. In a very few weeks the works were renewed; and they were now going to lengthen those ships, and launch them. There was a history to do credit, or discredit rather, to any body of men who ever allowed themselves to be bamboozled into neglect of their duty. It might be supposed that all these remarks were true of sailing vessels only; but he had also a list of failures in steam vessels for the House. He found that when Sir W. Symonds started, he had, by Admiralty order, the drawing of the following steam vessels as a guide for his own construction, namely, the Comet, Lightning, Meteor, Pluto, Flamer, Firebrand, Firefly, Spitfire, and Medea, from which his first production (assisted by Mr. Edye) was the Gulnare, increased in breadth from the Comet. His first vessel, the Gulnare, failed—too deep and very slow; her power was then increased to obtain speed, many alterations made in her fittings, &c.; and to cover these mistakes, her name changed to Gleaner; but still being too deep, was sent to Chatham, cut into two parts, and lengthened; still a failure, very slow and very deep—could not carry her coals and stores. This was a bad beginning, and a bad specimen of steam construction. The Blazer and Tartarus were the next two built—both failed. Their engines and boilers were taken out, and new ones made of increased power. These vessels were laid up useless ten months, during the time the alterations were going on. Hermes, the next built, rolled and pitched to such a degree, that she was also sent to Chatham in May, 1840, to be cut in two parts, and lengthened two feet at the keel and twenty feet on deck, She had since had an upright stem and additional power, with other alterations. Volcano, a sister vessel, had the same propensities of rolling, &c. She plunged her bowsprit into the sea, and lost her jibboom and jib in the ocean, as she could not bring them up again. Gorgon, built at Pembroke; intended to carry guns, but found to be so deep in the water, the ports were obliged to be caulked in, copper on the bottom raised, and her power increased. The Cyclops, a sister vessel, in consequence of the Gorgon failing, was lengthened to remedy the evil, but could not carry the guns intended, being still too deep in the water. After these and other repeated errors, he has

169
increased the length of his steam vessels, and altered their forms. The Devastation, and that class of steamers, have been brought up to the same proportion of length as the Medea, and their figure made to assimilate more to that vessel. He now came to the Royal yacht. He was one of those who, when Sir R. Peel made the proposal for building that yacht, was of opinion that there were so many yachts that there was no occasion for any more; but they were assured by the Government that it would he made at very little additional expense, and that in case of war it might be converted into a war steamer if necessary. But what was the result? This was the last that was built after all their experience. A very dull man might become a shipwright in fifteen years; but still there was displayed about that vessel a want of scientific knowledge—a want of knowing what the effect of displacement, fore and aft, in relation to the ship's figure, was that had been the cause of all the Surveyor's failures. This Royal yacht was so imperfectly constructed, that she was obliged to carry 120 tons of ballast towards the stern; and when she was launched, she sank her head into the water with her stern up like a duck diving. She would not answer her helm, and had been altered again and again; but he wanted an account of those alterations. He believed that she had cost 100,000 l. That was the last act of Sir W. Symonds. Whether the Admiralty had examined the line, or had taken any opinion upon it, he could not tell; but there seemed to be a kind of compact between the Admiralty and the Surveyor. Such a mode of conducting the affairs of a great department, was a discredit to any country. But he had not yet done. The Lizard, 150 horse power, a packet, iron steamer, built by Sir William Symonds, commissioned at Woolwich in 1842 by Lieutenant Macdonald, was nearly sinking in the basin from the weight of her stores; and all her stores, officers, crew, guns, &c, were turned over to the Spitfire of the same size, but constructed by Mr. O. W. Laing, jun., and now in the Mediterranean. The Spitfire took them all with heavier guns and double the quantity of coals, besides many other additions. The Spitfire's engines were old and very heavy, compared with the newer make in the Lizard. There were many similar instances of failure, also of falsification in that return. The Lizard required to be altered, and lighter guns and fewer stores
170
than were originally intended for her. But he would now turn to the official report of Captain Lushington, of the Retribution, of her putting back into Plymouth after the gale (on the 6th or 7th of June, 1846), when she washed her shot out of the racks about the neck; and his and Captain Ramsay's reports of his last trial with the Terrible (about the 2nd or 3rd of July, 1846), would show the complete defeat of the Retribution.
"Captain Ramsay reported of the Terrible, of June, 1846, that in towing the Etna, under sail alone, proved her great capabilities, without steam: and his reports of the 26th of July, 1846, on firing her guns, and comparative consumption of coals, also for the 9th of October, when loaded with provisions from Malta, show her great superiority. Sir W. Parker's and Captain Ramsay's reports of the 20th of October, 1846, of the Terrible towing the Hibernia, a first-rate ship, and in October or November, 1846, her sailing into Cadiz without her main-topmast, bearing the greater part of the fleet, although her floats were not taken off, confirmed her good character. The Terrible was constructed by Mr. Laing in 1845: she is a two-decker; was built at Deptford under very unfavourable circumstances—the timber, &c, having to be carried there, as it was the first opening of that yard, with no materials or workmen on the spot. The Retribution was constructed by Sir W. Symonds, has only one deck, and is 200 tons less than the Terrible. She was built at Chatham under favourable circumstances; but has cost, since her building, a very considerable sum in alterations, &c. She was designed for two decks of guns, but could not carry them, being too deep (her lower deck ports were caulked in). On the contrary, the Terrible carries her lower deck guns, and can use them, from her great stability, even when the three-deck line of battle ships dare not open their lower deck ports. The Terrible, with the same power, consumes considerably less coals than the Retribution, which is a much weaker ship, and badly put together. The Terrible was, comparatively, the cheapest steamer in the service, as she had most fully answered all the purposes for which she was built, without any alterations "
The report went on:—
"Neither the Retribution nor any of Her Majesty's war steamers can compare with the Terrible in any one point at sea, nor in their build. The Terrible has not altered nor strained in the least, but is as strong and as perfect as the day she was launched. The advantages of the Terrible air stated in the reports of Captains Lushington and Ramsay. The Avenger was built by Sir W. Symonds, in 1846—a still less ship than the Retribution—but cost considerably more in building than the Terrible, besides expenses afterwards; and she is still inefficient."
He thought he had stated enough to show there had been, at any rate, great irregularity in that department of the service; that large sums of money had been expended, no one knew how; and that it was full time to step in and stop that extra-

171
vagance which, hitherto, had had no proper control. The Committee of Reference had not, in his opinion, the proper qualifications for their office; but their appointment showed that the Admiralty doubted the wisdom and authority of Sir W. Symonds. The Commission of 1842 were, he believed, all shipwrights; and they all reported on the Surveyor's ships. Where were those reports? Let the House have them, and he believed it would be found that they condemned those ships entirely. He did not blame the present Government; for he believed they had been very anxious to remedy those evils, and to appoint a Commission of Superintendence. But what use was that? The head of the Commission was certainly a very able man; but what education had his assistants? [An hon. MEMBER: They are all naval schoolmen.] Yes, that might be so; but what was the use of them, if they were placed under the Surveyor of the Navy? The present system was clearly imperfect, and the recommendations of the Commission of 1806 could not possibly be attained by such means. The next point he came to was that of expense. The cost of those vessels, too, had been enormous. By a return which was moved for by the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Marylebone, he found that the Queen cost 127,000 l., and the Trafalgar 114,000 l.; but he believed the valuation was made in the time of war, when the whole charge was at war prices. The next ship, the Albion, which was to be the example and pattern of all others, up to the 1st of March, 1846, had cost 104,048?. The Rodney cost 145,000 l. It was originally a better ship than the Albion; but 17,000 l. had been expended upon her in alterations, and she had been spoiled. The Vanguard cost 111,000 l.; the Penelope 101,000 1. Those were large sums of money; but it was not so much the money as the system he complained of. He believed, however, that many of the returns that were made to that House were manufactured in the Surveyor's office. He remembered that in 1835, when a charge was made against Sir R. Seppings of using timber improperly, the right hon. Baronet then at the head of the Admiralty read a statement from a Mr. Hawkes, of the dockyard at Pembroke, on the subject. That statement was contradicted at the time; and afterwards, when he made inquiry, he found that the statement was not sent by any authority of the dockyard, but that it was entirely forged. He considered this,
172
however, as entirely a question of education. It was, indeed, a reproach, that, after they had had the evils pointed out so clearly by the Commissioners in 1806, not more had been done in that respect. Those Commissioners pointed out the way in which the young men of France and other countries were educated for the purposes of their Navy; and when they had become possessed of some of the best models of foreign ships which afterwards became the most striking vessels in the service, he had hoped that at no very distant day they might have built ships equal to them; but instead of attending to that point they had entrusted the Navy to quackery. The details he had laid before the House showed they had been impairing their Navy the whole of that time; that they had left it to one, who was certainly a naval officer, but who possessed no science or education; and looking to the fifteen years which had gone by since his appointment, he (Mr. Hume) certainly thought the time was come when an inquiry should take place, that all doubt on the subject might be removed. He wished to see a proper scale of education adopted, on a system worthy of the country. He understood that some such scale had been established in the dockyards; but it had never produced the amount of information, or that character among the men, which they wanted for the protection of the country and the welfare of the Navy, and for the character of the country. He knew that different interests were connected with this subject; he had heard this and that naval officer bandy about the merits of this or that Surveyor of the Navy; that alone showed great contrariety of opinion; and he, therefore, thought they ought to have an inquiry into the present system, to see what was the most beneficial course to be taken in future. Upon that ground he moved for an inquiry into the state of the Navy since 1832, as regarded the building, alterations, and repairs of Her Majesty's ships.
VISCOUNT INGESTRE, in seconding the Motion, said it was no little satisfaction to find that this matter was made the subject of a distinct Motion, and not introduced upon the Naval Estimates, and when the House would be only attended by professional Members; when, in fact, the subject was one which should interest all the representatives of the people, because affecting a department of such great importance as that to which was confided the building of proper ships for their Navy;

173
such a subject, he said, he said, was worthy of the greatest attention of every Member of that House. It was hardly fair, he said, of them to call upon their seamen to take their places in inferior ships, in such ships as it had been repeatedly stated in that House had been building in their dockyards for a number of years back. He must say that he heartily thanked the hon. Member for bringing the subject before the House. That hon. Member bud gone into such details, that the House, be was sure, would be glad to hear that be would not attempt to follow the hon. Member in repeating these various details. Still it was necessary for him to make a few observations; and in these observations be hoped that the hon. Board of Admiralty would understand that he did not in any way imply censure upon them, nor upon any particular individual. That which he wished to say applied to the system which had been going on for a number of years, and which he contended was one that was totally inadequate to supply proper ships to the Royal Navy. If fault were to be found with any one, it was with the Board of Admiralty, and especially the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Sir J. Graham), because it was by that right hon. Gentleman that the Surveyor of the Navy had been appointed, without ascertaining whether or not he was capable of performing the duties of his office. To appreciate the beautiful form of a ship, was not sufficient for such an office; for if the propriety of that appointment were to be tested by the success of the Vernon, as the right hon. Gentleman had told him, in answer to a question he had asked him in that House in 1832, then it must be admitted that the appointment was one which bad most signally failed, inasmuch as that ship had proved herself to be, though presenting a beautiful battery, a most uneasy ship in bad weather, thereby making that battery comparatively useless, as also a most expensive ship in wear and tear. He had on more than one occasion shown that the duties of a Surveyor of the Navy were more than one man could satisfactorily perform. His duty was to examine the stores; to examine the timbers that came into the yards; and not to employ himself entirely in the designing and altering ships, as the present Surveyor had been doing. The first thing that ought to be shown on such an occasion as this was, that there had been no profusion and no useless expenditure. The hon. Member
174
for Montrose had shown what had been the expenses on several ships. He then should merely state that up to 1845 there were 1,356,000 l. used upon ships that had been constructed, or that were in the process of construction. There was an almost similar sum as to steamers. Now, if this system were a good system, or if there were any fixed principle, he might venture to ask what could be the necessity for constant changes in almost every ship that was constructed? It was only a day or two ago he had received a letter from a distinguished officer, Captain R. Burton, which be should now trouble the House with reading:—
"15, Park-square, April 27, 1847.
"My dear Lord Ingestre—As the merits of Sir W. Symonds' intuitive mode of constructing our ships of war has nothing to do with politics, but is solely and exclusively a national question of vital importance, and as it is possible there are some Gentlemen within the walls of the House of Commons, as well as without, who may be still sceptical as to the results from dear-bought experience, I beg to acquaint you that the Albion, which is the model on which several 92 gun ships have been built, and are in the course of building, was originally intended to carry 68 pounders; but, in the absence of any accurate calculation of the displacement, when she was launched she sunk 80 considerably deeper in the water than intuitive foresight could divine, that it has been found necessary to substitute the much lighter calibre of 32 pounders.
"With this light armament, and all her stores, water, and provisions in, she has rolled forty-five degrees.
"Now, in place of sending this ship, which was to have been the model of a numerous progeny, to be tested as to her capacities, in the summer months, off the Sole Bank to the westward of the Scilly Islands—had she been sent off to the Black Rocks, or into the Bay of Biscay, from the end of November to the end of March, to have undergone, as she ought to have done, the severe test of the winter months; I leave you to judge, as well as every scientific nautical man in England, what would have been the probable result had she experienced a severe gale of wind, with all her water, provisions, and stores below the centre of gravity nearly consumed, and had she had her heavy armament of 68 pounders remaining above the centre of gravity. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying the chances are very great that she would have rolled over. For the mathematical question resolves itself simply into this—if, with a much lighter armament, and all her provisions, water and stores on board, she rolled forty-five degrees, what would have been the probable results with the alteration in the centre of gravity, when the weights should be greatly increased above, and those below dimished to a. vast extent by consumption?
"The mode in which ordnance are tested is by a large increase of powder, for it is evident if they bear this proof, no risk can be incurred from the ordinary charge used in action.
"The converse has been the ordeal which the

175
Albion has undergone; and what makes this the more unpardonable is, that this ship was to be the model from which so many ships were to be built, at such an enormous outlay of the public money.
"Believe me, my dear Lord Ingestre, very truly and faithfully yours,
"J. RYDER BURTON.
"The Viscount Ingestre, M.P.," &c.
It showed that the great fault to be found with ships constructed by the Surveyor of the Navy, was the want of sufficient displacement; and that fault became more apparent as the size of the vessel increased, and the superstructure raised, which consequently also raised the centre of gravity; that great defects were found in all whenever a trial with them took place. Whilst mentioning the name of the officer who had written to him that letter, he could not but observe that a letter from the same officer had been read by the hon. Member for Coventry, in which he said that, instead of the classes of ships which they were now having built, these classes should be reduced to a smaller number—he thought five. Let them not, he said, as in the American war, expose their seamen to fight against larger ships than their own. He then referred to the trials between the Pique and the Inconstant, and the Pique and the Castor. The Barham, a 74, which had been made into a large frigate, out of nineteen trials beat the Vernon thirteen to six. He was quoting from a Parliamentary return made in 1836, and in it it was also stated that the Espiégle, the Flying Fish, and Daring, had proved themselves nearly equal in point of sailing, but that the Espiégle carried nearly six weeks more provisions and water than the Flying Fish, and drew less water than the Daring, and combined all the properties of a man-of-war. Returns had been made of the sailing of the Raleigh, built by Mr. Fincham, master shipwright at Portsmouth, and who had been the teacher of practical shipbuilding to the School of Naval Architecture, with the Constance, the Improved Vernon, as she was called, which was to be the paragon of the sea. He had not seen those returns in an official shape—why, he knew not; but he understood that the same return gave a comparison of the sailing qualities of the Eurydice (which was built by a late Member of that House, Captain Elliott), with the Spartan and the Thetis, with the America and Superb. He was informed by the captain of the Thetis, which was the produce of three members of the Naval School of Architecture, that she beat the others considerably; that
176
she carried all her stores and armament most perfectly; and that when extra stores and men were put on board of her, she was not put out of trim. He had no doubt that the returns relating to the Terrible would show that she was the cheapest vessel in the repairs she required; but that was not a question of economy—it was a question in which cheapness and efficiency were combined. The hon. Gentleman had given many details of alterations and changes, which had been made at great expense. He would not further allude to them than to say they proved a gross want of knowledge of what ships would do while they were on the stocks, or the displacement which would take place when the stores and provisions were put on board which were necessary for their equipment. There had been a system in existence of getting rid of ships built by rival constructors, which was disgraceful to the Navy and to the country. A hasty survey was held upon the ship, and she was sold for much less than she was worth, though in some instances a vessel had been saved even after she had been condemned upon the survey. The Dublin was one of those ships which had been saved after having been condemned, and she was now an efficient ship, on actual service. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of the Scarborough. If he recollected rightly, that ship was an old 36, and in perfect condition; she was quite sound, and worth 35,000 l., yet she was sold for 6,200 l; of that fact he had been informed by a Friend of his, Mr. Young, who was then Member for Tynemouth; and upon a former occasion he had very strongly animadverted upon the case in that House. Then there was the case of the Tremendous, which was condemned to be broken up, although she was in perfectly good condition, and was now serving in the Pacific, under the name of the Grampus. After 14,000 l. had been spent upon the Barham, and being reported as being the most successful ship against the Vernon, she was reported as an incompetent ship, and must be got rid of. The hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester had said that although much abuse had been thrown upon the larger ships of the Surveyor, still that his small ships were perfection. The Cleopatra of that class was a very beautiful ship to look at, and he believed sailed very tolerably; but she was very uneasy, and had that great and vital defect that she could not possibly stow a proper amount of

177
provisions. The Rover, again, was so top-heavy that they were obliged to alter her weight aloft and make it lighter; and, after all, they were obliged to get rid of her. There had been a constant dislike of all competitive constructors at Somerset House, of which the Admiralty were probably not aware; but the fact was, that there was a system of annoyance pursued towards them in all the yards—a regular system of throwing every possible hidden impediment in the way of other builders, that was most disgraceful. There was an officer of his acquaintance, Captain Smith, generally called Target Smith—the ingenious inventor of the paddle-box boats—a contrivance of the very utmost utility—indeed, so much so, that he thought no vessel ought to be allowed to proceed upon any voyage without them, because in every instance where they had been used they had been eminently conducive towards the safety of life: even he had the greatest difficulty—he met with the greatest hindrance—in getting those boats applied to the service. Another competitor, Mr. White, the naval constructor, of Cowes; he also met with a variety of little pettifogging obstructions in the discharge of the duties he was called upon to perform. Whatever they turned out that was good, was charged to be a plagiarism of something turned out by Sir W. Symonds. Sir W. Symonds might be a very good officer—indeed he believed he was, though he had not the honour of his acquaintance; but he denied that those constructors who had succeeded in building good ships had copied from Sir W. Symonds. Dr. Inman, a most intelligent and scientific man, was called upon, and built the Orestes and the Sapphire—vessels which were superior in stowage to any others in the Navy; and he was the master of that School of Naval Architecture which had been most wantonly destroyed. He would not allow himself to dilate upon the gross injustice of that proceeding. These gentlemen came into the service under a bond to remain for years; with the condition that they were to expect to fill the higher dockyard offices. The establishment was then destroyed: those gentlemen, with their high attainments, constantly persecuted and kept in the lowest offices; and upon one occasion when one of them went to remonstrate with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, he was told he might go and get his bond burnt at Somerset House if he liked, or some-
178
thing to that effect. He could not see how in a matter of such a complicated character, a knowledge of which could only be arrived at step by step—he could not see how the Government could do otherwise than re-establish such a school as had formerly existed. The country would not remain satisfied with what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty the other evening, although he had given an explicit promise upon a question most interesting to the whole nation. Naval architecture ought to have the whole of the talent and science which the country could afford; and he could see no reason why the School of Naval Architecture should not be re-established. The Admiralty had taken a step in the right direction when they appointed the Committee of Reference to see that the expenditure on the Navy was made in a proper manner; and he trusted they would adhere to the recommendation made by that commission. Was it true that the Albion had been found to be a failure, and that the ships of that class which were in progress had been ordered to be stopped? Was it also true that since that order they had surreptitiously been advanced from two-eighths to six-eighths of their progress? [Mr. WARD: The order was suspended.] He had then to throw blame upon his own friends for doing so, because it had been admitted upon all hands that the Albion had been a failure. The immense waste of money in making alterations in now ships, showed an utter want of capacity to construct ships on the part of the Navy Office; and that, in his opinion, alone formed a good ground for a Committee of Inquiry, or a Commission—hs cared not which, so long as the inquiry was fairly conducted. In order to show the effects produced by the want of such an education, he would just refer to a return which he had found on the Table since his arrival that day at the House. In doing so, he must complain of the Admiralty Office; for he moved for that return on the 19th of February, and he received it on the 29th of April, and then he found it was most incomplete and unsatisfactory. [Mr. WARD: The return would not have been put on the Table in an incomplete state had not the noble Lord pressed to have it before that debate came on.] He thought sufficient time had been allowed to make the returns, and yet half the questions were answered by the word "unknown." The first question was as to the centre of gravity of a certain description of

179
vessel with and without her equipment; and the answer was, "Unknown." He really did not know what the board was fit for, if it could not give answers to such questions. It showed, however, what was the march of scientific knowledge, when vessels were built without their capabilities being at all apportioned to the weight they had to carry. He found, however, a return of the difference between the calculation of displacement made as to the return of several vessels and their actual draught. In one, the Constance, the difference was equal to 180 tons; another, the Spartan, 120 tons; and so on. Now, on the contrary, there was the greatest possible accuracy in the calculations made by the gentlemen of the naval school as to the draught and displacement of the two ships built from their plans. This was so striking as compared with all the other ships, as to be alone sufficient to show the great importance of an instruction such as they had received. He was very anxious to know some particulars as to the sailing and other qualities of the Thetis; but the return gave no information whatever. It was quite useless to move for returns from the Admiralty. He must say, however, that it showed a great want of respect to the House. One question was as to the expense of alteration; and the reply was, "Not known at Somerset House!" He should like to know what confidence could be placed in a department which exhibited so much ignorance of details they ought to be able to furnish. He disclaimed all party feeling—he was actuated only by a desire to see the Navy of England put on a footing, at least equal to that of any other nation in the world; but that would never be the case while the present system was persevered in, and he therefore most cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
MR. WARDsaid, it was not his intention to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose through every count in the bill of indictment which he had that night preferred, not so much against the present Government, or rather not against the present Government in particular, but against every Government that had had anything to do with the naval administration of this country for the last fifteen years. He was surrounded by those who were quite able to defend the conduct of their own Administration during that period; and he must apologize to the right hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) to whom the
180
hon. Member for Montrose had particularly addressed himself, for thus standing for one moment between him and the House. But his excuse was that he did think it desirable to state at once and distinctly, that having near at heart the efficiency of the Navy of England, Her Majesty's Government did not see how that efficiency could be promoted, or indeed any good end attained, by granting to his hon. Friend the Commission or Committee of Inquiry for which he had moved this night. He would make large admissions; and no doubt there had been errors. No doubt public money had been mis-spent. No doubt there had been a want of proper precaution. He did not say under what Government, but under all. And he thought it would be in vain to dispute that, after the admissions which were contained in the instructions to the Board of Reference by the late Administration, in the justice of every one of which the present Government concurred. The first paragraph of their instruction stated that—
"My Lords having had under consideration the large amount which is annually expended in building vessels of war, and the great importance of adopting such plans only as, after due examination by persons practically and theoretically acquainted with the science of naval architecture, shall appear to ensure the greatest possible degree of efficiency, for the several objects for which such vessels are designed; and seeing that in many instances the objects which constructors have had in view have not been fulfilled by the performance of their vessels when tried at sea, and that in others expensive alterations have been required after they have been built: and being, therefore, of opinion that it is expedient to have recourse to greater precaution than has heretofore existed, before finally approving of the draught of any vessel submitted to them, are pleased to direct," &c.
Now he fully admitted the utility of that check, and the necessity for some such check being adopted; but he contended that the very moment when that check was established was not the moment that the hon. Member ought to have selected for making an inquiry. Errors there might have been; but had not his hon. Friend almost every security which he himself had suggested with regard to the future? Of whom was the Committee of Reference composed? Why, of the very men who were most prominent in the School of Naval Architecture, the loss of which the hon. Gentleman deplored. If he went over the names, he would find amongst them Mr. Read, Professor Inman, Mr. Large, and Mr. Fincham. He did not think that any better system than the

181
present could be devised by any inquiry which his hon. Friend could have—that was, any system which could afford a more direct and efficient responsibility to the House than that which the Government were determined to proceed upon in carrying out the recommendations of the late Board of Admiralty. The gallant Commodore had often suggested the appointment of some intermediate person or persons (he did not say whether one or more) who should he the responsible parties; but what, he wished to know, would that intermediate body be except a Surveyor of the Navy in another shape? It would only be another responsible body, interposing between those who were now responsible and that House; and he thought, therefore, that it was much better to have in the House of Commons those who were at the head of affairs, and who could be called to account for whatever was done under their superintendence and by their direction. He believed that those constant discussions did good; that they made men more cautious, and prevented the recurrence of much of that expenditure which had hitherto taken place. But he could see no better security for the future than the system now established, and which the present head of the Admiralty had determined strictly to adhere to in all his future movements. He totally disbelieved in the possibility, by any existing body in this country, of at once devising a perfect model for all future naval construction. He did not mean to say that science must not be brought to bear largely on all questions connected with naval architecture; but in the construction of a ship of war it was clear, from the admission of the noble Seconder of the Motion himself, that perfection could not be attained at once. The Thetis was said to be perfect; but he believed that an admirably satisfactory report had been made of her arrival at Lisbon. So also of the Sidon. In these cases, they must be guided by the reports of practical men, and his hon. Friend had himself shown how the highest authorities differed with respect to the efficiency of a ship, and how difficult it was to bring this matter to a test. His hon. Friend had referred to the Queen and the Albion. Now, he held in his hand a letter received by the Earl of Auckland from Sir William Parker, in which that gallant Admiral said—
"I think well of the Albion; she does not sail so fast as the Vanguard, the Superb, or the Cano-pus, and she is said to be very uneasy; but the
182
manner in which she stands up under canvass is astonishing. I wish that Captain Lockyer had been allowed months ago to ballast and trim her according' to his own ideas, for he is ' every inch a sailor,' and would have endeavoured to do justice to her. I agree with him, that the ship is fully equal to carry the long 68-pounders throughout on the lower deck, and I confess that I should like to see it tried. The Queen's sailing has generally been superior to the Albion's. I have heard no complaint of her being uneasy. In short, I consider her by far the finest ship of her class that has ever been built; and, in a general chase, she would probably be found amongst the best of the two-deckers."'
Now where were they to go for authorities, if they did not refer to officers of the greatest experience, the greatest practical knowledge, and the most competent to form an opinion? He had found the same discrepancies existing throughout. He had the minute in his hand, which was spoken of by the noble Lord, relative to the trial of the Espiéyle; and it stated that the Flying Fish and the Espiégle sailed so nearly alike that the palm could not be awarded to either. It was clear, then, that we had not arrived at anything like that high standard which his hon. Friend seemed to think was possible. He admitted the necessity of bringing the best naval science possible to bear upon the subject; but he wished those who were in favour of re-establishing the Naval School of Architecture held the moderate expectations entertained by the members of that body. In the first report of Messrs. Read, Chatfield, and Creuze, in 1843, they said—
"It will be our endeavour to remove this misapprehension. In making this attempt, we do not arrogate to ourselves any new discovery; we merely assert that there are no insuperable obstacles opposed to sure and progressive improvement; that the course of proceeding in other branches of knowledge is applicable to this; and that inductive reasoning, based on mathematical investigations, may be applied with eminent advantage to naval architecture, as it has been to other branches of natural philosophy."'
There was no doubt they were correct. What they recommended was the natural and proper course to take; and he could not suppose a Board of Admiralty rejecting or despising science in the May his hon. Friend supposed. Perhaps those Gentlemen had not had fair play; and he sincerely hoped that great improvements in naval architecture would he the result of their present efforts. As to the evidence adduced by his hon. Friend to-night, it was not founded upon any great naval authorities, and the House showed its sense of the question by a very thin attendance.

183
If Parliament had believed that 22,000,000 l. of the public money had been wasted and thrown into the sea, and that after all this expenditure we had not a fleet that was in a condition to meet the fleets of France, Russia, or any other country, every Member of the House would have come down to his place to visit with reprobation such a system and such an expenditure. If his hon. Friend's case were well founded, he put it to him if such inattention on the part of this House could have occurred? He could assure his hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government had as sincerely at heart as he himself had everything that would tend to greater economy and the increased efficiency of the Navy and the dockyards; that they were as anxious as his hon. Friend was to bring the greatest talents and the highest science to bear upon the subject, and to incur no expense of any sort without that full preliminary inquiry which had already been pronounced to be so necessary. As to the re-establishment of the College of Naval Architecture, that was a question of the utmost difficulty. Nothing could be more desirable than to see a greater amount of talent enlisted in the service, than was now to be found in our dockyards. But it would be a most fatal measure if the prospect of regular promotion were checked and clogged by the interposition over the heads of others of a number of young men to fill the higher offices. He seemed to have been much misunderstood the other evening when explaining what the Government hoped to effect by the system they were now pursuing. In the first place, they hoped to get rid of all the gross ignorance which now characterized the apprentices in the dockyards. They had already made arrangements with that object in view; and accordingly they did not admit any boy who was unable to read and write, and had not received the elements of a common education. In every successive year, the most promising youths would he selected, and their education completed at the public expense. All these boys were expected to return to the dockyards on the completion of their education. They would return and be employed as officers, after receiving as much education and scientific knowledge as they could be expected to acquire in the course of two or three years. With regard to Sir William Symonds, there were so many hon. Members who were more intimately connected than he was with the subject, that he would
184
not attempt the vindication of that gallant gentleman from the charges brought against him. He did not say that he was faultless; but he believed that at present he was a very much underrated man. He thought that the expectations which were first formed of him were too great. He was certain, if he might believe the testimony of some of the most experienced men in the profession, that at the outset he did render eminent services to the public. He did great service to the country by the new system of classification, and by simplifying the whole system of masts. But he thought that enough had transpired to render it necessary that they should be cautious in carrying out such vast experiments as that of laying down six new ships on the lines of the Albion; at all events, until the subject was more fairly tested. Yet, with letters like that from Sir W. Parker, and with such high testimonials from officers of the highest standing in the profession, he contended that it was unjust to Sir William Symonds to carp at his ships as devoid of merit, and as unfit to cope with an enemy. All he could further say was, that the greatest caution should be exercised in all their future operations, and that no plans or drawings should be sanctioned without being first submitted to the Committee of Construction and the Surveyor. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman assured Mr. Hume of the desire of the Board of Admiralty to economize the expenditure and improve the efficiency of the Navy; but he could not consent to the adoption of his hon. Friend's Motion.
SIR J. GRAHAMwould have gladly left the vindication of naval affairs to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty, if it had not been for certain parts of the speech of the hon. Member who introduced this Motion, and which naturally required some observations on his part. The hon. Member said he had refreshed his memory that morning by referring to a debate which had taken place fifteen years ago. He (Sir J. Graham) had had no such opportunity of referring to Hansard; and the reference made by the hon. Member to that period had excited some melancholy feelings in his breast. The hon. Gentleman had talked of the hand of the destroyer; and it was too true that the hand of the destroyer had been busy among those who took part in the debates to which the hon. Member had alluded. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned—in terms which, upon deliberation, he thought he would re-

185
gret—the name of an excellent officer, of unsullied reputation, Mr. Hawkes, who was master shipwright of Plymouth dockyard in 1845, and who, the hon. Member alleged, had prepared a report calculated to mislead the House. That officer died some years ago, with a reputation as pure and unsullied as any Member of that House could boast; and till that moment he had never heard any allegation reflecting either upon his public conduct or his private honour. This was one of the disadvantages of discussing matters of this kind after the lapse of a considerable time. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that this was a subject peculiarly fitted for the consideration of the. British Parliament. It was the boast of this country that it possessed the most skilful seamen in the world; and he thought it was due to the character of those seamen that they should sail in the strongest, the best constructed, and the best adapted ships of war that skill, talent, and experience could produce. He did not hesitate at once to admit that he was responsible for the appointment of Sir W. Symonds, some fifteen years ago, to the situation of Surveyor of the Navy. He made that appointment deliberately, after consulting his naval advisers, and after using every precaution he could take with reference to the selection of a fit and proper person for the office. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that he (Sir J. Graham) had declared, during the debates to which reference had been made, that science was not the quality necessary to constitute a good and fit Surveyor of the Navy. Now, he thought the hon. Gentleman had, though unintentionally, misrepresented what he (Sir J. Graham) said on that occasion. He then said, and he still entertained the opinion, that abstract science alone was not the qualification which fitted a man for the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy. He thought that, in making a selection for so important an office, naval experience, combined with science, was the qualification which ought really to be sought. The hon. Gentleman had assumed that Captain Symonds was destitute of acquaintance with the first principles of science. He did not think that any Member of the House would question the naval skill of that gallant officer; for, among competent sailors, Sir W. Symonds would be admitted to be a most skilful officer. With reference to shipbuilding, Sir W. Symonds, even before he was appointed Surveyor of the
186
Navy, had directed his attention in a very great degree to the art of construction. He had every reason to believe that that gallant officer possessed a considerable acquaintance with the art of shipbuilding; and that knowledge, combined with his nautical skill and general sagacity and ability, rendered that gallant officer worthy of the position to which he had ventured to appoint him. But before he proceeded to discuss the merits or demerits of Captain Symonds, he might recall the attention of the House to one observation which fell from the hon. Member for Montrose. That hon. Gentleman said, that he thought they ought to exercise great caution in relating what they heard on this subject. He must be permitted to add, that an equal caution was necessary in believing what they heard. He must say that, excepting on matters of religion, he did not know that any difference of opinion had been attended with so much bitterness—so much anger—so much resentment—as this question with regard to the merits of Captain Symonds, and the virtues of his ships. Unfortunately, the most angry—he had almost said malicious—controversy was carried on throughout the profession on this subject. He would now refer to an incidental question to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded—he meant the step taken by himself, in concert with the Board of Admiralty, of which he was a Member, with respect to the School of Naval Architecture. The expense of that establishment, which had been instituted some time before he had a seat at the Board of Admiralty, had been very great; and the fruit produced by it had, at that period, been very small. It was his opinion, and that of the board of which he was a member, that, upon the whole, the cost of the School of Naval Architecture greatly exceeded any benefit which could reasonably be expected from its continuance. The hon. Member opposite had objected to the abolition of a number of lucrative offices in the dockyards, and had said he considered that measure a hardship, because they constituted the prizes and premiums to which pupils in the School of Naval Architecture aspired. If those offices were really necessary, undoubtedly they ought to have been continued; but if they were of the nature of sinecures—if they were impediments to the working of a good system in the dockyards—then he said, it was his bounden duty to abolish those offices, although he might thereby diminish the

187
premiums which were offered to successful students in the school. In revising the whole system of the dockyards, he came to the conclusion that a great number of the offices alluded to by the hon. Member were unnecessary; and as those offices were such as were destined as the rewards for the gentlemen who were students at the Naval School of Architecture, it appeared to him, that if he abolished them, it would be the better course, prospectively, to abolish the school itself, especially as he certainly did not anticipate much benefit from it. Then the question arose, was this abolition, prospectively, inconsistent with good faith and fair treatment towards those who had at that time entered the school, and who had done so with bright prospects? He was not aware that any act of his, after that school was abolished, was tainted with the least shade of injustice to any of those individuals. Next to the office of Surveyor of the Navy, the most important office in the dockyards which any person in course of promotion could attain was that of master shipwright. Who was the master shipwright at Portsmouth? Mr. Fincham, who had been a lecturer at the School of Naval Architecture. The master shipwright at Pembroke was Mr. Abetel, and at Cha-tam Mr. Laing, who had been students in that school. Who was at the head of the machinery department at Woolwich—the most lucrative office next to that of Surveyor of the Navy? Mr. Lloyd, who had been a student in the School of Naval Architecture. An important appointment at Portsmouth had also been conferred on another student of that school. He thought, then, that more than ample justice had been done to those who were students in the school at the time it was abolished. They had received kind and considerate treatment; and he did not think it could be said that they had any ground to complain of injustice at the hands of the Executive Government. He would now refer to the question as to the merits of Sir W. Symonds. He understood the hon. Member for Montrose to say, that he considered that foreign nations had made greater improvements in the construction of ships than we had done. He admitted, that at the close of the last war all the best ships in our Navy were either captured French ships, or ships which had been built on French models. The Canopus, which had been sent to sea with the line-of-battle ships in the recent trials, was a French ship of the highest character, and at the close
188
of the war was superior to any ship built in our own dockyards upon French lines: but the Canopus, in the experimental squadron, was inferior in every essential point to the line-of-battle ships built on the lines of Sir W. Symonds. He had had no opportunity of referring to the books which contained a record of the trials; but he was quite content that the issue between the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) and himself on this point should be tried by the success or failure of the Vernon. The hon. Member had stated that he understood that, in her first cruise, the headrail of the Vernon was washed away; but he (Sir J. Graham) was much mistaken if, with a head sea and a press of canvass, that was any remarkable occurrence. Of this, he was sure, that no science, with or without nautical skill, would produce a fast-sailing ship which would not be a wet ship under press of sail, and which would not occasionally pitch deep. The Vernon, on her first cruise, was commanded by Sir F. Collier, whom he (Sir J. Graham) selected for that command by the advice of Sir T. Hardy, as an officer of undoubted merit, of first-rate reputation, an admirable sailor, and a most competent person to form a just opinion of the qualities of the ship. The issue between his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) and himself, then, as to the propriety or impropriety of the selection of Sir W. Symonds, was placed upon the success of the Vernon. [Mr. HUME: I alluded to Sir G. Cock-burn's report.] He had not access to Sir G. Cockburn's report; but he held in his hand the report of Sir F. Collier, which was in these terms:—
"Her Majesty's ship Vernon, at Sea,
Sept. 17, 1833.
"In compliance with your directions to report to you my opinion of the qualities of Her Majesty's ship Vernon, under my command, I have to state, that she stows infinitely more and better than I had anticipated. She stands well up to her sail, better than any vessel I ever saw, and is the easiest ship I ever was at sea in against a heavy head sea. She sometimes pitched deep, but so very easy that not a ropeyard could be strained. She rolls perfectly easy in working. She is the handiest ship I ever was in; and, in wearing, she quite surpassed my most sanguine expectations. Take the ship altogether, I think her quite perfection. I shall forbear making any observations as to her sailing qualities; you have witnessed her superiority."
So much with respect to the Vernon. Now what were the other ships mentioned as proofs of the entire failure of Sir W. Symonds as to construction? With respect to the Queen, one of the ships re-

189
ferred to, the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ward) had read the report of Sir W. Parker, in a confidential letter, addressed he (Sir J. Graham) believed, to the Earl of Auckland. With regard to the Vanguard, he held in his hand the report of an officer now no more, but than whom, it would be admitted, there could be no higher authority upon the questions of sailing—he alluded to Sir C. Paget. That gallant officer wrote as follows:—
Bellerophon, September 18.
"I feel much pleasure in telling you that the Vanguard is in every respect much improved by the further reduction of ballast, and that her superiority upon all points of sailing, since we last left Plymouth, has greatly distinguished her. If the Bellerophon and Pembroke may be considered, as I really believe they fairly may be, above the average in sailing of our ships of the line, I am persuaded the Vanguard will be found to be a clipper wherever she goes amongst others of her class. In short, I am in admiration of her, and, though the Bellerophon is not at her best, my friend Captain Jackson frankly admits the Vanguard's great superiority."
He (Sir J. Graham) was told that Sir R. Stopford, when he commanded the fleet in which the hon. and gallant Officer near him (Sir C. Napier) so much distinguished himself, spoke in high terms of the powers of the Vanguard in going to windward. The Collingwood had rounded Cape Horn and had been tried in every way, and the gallant officer, Sir George Seymour, by whom she was commanded, had reported to the Admiralty in high terms of her merits. This he must state, that Sir W. Symonds, appointed by him in 1832, had served under five or six Boards of Admiralty, composed of different officers, with different prejudices and predilections; and, on the whole, they had not thought him unworthy of the high situation in which he had been placed; but, by retaining him in that situation, they had collectively and individually shared the responsibility of his original appointment. He begged to remind the House that such officers as Sir G. Seymour, Sir W. Parker, Admiral Hyde Parker, Admiral Bowles, and the hon. and gallant Member near him, had all tried and reported upon the ships of the Surveyor of the Navy; and if the whole of these reports were produced, he was greatly deceived if they would not form a mass of conclusive evidence in favour of that gallant officer (Sir W. Symonds), whose character was so often assailed, and, as he thought, with so much injustice and asperity. He must tell the House, what he had frequently told Sir W. Symonds, that he had always considered it a great
190
misfortune attendant even upon the adoption of a well-considered theory, that the person who propounded it frequently clung to it with too much tenacity, and was indisposed to correct the defects discovered by experience in carrying it into execution. He had always entreated Sir W. Symonds to listen with attention, and without the slightest feeling of anger, to the representations of any defects which fair trial and experience might prove to exist in his ships. He (Sir J. Graham) was satisfied, that if Sir W. Symonds would supply corrections of such acknowledged defects, there was in his theory itself much of wisdom and excellence, which, even as matters now stood, had led to the improved construction of ships of war in this country; and all those who had latterly built ships of improved construction had, in the main, adopted the principle of Sir W. Symonds. What were the great defects of our old ships of war? He was almost ashamed, in his present position, to give an opinion as to what those defects were; but he remembered opinions on this subject which he had heard expressed by naval authorities both living and deceased, upon whose knowledge he could place implicit reliance, and he might, therefore, venture to state what he believed those defects to be. They were, he considered, insufficiency of beam and the consequent want of stability. To those defects Sir W. Symonds applied a decided corrective; he gave increased width of beam and increased stability and power of carrying sail. To these great improvements Sir W. Symonds had undoubtedly sacrificed other advantages; but many of the imperfections in his system of construction had been corrected; and he (Sir J. Graham) believed it was possible to correct them all. Who, then, had been the gainers by these improvements in shipbuilding? The British public. It had been said, that the alterations had been attended with expense; but he could not think that money had been thrown away in trying, during a time of peace, various modes of construction, and, as the result of those experiments, correcting the defects which experience had demonstrated. What were the ships which the noble Lord mentioned as most successful, as contradistinguished from the failures, as be termed it, of the Surveyor of the Navy? One was the ship Inconstant. That was not built by a man of science, a pupil of the School of Naval Architecture. She was built by an admirable naval offi-

191
cer, a man of practical experience, and he would not deny, a man of science to a certain extent. The other ship mentioned by the noble Lord was the Eurydice. That was built according to the plans of Admiral Elliott, a distinguished officer; but he was not aware that he was to be called a man of science as contradistinguished from a naval officer. Undoubtedly he possessed science; but he also possessed that which was the happiest combination—naval skill and experience, conjoined with some science. The cases, therefore, mentioned by the noble Lord, afforded demonstrations of the qualifications which he believed Sir W. Symonds to possess—qualifications calculated to insure excellence in the precise department. Then with regard to the Thetis. That was an improved edition of Sir W. Symonds' ships, with certain admitted faults corrected; and he was persuaded that what he stated would be confirmed by the naval authorities following him in debate. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the present Motion specified the case of the Rodney, and he exclaimed, "What an extraordinary sum, amounting to 145,000 l. had been expended in correcting her faults!" But was she built by Sir W. Symonds? No; she was built by a scientific builder on the lines of the late Sir R. Seppings, a dockyard officer. Again, something had been said with regard to Dr. Inman. He should be extremely sorry to say anything in the least disparaging to that gentleman, or to use any expression which would give him pain. He was at the head of a scientific establishment at Portsmouth, and had, he believed, done good service to the country as an instructor of youth; but as a shipbuilder that gentleman's failures were signal; and he might point to them as a proof that science alone apart from naval skill was not to be relied on. The errors committed in the past, however, were insignificant in comparison with the importance of pursuing a wise course in future in respect to the construction of our fleet; and though he did not, as a temporary expedient, disapprove of that Committee of Reference which had been appointed, yet he warned the Admiralty of the absolute necessity of taking care that under that term no new Navy Board was erected. He had, abolished the Navy Board, because he thought it expedient to establish not only the supreme control but the undivided responsibility of the Board of Admiralty;
192
and in adhering to this principle had met with the approbation of Parliament. He thought the grand principle was, that they should have but one board responsible in all matters, and that that board should be the Board of Admiralty. In that board, whatever might be the political changes of the day, there invariably sat some of the ablest naval officers in the service, competent to form an opinion with respect to naval matters, and whose judgment was entitled to the confidence of the public. The Board of Admiralty consisted of a happy compound. It was not a board exclusively composed of naval officers; hut, mixed with them, were civilians of eminence; the First Lord being a Cabinet Minister, and one other member of the Board being a lay lord. Moreover, the Secretary to the Admiralty generally represented the Board in that House. The Board of Admiralty thus constituted did on the whole form a tribunal to which questions of a mixed nature, both naval and civil, might with the utmost confidence be submitted. He had no political predilections for the present Government; but he might fairly, in illustration of his argument, point to the composition of the present Board of Admiralty. Lord Auckland was the first Lord. That nobleman had, in India, filled the highest civil appointment as Governor General. He was distinguished by a dispassionate, calm, and deliberate judgment, admirable good sense, and by the strictest impartiality. Then there was also on the Board a naval officer of great reputation, Admiral Sir C. Adam. He was known to all sides of the House, and was esteemed and admired as a gallant sailor, and a just man. In the presence of the two gallant Officers opposite (Admiral Dundas and Captain Berkeley) he would not speak of them even as they deserved; but he would say, with respect to Lord John Hay, that there was no officer in the profession whose character would bear closer examination. In this combination, which was to be found in the Board of Admiralty, there were all the materials for deciding on this question of naval construction. The old established rules of the Board were admirable. The lines of every ship laid down in the Navy were submitted to the Board, and no ship could be laid down or built without receiving their sanction; and he should be sorry to see any other authority responsible in the last resort. Then the question presented itself, how should the Board of Admiralty be advised? By one, or, if

193
necessary, by two Surveyors of the Navy. They were the eyes of the Board of Admiralty. He regretted that the present Surveyor of the Navy had devoted too much time and attention to his own immediate department—planning lines, and building ships. He should be the adviser on the plans of others; and when those plans were sanctioned, he should superintend the progress of the works, uninfluenced himself by the prejudices of a builder. He said at once that if Sir W. Symonds did not give satisfaction to the Board of Admiralty, let him be removed; but let them not, on account of this disputed question respecting the Surveyor of the Navy, withdraw from the Admiralty the decision in the last resort on all questions of shipbuilding in the Queen's yards. Those principles which guided him in the abolition of the Navy Board, led him to propose to Parliament a measure for the reconstruction of the Admiralty Departments; and after thirteen years' experience, he believed that if those principles were adhered to, the administration of affairs would be successfully conducted on sound principles. He should do injustice to Sir W. Symonds, if he did not declare that he was an upright and honest man, indefatigable in his department, and only too zealous in his eager desire to serve the public. By his exertions Sir W. Symonds had rendered great service to the country. If he retained the confidence of the Admiralty, let him remain in his situation; or if scientific assistance was thought requisite, conjoin with him some scientific person also possessing the confidence of the Admiralty; but let them not institute a Committee of that House, or any Commission, to contest the judgment of the Board of Admiralty. The matter was plain and simple. The system, as established, was, in the main, correct, and any imperfection was casual, and might be easily remedied. He repeated, that it would be a great misfortune (and no one would more regret it than Sir W. Symonds himself), if on account of any heat or prejudice against him, a lasting injury should be inflicted on what must be deemed the mainstay of the country—our naval superiority and the excellence of the British fleet.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYcould assure the right hon. Baronet that his warning should not be neglected, and that the present Committee of Reference were only called together to gain their opinion on questions of construction. The House would remember that he had asked the hon. Mem-
194
ber for Montrose what was his authority for the statements which he had made; but the hon. Member had evaded the question, and had not given him any authority. However, in what he was about to state, he would not say one single thing which he could not substantiate by the authority of naval officers, who wore competent to speak on the subject. If one-half or one-third of the charges which the hon. Member had brought forward were true, or had any sort of foundation whatever, then he having been a member of the Admiralty when the Earl of Minto was at the head of it, could not have stood on the floor of the House as a Member of the present Board of Admiralty, because he was sure that he should have lost the confidence of the country. Now let the House look at what Sir W. Symonds had done. He destroyed the ten-gun brigs, and established a class of packets which, as he was informed by the officer at Falmouth, were so popular with passengers, that they used to ask which were Sir W. Symonds' ships before they would attempt to cross the Atlantic. The second class of ships which he built were also excellent ships, those of 26 guns, namely, the Cleopatra, Vestal, and others. He would now take the large class of ships; and he thought it due to Sir W. Symonds to state what the ships were which were built by him. The right hon. Baronet had already stated Sir F. Collier's opinion of the qualities of the Vernon; and he would refer to the same authority, because the hon. Gentleman who had brought this Motion forward had said that we were inferior in every way to the French in shipbuilding. This officer said that "the Vernon was everything that could be wished, and that the French were very much surprised, as well as most people, at the way in which she had behaved and outsailed them." The hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir C. Napier) said, that in a gale of wind the Vanguard, one of the abused ships, was a most lee-wardly vessel. Now, the officer who commanded the Vanguard for nearly four years, said that while he was in command of her, he encountered four gales of wind, or at least what he considered to be such. The first of these was in the Bay of Biscay, the second on the coast of Syria, the third off Alexandria, and the fourth in the Gulf of Lyons. The Vanguard was, when off Alexandria, so heavily loaded, that she was eighteen or twenty inches

195
deeper in the water than her usual trim; yet her commander stated that she weathered the storm nobly, and was the only ship in the squadron which had not sustained considerable injury. This, the House would allow, was saying a good deal. But then the House had been told that these ships were extremely dear. They had been informed that the vessels of Sir W. Symonds strained their rigging, and cost the Government large sums in repairs. When the Vanguard came to Portsmouth, after an absence of nearly four years, Captain Corry, who was going out in the Superb, applied to have the rigging of the Vanguard, instead of having new rigging. This did not look like much loss from straining. He would not weary the House by reading many more letters; but everybody knew that Captain Rous was not in the habit of flattering people. Now that gallant officer wrote to Sir W. Symonds to say, that his
—"beautiful ship had had the hardest thumping that anything made of wood or iron ever endured; that they had been striking against a rock for ten mortal hours—and that no other ship could have stood such a trial."
That spoke well for the solidity of her construction. It had been stated that Captain Symonds had never built a steamer worth anything; but it happened that he had before him the opinion of an hon. and gallant officer at present belonging to the Board of Admiralty, who was not only a first-rate seaman, but scientifically skilled in shipbuilding; he referred to Lord John Hay. Now, Lord John Hay's opinion of the Gorgon steamer, which was built by Sir W. Symonds, was that she was a very manageable vessel, and a good sea boat with quick motion. Captain Austin said, that the ships of Sir W. Symonds could stand under sail when other ships could not; and Sir John Louis stated, that he saw the Vanguard sail out of Malta harbour when all the rest of the fleet were obliged to be towed out. He thought, therefore, that the Admiralty were perfectly justified when Lord Minto was at the head of it in allowing Sir W. Symonds to build ships; and though he might have carried his principle too far, he had struck out a new and valuable system, the result of which was that no other country could have better ships than we had. He could assure the House that the present Admiralty would carry out what had been begun by their predecessors, and pay every attention to shipbuilding.
SIR C. NAPIERsaid, that it appeared to him that the whole time of the House had been taken up to-night by attacks upon, and exculpations of, Sir William Symonds, and that they had lost sight entirely of the Motion of his hon. Friend, which related to the waste of the public money by the building of improper ships. He could not go the length of the hon. Member for Montrose in pronouncing a wholesale condemnation upon Sir W. Symonds' ships; and he had told him privately that he thought it would be better if his hon. Friend would restrict himself to some particular points. Sir W. Symonds began with building several small vessels. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), he thought injudiciously, allowed Sir W. Symonds to go from small vessels to very large frigates. The result had been praised by some, and condemned by others; and he must say that it was very difficult to get at the truth of the subject. He must admit that Sir Francis Collier, on the first cruise of the Vernon, did give her a very high character indeed; but it was extraordinary that when Sir George Cockburn went out to the West Indies in the Vernon, he complained to the Admiralty of her bad qualities, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) substituted another ship, and sent her out to Sir George Cockburn. The Vernon was afterwards commanded by other officers, and when she went out to the Mediterranean, she was tried against the Barham, and he believed that the Barham beat her; but he would say, candidly, that if the same man who commanded the Barham had been put on board the Vernon, that vessel would have beat the Barham. He should now dismiss the Vernon, and go to the Vanguard; and he confessed that when he went to the Mediterranean, and found the Vanguard there, he thought she was one of the finest ships which he had ever seen. Sir Robert Stopford sent him down to Vourla in the command of a squadron of four sail, among which was the Vanguard; but having to beat up four or five hours against a strong breeze, she did not behave well, and was beaten both by the Ganges and the Powerful. With regard to the behaviour of the Vanguard in the gale off Alexandria, it was possible that some mistake might have occurred, because the squadron, when off Alexandria, encountered two gales of wind; and the second, to which he meant to refer, was certainly the severest gale which he

197
ever experienced in his own life. The nest morning, by break of day, upon getting up to see what had become of the squadron, he found that the Vanguard was the most leewardly ship of all. He had never condemned the Vanguard; but he must say that when she was with the experimental squadron she did not do what was expected of her. When he saw her in the Mediterranean, she carried her ports eight feet out of the water; but when with the experimental squadron she was so loaded that her ports were only seven feet and a quarter above the water, and it was clear that she did not sail so well as before. Like almost all Sir W. Symonds' ships, when there was a head sea, and she began to pitch, she could not make way with other vessels. The ships of Sir W. Symonds were not built for bad weather. He must say he was surprised at what had been said on the authority of Sir W. Parker, of the sailing qualities of the Albion. Sir W. Parker was an excellent officer; but he was one of the culprits who protected the shipbuilder, Sir W. Symonds. Besides, when Sir W. Parker commanded the experimental squadron it was summer, and there was smooth water, just the sort of weather for the Surveyor's ships; but what was the opinion of Admiral Hyde Parker, and why did not the Admiralty ask for his report? He was informed that Admiral Hyde Parker made no report; but the Admiralty should have called for one. Admiral Hyde Parker had told him, that after making the signal for the Albion to form in the line to leeward, he was on the point of making the signal for her to come to the wind to save her masts, she rolled so awfully; but on second thoughts he considered it best to let her alone, and see what she could do. Now, Admiral Hyde Parker told this to the Admiralty; and they ought to have sent to the captains of the different ships, and asked them whether it was or was not true that the Albion shipped so much water, that when the other ships kept their ports up, the Albion was obliged to run in her guns and close her ports whilst they were being loaded. He now came to the enormous waste of public money. That waste had not taken place only in Sir William Symonds' time. It had existed ever since he (Sir C. Napier) knew the Navy. He had often read to the House returns of the expenses of altering and cutting down ships, for which the Admiralty, and not Sir W. Symonds, was to blame. When
198
doubts arose as to the Albion, they were assured by Sir G. Cockburn, that orders had been given to stop the construction of ships built on her lines. They were stopped; but the House had never known who it was who gave the orders to begin them again. Was it the Board, or the Secretary of the Admiralty? He asked the question because it was said that the Secretary had done it on his own authority. As to steamboats, he thought the Admiralty were to blame in allowing Sir W. Symonds to go on constructing them, after it had been proved that he had not built a good one. He now came to the Committee of Reference. What good could they get from it? Was it possible that any good could come of such a system as referring the opinion of the Committee to the Surveyor, and of the Surveyor to the Committee? So long as they had a Surveyor of the Navy, if they allowed him to construct ships, they would never have any improvement in naval architecture. Let them introduce into every dockyard the ablest shipbuilders they could find. Let them encourage all builders to send in their lines and designs to the Admiralty. But then there was another difficulty. There were, in reality, two Boards—a public and a private Board of Admiralty, and the real business was carried on after the termination of the business of the public board, in the private room of the senior Lord, the junior Lords knowing absolutely nothing of what was going on. And then again, the constant changes of the Boards prevented anything like improvement. Take the present time. The First Lord might shortly be sent elsewhere, and then they would have to look out for a successor, and to bring in a gentleman most probably totally ignorant of the duties of the office. He might be allowed to say a word about iron vessels. They had gone on building those without making any experiments as to their capabilities of resistance to sea or shot. In America, things were differently managed. There a series of experiments were tried, and the result was, that iron was pronounced not to be a fit material for shipbuilding. When the experiment as to screw steamers was to be tried, no less than four sail of the line were cut down—a very extravagant outlay. On all the grounds, then, which he had urged, he thought there ought to be a Committee, in order to see whether matters could not be better managed at the Admiralty than they had been for the last forty years. He

199
should strenuously support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
MR. CORRYwould confine his remarks within the narrowest possible compass, and restrict himself to a defence of the Board with which he had been himself connected. The whole conduct of that Board showed that they had unremittingly, and not unsuccessfully, directed their attention to the improvement of shipbuilding. He was satisfied that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was as unnecessary as his Censure was undeserved. He believed he spoke the general opinion when he said that Captain Symonds had rendered great and important services—had broken through the trammels of ancient prejudice—and had introduced various classes of vessels which were an improvement on the old construction. At the same time it was the general opinion of that Board that his system was not without its imperfections, and that his vessels, particularly those of a larger class, required to be tested before the principle on which they were built was generally adopted. With that view the Admiralty determined to test the quality of the ships both as to their power of sailing and carrying guns. They, therefore, appointed the squadron to sail on an experimental trip in 1844; but the result threw very little light on the question—what was the best principle on which ships could be built? because it turned out that vessels of a totally opposite principle of construction were found to be on a perfect equality as to their sailing powers. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon then proposed that for the purpose of aiding the Admiralty in this branch of their duties a committee should be appointed consisting of one gentleman of high scientific attainments, another practically skilled in shipbuilding, and a third a naval officer. This committee acted on perfectly independent views; and the Admiralty could not in his opinion have adopted any course more likely to secure the object of the hon. Member for Montrose thrn its appointments. It was the fashion to cry down the Surveyor's ships as though they were good for nothing; but the House would find on referring to the official reports made to the Board of Admiralty that distinguished officers in the naval service gave a very different account of them. In attestation of the truth of this assertion, he would take leave to read some passages from the report in question. The hon. Member read extracts from the reports of the officers
200
who were in command of the experimental squadron, in which was found the general statement that the Queen, the Albion, and other vessels of that class, were excellent ships, and acquitted themselves most creditably. The general result of all the reports made to the Board was to attest the superiority of the Surveyor's ships; at sea the only fault that could be alleged against them being that they were subject to a quick rolling motion. The new ships were not worthy of the sweeping condemnation dealt against them; nor were the old ships entitled to all the commendation bestowed upon them. He did not think that the Board of Admiralty were liable to the charge of having squandered the public money in ordering the works of the Surveyor's ships to be resumed, for they had only done so in compliance with the official reports and recommendations which were presented to them. He disclaimed the charge of having on his own responsibility ordered the works on those vessels to be resumed. He had not done so without the entire concurrence and the full authority of the Board. With respect to the four steam guard-ships, they were altered not rashly nor inconsiderately, but in compliance with the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the best way to defend the dockyards. The late Government had applied the public money the best way they could; and they had, at all events, the satisfaction of knowing that they had handed over the Navy to their successors in a fit state to defend the interests and honour of the country.
MR. HUMEreplied: After the speeches they had heard, he was more than ever convinced of the necessity of inquiry. He was sorry that Government would not grant the Motion, but nevertheless he would persist in it, and take the sense of the House upon it.
The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 66: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Pechell, Capt.

Colville, C. R.

Perfect, R.

Duncan, G.

Rashleigh, W.

Etwall, R.

Yorke, H. R.

Evans, W.

TELLERS.

Heneage, E.

Hume, J.

Henley, J. W.

Ingestre, Visct.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Baine, W.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Bennet, P.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

201

Borthwick, P.

Martin, C. W.

Bowles, Adm.

Masterman, J.

Brotherton, J.

Monahan, J. H.

Bunbury, W. M.

Morris, D.

Carew, W. H. P.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Conyngham, Lord A.

O'Brien, T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Parker, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Price, Sir R.

Craig, W. G.

Rice, E. R.

Cripps, W.

Rich, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Ross, D. R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Rumbold, C. E.

Dundas, Adm.

Rutherford, A.

Dundas, Sir D.

Seymer, H. K.

Escott, B.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, J. A.

Gladstone, Capt.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gore, hon. R.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Strutt, rt. hon, E.

Hastie, A.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hawes, B.

Thompson, Ald.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Thornely, T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Howard, Sir R.

Waddington, H. S.

Hudson, G.

Ward, H. G.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wodehouse, E.

Layard, Major

Wyse, T.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

TELLERS.

Maitland, T.

Hill, Lord M.

Martin, J.

Tufnell, H.

House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. 2a Poor Relief (Ireland) Landed Property (Ireland).
Reported.—Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Prisons (Ireland). 3a and passed:—Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Karl Fitzwilliam, from Sheffield, in favour of the Proposed Government Plan of Education; and from Howden, and a great number of other places, against the same measure.—From York, in favour of an Irish Poor Law, placing the Poor in Ireland on the same footing with the Poor in England.—From Cloyne, and Ross, for the Adoption of the Proposed Government Measure for ensuring the People of Ireland a sufficient Supply of Food to save them from Starvation.—From Coleraine, for the Adoption of a Measure to se-
58
cure to the Improving Tenant a sufficient Permanency of Tenure of the Land in Ireland, and a right to Compensation for Permanent Improvements.

IRISH IMMIGRATION—MONETARY AFFAIRS.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had to present a most important petition which had been entrusted to him by a highly respectable body of gentlemen in Liverpool. The petition was from the select vestry of that town; it was signed by one of the rectors, as chairman of that body, and by the vestry clerk, and was sealed with the seal of the vestry; it represented the grievous infliction sustained from the number of Irish paupers who were coming over still more rapidly than formerly. The petitioners stated, that 150,000 had arrived since the 1st of December last, according to official returns; but they had reason to know, and they believed, that very nearly 30,000—between 27,000 and 28,000—had arrived, exclusive of those shown by the official returns. The total number, therefore, consisted, within a trifle, of 180,000. The petitioners further stated, that 105,000 out of this number remained in Liverpool, and were there now in a state of perfect destitution; that many cases of grievous diseases prevailed among them, the effect of which must be a wide-spread contagion. He begged their Lordships to consider what must be the effect of thus adding between one-third and one-half to the whole population in four mouths. The petitioners reminded the House that this increase was not one of the people of all classes, but of the poor—that, whereas the Irish Catholic poor in Liverpool amounted usually to between 70,000 and 80,000, they were now no less than 180,000. They then added a hope that their Lordships would pass an Irish poor law with all possible expedition, and in that law restrict the passing of Irish paupers from Ireland into England, and facilitate the passage from England into Ireland of Irish casual poor, which would be the means of relieving them of vast expense. The petitioners, however, were of opinion that the Irish poor law recently passed by the House of Commons would not materially relieve the parish of Liverpool, because the facilities of gaining relief in England, and the amount of relief given, would so greatly exceed that in Ireland, that the paupers would continue to flock over into England as numerously as before. In corroboration of that opinion,

59
he would add that there were documents in the possession of both Houses, drawn up by competent authority, which would show that the passing of an Irish poor law would increase the immigration of which the petitioners so unjustly complained. He would take this opportunity of asking a question of his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne). He had received letters from the manufacturing districts that morning, complaining very grievously of the pressure arising from the existing state of the money market. A great number of orders were in hand from America; but in consequence of the present state of things they could not be executed, and they attributed much of these effects to the Act of 1844. He did not want to ascertain the specific intentions of the Government on this subject; but he wished to know whether they had any intention of bringing in a measure to mitigate or relax the Act of 1844?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEassured his noble Friend that the pressure existing in the manufacturing districts had been under the most anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but he was not prepared to say that they intended to introduce a measure of the nature referred to by his noble and learned Friend.
LORD ASHBURTONwas understood to represent that through the extraordinary pressure in the money market men of the highest credit had yesterday been obliged to consent to give 12 and 13 per cent for discounts.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas rather astonished that public attention had not been earlier directed to the existing pressure; but consideration must be given to more points than one in any discussion upon it. The question to be considered, no doubt, was the propriety of some alteration in the last Bank Act; but another question was the mode in which that Act had been carried out, and the effects produced by the mode of carrying it out. Without expressing any opinion now, he would observe that a measure might be right in itself, but be disorganized by its practical administration. Other questions also must be taken into consideration. Among them were the peculiar state of our trade and commerce, for without the diminution of any demand for any other article of produce, there was an unexampled demand for a larger amount of cereal produce for the consumption of this country than was ever
60
known. These questions were inseparably bound up with any conclusion to which the House might come; and he hoped the whole subject would speedily come under discussion. As to the petition presented by the noble and learned Lord, it was unquestionably true that the people of Liverpool were suffering from the immigration of Irish paupers; but in their petition they made the important admission that the Poor Relief Bill for Ireland would not assist them.
The EARL of WICKLOWagreed with the noble Lord that the Irish poor law would increase Irish immigration. With regard to the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend, it was necessary to remind the people of Liverpool, that though they suffered from Irish distress, they forgot the enormous influx of wealth which that same distress had been the means of bringing into the town. If they would take the trouble of comparing the amount of relief levied upon them with the large sums they derived from the importation of foreign corn from every part of the world, they would find that perhaps there never had been a year in the annals of the town in which they had obtained profits so immensely great as in this year. He believed the people of Liverpool benefited more by their Irish commerce than by that of all the rest of the world together. If therefore they continued sending these petitions to his noble and learned Friend, it was but right they should be reminded of the immense advantages they had derived, not only from the general commerce of Ireland, but from the severe infliction which that country had sustained.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHhad no doubt the town of Liverpool had great cause of complaint; but their grievances were not likely to be redressed by the present Bill. He felt himself bound to vote for the second reading of the Bill; but it was in the anticipation and with the certainty that, if it were passed, matters would be just where they were before.
After a few words of explanation from LORD BROUGHAM, the petition was ordered to lie on the Table.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading having been read,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid: My Lords, it has now become my duty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to propose to your Lordships the

61
second reading of a Bill for extending relief to the poor of Ireland; and in requesting your Lordships to proceed with this Bill through its different stages, I am deeply sensible that I am inviting your Lordships to follow me in a path which is beset with difficulties and with danger, and that we are about to embark in a navigation in which, although it is clear to what port we ought to steer, yet that our arrival at that port must be through rocks and shoals, which it will require all the care of your Lordships, and all the care which the best exertions of Government can bestow upon the administration of this law, to steer clear of, so as to make it finally effective and secure. This law, I need not tell your Lordships, is founded upon the existence of a calamity with which your Lordships are become by this time but too well acquainted: and on a state of disorder and disorganization of society, following this dispensation of Providence, which, great as your Lordships were induced to think it when the subject was first brought under your consideration, has, during the months that have since passed, not diminished, but increased in intensity—a state of disorder and disorganization which has fallen with a degree of suddenness and intensity unparalleled in the history of nations upon a country unfortunately the least of all prepared to bear up against it—a country in which, whilst there prevails disorder arising out of a total deficiency of the means of ordinary subsistence, there at the same time exists a density of population without the usual resources, except in a very small degree, of manufactures; and without the usual resources, except also in a comparatively limited degree of commerce:—I repeat, my Lords, in that country there exists a density of population unparalleled even in those countries in which both manufactures and commerce flourish to the utmost extent. So that, deprived of those resources which, in other countries, are the best auxiliaries, and mutually support and assist each other, and deprived of the power of drawing upon other resources at home—because it is upon the cheapest description of food that they have heretofore lived—the people of Ireland are called upon at once to find means of subsistence which in the country itself do not exist, and to make preparations for the future, to do which requires a capital which the country does not afford. I think it right to state all the difficulties of the case in their severest colours to your Lordships,
62
although, in stating them, I may yet indulge the hope that there are some lights to relieve the picture, and that it is not without some consolatory topics that I am compelled to bring before you in all its intensity the magnitude of the evil, however insufficient the measure I am about to propose may prove in averting all its baneful consequences. Whatever variety of opinion may exist as to the means to alleviate the evil to be met, of this I am fully persuaded, that there prevails among your Lordships but one conviction as to its extent and intensity, and but one desire that it should be adequately met and remedied. But, my Lords, when I propose this Bill to your Lordships, I do not offer it as an adequate remedy for the distress that exists in Ireland; for a permanent remedy I do not conceive it to be. The permanent remedy for that distress must be looked for from other sources and from other means. The only ground upon which I have to ask your Lordships' assent to this Bill is, that it is an important, if not an indispensable palliative of an overwhelming malady; and it is a palliative which I believe your Lordships will be compelled to adopt, because I have neither seen myself, nor, discussed as this subject has been here and elsewhere by others, have I heard it suggested, by what other palliative than this the existing disorder in Ireland can be removed. Before proceeding to state to your Lordships what the measure is, I will state to you what it is not. In the first place, I think it material to state, after what I have heard in this House, after what I have heard elsewhere, and after what I have heard in this country, as well as from what I know to be apprehended in Ireland, that this Bill is utterly opposed to any general and permanent system of out-door relief in Ireland. It is not therefore what it has been described—a Bill tending to a confiscation of the property of Ireland. If the Bill had involved any such principle, I should be the last person to propose its adoption to your Lordships, because I feel convinced that whatever anticipation of preventing a recurrence of the existing calamity by the adoption of such a system, might, under misguided hopes and a blind confidence in the future, be suggested, any attempt to establish an indiscriminate right to out-door relief in Ireland must be attended with consequences fatal to that country, fatal to the property of that country, and, above all, fatal to the character

63
of the people of that country. My Lords, no such proposition is involved in this Bill. If any such right were attempted to be conferred by Parliament, its immediate effect would be to increase the number of consumers, already too great, and to diminish the number of producers, already too small; the effect of it would be gradually to withdraw capital from the country, instead of adding capital to it—to diminish the inducements to industry, instead of increasing them—to disorder the relations that exist between landlord and tenant, between producer and consumer; and thus, while everything that is an incentive to production is gradually diminished, everything that augments the pressure of consumption is gradually increased, until we arrive at that result when the produce of the country would cease altogether, and nothing would be found in it to meet the wants of the increased multitude of consumers. It is in fact a right which although your Lordships may enact it, it will be impossible to maintain—a right which you may confer in name and place upon your Statute-book, but which, to make it effectual for the object intended, you may be also able to do that which you cannot do—to compel people to produce. Because, if you interfere with the rights of property to the extent of creating a prior interest in production to that possessed by the proprietor himself, the inevitable result must be that the proprietor will cease to cultivate or produce at all: he will divert his industry to some other channel; and the poor of the country will be left with a gradually diminished produce instead of an improved one, and be thrown, after sharing that produce how they can, to a greater extent than ever on the charity of their neighbours. That, I believe, would be the inevitable result of an absolute right to outdoor relief; and therefore it is that I feel bound to declare myself distinctly adverse to the prayer of the petition which has been presented this night by my noble and learned Friend, and which, therefore, as my noble Friend, who afterwards alluded to it, truly characterized as being against the Bill now before them. It is a petition against the Bill: in what sense? Not because the Bill is too stringent, but because it is not stringent enough. The prayer of this petition is not that this burden may not be inflicted upon the property of Ireland, but that a much greater burden may be imposed upon that property—imposed to an extent which, as avowed by the petition-
64
ers, would make the condition of eight millions of starving people of Ireland, actually better than the condition of twelve millions of thriving English people. I think it the most preposterous proposition ever submitted to Parliament. I will again say distinctly that such an enactment is beyond the power of Parliament—that your Lordships will act unwisely if you attempt that which is so impossible to be carried out; but that you will, on the contrary, act wisely, to consider in all you do that you must act under the divine law, which prescribes certain conditions for the existence of society, which conditions are to be found in the principles of human nature. You will do well to recollect that great doctrine laid down by a pious French author, who emphatically said, "Remember that it is man that proposes, but that it is God who disposes." If you attempt to contravene those general laws by which the dispensations of Divine Providence govern the actions and regulate the whole system of society, you will soon learn to lament your rashness in adopting a course which will have proved a curse instead of a benefit to the country. I wish thus to state my own opinion openly and strongly on this occasion with regard to the evils of indiscriminate out-door relief. But, my Lords, if I am asked—having so great a jealousy and mistrust of that right of relief which would exist under a system of outdoor relief extended generally—"Why is it, if you think this so dangerous a principle, so dangerous to the labouring classes themselves, so calculated to divert them from the pursuits of honest industry, and to increase pauperism, so adapted to nourish and perpetuate the misery which is so peculiar to the character of the Irish, who are too much inclined to live in a state of indolent pauperism and destitution—if you see all these calamities, on what ground is it that you propose the modified adoption, in a qualified degree, of this very principle in the measure which you now bring forward?" My Lords, I am bound to answer this question; I am bound to vindicate the course which Her Majesty's Government are about to pursue. It is true, my Lords, that you will encounter a great degree of risk in any approximation with whatever qualifications towards the giving of outdoor relief in Ireland; but you are to consider on the other hand where the remedies are to be found for a state of things which may be expected to arise amongst a people so peculiar in their habits under a change

65
of system. There is no noble Lord who hears me—and most of us are well acquainted by description, if not practically, with the state of Ireland—there is no noble Lord who hears me who cannot but have come to the conclusion that there is no remedy for Ireland, that there is no safety for Ireland, but in a great, a radical, and a permanent change in the pursuits and habits and agricultural industry of the people of Ireland. To effect this, to promote this great change, to make it safe and innocuous, instead of being mischievous and dangerous, ought to be the great object which your Lordships should keep constantly in view. What, my Lords, is the nature and extent of the danger? The customary sustenance of the people is practically gone; the potato may continue to be cultivated; it may be sown for some years to come: but no man would be justified in saying that upon the potato the population of Ireland can in future depend—yet upon the potato they have hitherto depended. But I say that now the safety of Ireland requires that there should be a change in the habits of the people; that change must be extensive; it must be general; whole districts must assume a new character—whole districts of the country that up to this moment have been never touched but by the spade, must submit to the pressure of the plough—whole bodies of the people who have lived under the assumed character of farmers, and under that character eked out a miserable existence, dependent on the accidents of nature, without resources, and without subsistence if those accidents of nature failed them, and yet who, nevertheless, have an attachment founded on hereditary habits for that particular condition of life—whole masses of these people must undergo the discipline of learning that that condition is practically gone—whole masses of the people must learn that it is only in a new condition that they can earn a more honourable and a less precarious subsistence. But these extensive changes must not be confined to the lower orders of the people; the proprietors of the land, also, must submit to a great change. The same habits in the proprietor that have led him hitherto to indulge and to protect his tenantry in this species of lazy and careless cultivation must cease, and give way to a more improved, and more enlightened, and more active course in the management of their properties. I say this, although I have maintained in this House, and do
66
still maintain, that for the great evils now pressing upon Ireland, neither the Legislature nor the proprietors of Ireland are in any degree answerable. While I say that they are not answerable for the overwhelming evil which now presses upon the country, I know, indeed, that the proprietors might have prevented the occurrence of this contingency, if, in the exercise of their undoubted rights of property, they had, some years ago, discouraged the cultivation of the potato on their estates: but need I ask your Lordships, if they had attempted to adopt such a principle, would society have borne them out in applying it? Would not the very attempt—full of prudence, full of wisdom, and full of knowledge as it would have been—would not public indignation have stigmatized them throughout the country as tyrants, as innovators, and as destroyers of their species? and would they not have been held up, not only in Ireland, but even by some persons in the Parliament of England, who were not unwilling to embrace opportunities of attacking them, in the most odious colours? Therefore, I repeat, it was hardly to be expected from the landed proprietors of Ireland that they should have adopted that mode—the only one which could have been effectual—of preventing the recurrence of the present calamity. It is, therefore, only by creating a sufficient number of stimuli to the landed proprietors and to the peasantry of Ireland that we can hope to effect that great change which shall have the effect of substituting one state of society for another in Ireland, and of raising up a degree of prosperity by their exertions, aided by the exertions of the people themselves. Who is there among your Lordships old enough or wise enough to foretell how long a time must elapse before the dislocation of all the elements of society which so great a change must disturb, can be composed and set to rest, and a reformed state of things substituted? I will venture to say that it would be as wild and absurd for any man to attempt to state the exact number of years necessary for this purpose, as it would he presumptuous in a geologist, however learned he might be, to state what was passing under the surface of the globe, and what time would be required to effect any of those great physical changes which, under the laws of Providence, were continually and gradually in progress. It would be equally difficult to attempt to define by what period such changes as those to which I refer can be produced in

67
Ireland. I, therefore, appeal to your Lordships whether, during the time that this transition in the state of Ireland is going on, it is not necessary to provide for those perpetually recurring disorders which are to be expected during such a change? Supposing even that the peasantry should at once become more industrious, and that the farmers should be enabled at once to carry on great improvements and new kinds of agriculture—supposing all the elements of improvement to be set at work at once, there would still, in the preparation of society for a state altogether new, be from time to time thrown upon particular districts, and to a great extent, numbers of persons unable, without a certain degree of assistance, to support life. Where were such persons to find sustenance when those casual, but at the same time certain, disturbances took place? Some provision must be made for them, for the Government can never be insensible to the just claims of poverty. Your Lordships have seen the calamity of this year met by a degree of liberality which does honour to human nature—you have seen this calamity call forth a sympathy in Ireland and in this country, irrespective of the cause which had led to it, or of the character of the persons to whom it was extended. It has drawn forth relief from England with a liberal hand, without inquiry whether the recipient of the relief was of Irish or of English descent—whether he was Catholic or Protestant—whether he was of Saxon or of Celtic origin: it has gone forth without any of these considerations—of these vile and miserable distinctions, which I hope are fast dying away, despite the wicked efforts made even now to perpetuate them in the midst of the sufferings of the people and of the trials to which they are exposed, instead of the opportunity being taken to exhibit the people of both countries, or rather of the same united country, as brethren in affection and suffering in interest. But that exhibition of sympathy, let me say—and I rejoice to say it—has not been confined to Ireland and to England: it has crossed the Atlantic; and your Lordships have seen from that country where community of descent, and in some respect community of institutions, had kept alive reminiscences of Irish and of English feelings, a burst of generosity—amounting, as I believe, to millions of dollars—has been witnessed, and has resulted in the transmission of food to Ireland, simultaneously with the supplies sent
68
from this country, with the same benevolent object; and this amount of succour and sustenance has, as I have been informed during the past week, had a material effect already in many districts in the south of Ireland; and it is a gratifying circumstance attending the supply, that it has been intrusted for distribution to the body of persons called Quakers, who are always distinguished for their benevolence and activity in the cause of charity. It is also a circumstance worthy of notice, that the first vessel sent from America with gratuitous relief for Ireland was named after the place where the first building-was erected by the earliest settlers of English origin in that continent. But do your Lordships think that to such supplies as these, derived from the charity of this or other countries, the population ought to look for five years to come? My Lords, I say we must look to other means and other resources, and after carefully considering all the difficulties and all the remedies which have offered themselves, and none other have been suggested, though the most able and powerful minds have been directed to the subject; and after being so directed, and after ample opportunity has been given for forming an opinion, nothing has appeared better calculated to meet the difficulty than a qualified system of out-door relief, temporary in duration, and guarded, as it must be the wish of your Lordships to guard it, and as it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government, and of the other House of Parliament to guard it, from those abuses which I am ready to admit may be the concomitants of such a system. I therefore submit to your Lordships a Bill, which is based upon this principle, and which I trust will meet with the concurrence of your Lordships. This out-door relief is not to be given as a right to all persons; but, under the responsibility of an establishment in Ireland, of the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland, and of the Government of Ireland, to certain districts for a certain time. I proceed shortly to state what the provisions of the Bill are; I will not go through them, but will mention the clauses of the Bill which appear to me at all important. You will find that by the first of these clauses it is provided that the guardians of the poor of every union in Ireland—
"Shall make provision for the due relief of all such destitute poor persons as are permanently disabled from labour by reason of old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect, and of such destitute poor persons as, being disabled by reason

69
of severe sickness or serious accident, are there by deprived of the means of earning a subsistence for themselves and their families, whom they are liable by law to maintain, and of destitute poor widows having two or more legitimate children dependent upon them; and it shall be lawful for the said guardians to relieve such poor persons, being destitute as aforesaid, either in the workhouse or out of the workhouse, as to them shall appear fitting and expedient in each individualease."
It is left to the guardians, however, to apply what is called the workhouse test in every case. By the next clause it is proposed, that there shall be a power given to the Poor Law Commissioners, from time to time, to empower the guardians, on representation being made to them, in extraordinary cases of destitution in any particular district, to grant out-door relief to persons applying for it; but that power given by the Poor Law Commissioners to have force only for the space of two months. If necessary, it may be renewed at the end of that period; but in no case shall it continue beyond two months, unless by a renewed order issued by the Poor Law Commissioners. And, my Lords, it is directed most necessarily, and as one of the most important guards that can be applied to this measure, that this assistance shall be given in food only. Relief by payment in money has been tried in England, and it has been found to be an abundant source of abuse. It certainly has been urged that parties, if so inclined, may sell the food given to them, and so turn it into money; some security, however, is provided against such an occurrence in the proviso, that it shall be in the power of the poor-law guardians, when a person shall be discovered to have converted the food relief into money, to discontinue the giving any further relief to that individual. These guards having been so far provided, it has been resolved that out-door relief shall be administered, but only where the workhouses are full, and that the guardians shall at all times have the power, and that it shall in fact be their duty, if they do not see sufficient cause to the contrary, to require all persons applying for relief to come into the workhouse. It has been thought necessary to make this proviso, as the poor of Ireland have a great, indeed an almost insuperable, objection to enter the workhouse. Then, my Lords, as to the funds required under this Poor Law, it is proposed that they shall be provided by a rate to be paid in equal proportions by the proprietor and the tenant, except in the cases of the very lowest description
70
of farms—if, indeed, they can be called farms—I mean those under the value of 4l. annually. But in all cases where the value of the farm shall be 41. and upwards, the rate is to be divided equally between the landlord and the tenant. And I do hope, that whatever alterations your Lordships may make in this part of the Bill, it will not be that of throwing the whole of this burden, or the greater portion of this burden, upon the tenants; for I do think, that the proposal here laid down by Her Majesty's Ministers, is one that will he found most conducive to the interests of all parties in Ireland. But, besides the considerations in favour of these proceedings, arising from the great pressure to which I have alluded, and from that overwhelming necessity that induces me to look to that alone as the means of relieving that pressure, there is a consideration of a more political nature that had great weight with me in leading me to give my concurrence to this measure. It is well known that for years a complaint against the number of absentees not residing on their properties in Ireland, has been one of the favourite subjects of grievance in that country, and one of the favourite subjects of misrepresentation. I have more than once experienced the effect of that misrepresentation, arising from a feeling based on the very reverse of the truth—a feeling which exists, I will not say universally, but generally, and I will say not unnaturally, in that country. And how is it that that feeling is more likely to arise in periods of distress and difficulty than in any other? It is from a belief that the absentee proprietor leaves the pressure of the poor of the district to which he belongs, to fall only on those who are resident in that district. Now, I say it is a powerful political argument, that this proposed arrangement will put an end to that complaint. Why, my Lords, the cause of the complaint of absenteeism exists in other parts of the kingdom besides Ireland. There are counties in the north of England and in Wales, where there is as large an absence of the great proprietors as in Ireland; but you do not hear the same complaints from those quarters; and why? Because the absentee landlord is bound to contribute equally to the necessities of the poor with the landlord who resides on his estate. Make it so in Ireland likewise, and there will be an end put to this plausible subject of complaint.
LORD STANLEY: The absentee pro-

71
prietor does pay his contribution in Ireland. He pays through his tenants—the tenant pays for all.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: He pays the rate through his tenants—that is true. But I am at present dealing with impressions; and I am sure my noble Friend opposite knows enough of Ireland to know that facts are valuable there only where they do not require to have their effects explained; but where they require to be explained, their most beneficial effects are lost. It is the impression upon the minds of the people that we have to remove; and I think it is most important that the impression regarding the want of contribution to the poor by absentee proprietors should be removed altogether, and that their real position should be made manifest to the meanest understanding in Ireland. But I suppose from the manner in which my noble Friend interrupted me, that he supposed I was applying myself to the question of the distribution of the rate between the landlord and the tenant, whilst I was really speaking only upon the system of giving out-door relief. My object in the argument I was pursuing, was to show that by establishing a qualified system of out-door relief by Act of Parliament, in the way proposed in this Bill, you will remove a common cause of complaint, and insure a much greater degree of harmony, and the likelihood of a better understanding between landlord and tenant. There is another very material point connected with the Bill. The relieving officers are to be empowered to grant relief in any case of urgent destitution at the moment. I know that that is a regulation which may be questioned, and that much must depend upon the careful superintendence that is exercised by the guardians and relieving officers; but I hope that by such a regulation carefully exercised, we shall be able to avoid the occurrence of such a casualty as death from starvation, because there is no one ready to give relief at the moment. Another provision of the Bill is the restriction, which, I trust, your Lordships will leave untouched. I mean the restriction which confines the class of persons to be relieved to those not possessed of any portion of land exceeding one quarter of an acre. That regulation has been introduced as a stimulus; people holding land should be stimulated to exertion sufficient to insure their maintenance: and if they should be unable to secure that, and should be driven
72
to seek relief, then I think it consistent with justice that they should give up their holdings. I will next direct your Lordships' attention to the 11th Clause, by which the expenses of the rating are regulated. By that clause, any expenses beyond 2s. 6d. in the pound becoming necessary for a particular district are to be charged and levied upon the union at large. When the proper time comes, I shall be prepared to discuss that subject candidly and fairly; but it may be as well for me now to state the ground upon which that distinction has been founded. It is most desirable that every sort of stimulus should be given to landed proprietors to improve their properties as far as possible; but there may be cases in which the proprietor can exercise no sort of control over the persons who hold the land; and if we were, by the provisions of the Act, to make the district responsible for the support of the poor within it, it may happen in many places, and especially in large towns, that their resources would be annihilated altogether. Another question involved in the provisions of the Bill, is the subject of emigration, the nature of which I will not now detail, because it is only a carrying out under another form one of the provisions of the old poor law. In the old law there is a provision by which assistance could be given to such of the poor who were willing to emigrate; but in the Bill before your Lordships, it will be enacted, that if the proprietors of a district will themselves advance two-thirds of the expense of sending out such of the poor as wish to emigrate, it shall be in the power of the guardians to raise the other one-third to assist in effecting the emigration. The only other provision is that which relates to the number of ex-officio guardians relatively to the number of elected guardians. That relative number is proposed to be increased by the present Bill, provided that in no case they shall exceed the proportion of one-half of the entire board, both ex-officio and elected guardians. There is a special clause relating to the schools attached to the Dublin unions. It is also provided that an auditor shall be appointed; and it is directed that every case of relief, after having been first recorded in the proceedings of the guardians, shall be reported by the auditor to the Poor Law Commissioners, to be subjected to the disallowance of the Commissioners if they should deem it improper. I have stated so far the provisions of the Bill; but I shall be sorry if I have led your Lord-

73
ships to believe that I think it would be expedient or desirable to pass it into a law unaccompanied by other measures. In my own opinion, other measures as concomitants to this Bill are indispensable. One of these other measures which I consider most necessary, has been introduced within the last few days into the other House of Parliament—I mean the Vagrancy Act. My Lords, I am sure your Lordships feel the necessity of giving every facility in your power to the exertions of Irish proprietors for improvement in the cultivation and improvement of their properties. With respect to that subject, a Bill has been introduced by my noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack, which is now upon your Lordships' Table, having been read a second time, the object of which is the facilitating the sale of encumbered estates—it being a great public object that the proprietors of encumbered estates upon which they can make no improvement, shall have both every inducement and means to sell. Besides these measures, there is a Bill for the reclamation of Waste Lands to be introduced into the other House of Parliament; and a Bill for the second reading of which I shall have to ask your Lordships' permission, as soon as the one before you shall have been disposed of, the object of which is to make advances to landlords to enable them to introduce a system of cultivation and of improvement, such as they have not themselves the means of carrying into effect. And, my Lords, I have the satisfaction to state, that even before this Bill has passed into a law, and in consequence of its announcement, there has been manifested, on the part of landlords in many parts of Ireland, an anxious desire to avail themselves of its provisions. Surveys, with a view to that end, have been made in many places, and improvements on a large scale projected, all in the expectation of this Bill being passed into a law. There are other measures beyond those I have mentioned, although they are only of a subordinate character; such, for instance, as the assistance given to the erection of weirs, and the construction of curing stations, which are being established in several parts of Ireland at the public expense. My Lords, when I say that those stations for the curing of fish are being established at the public expense, I must be permitted to add a curious and important fact: two of these stations which were erected so lately as the autumn of last year, have already paid for themselves—they have actually repaid their
74
cost; and by providing places for the sale and the curing of fish, a new species of trade was being opened along the coasts of Ireland. That these measures for the improvement of Ireland will be altogether sufficient, I am not prepared to say; but that they will go far to stimulate and encourage the resources of that country, few persons can doubt. I may here state to your Lordships, that it is also in contemplation to apply an important stimulus to the enterprise of the country. I refer to the amount of 500,000 l. which it is proposed to supply in the way of loan to the most important trunk railway in Ireland, the Great South-Western Railway. Such an advance will be of great advantage, especially to the counties of Cork and Tipperary, which have suffered so heavily from the prevalent distress. That advance, it is believed, will lead to the accomplishment of that great work in less than a year. There have been also advances sanctioned to the Waterford and Kilkenny and to the Dublin and Drogheda Railways, though not to so large an amount; and the condition upon which these advances are to be made, being that 50 per cent of the capital should have been actually paid up by the subscribers, the public will have the very best security for their money. Her Majesty's Government have thus endeavoured to apply a stimulus to the industry of Ireland, but those advances can only derive their full effect from the zeal of the landlord proprietors; and it is to the corresponding exertions of those gentlemen that your Lordships must ultimately look for a happy future. To their exertions only, can we look for a prospect of
"—that happier hour,
Which blackest clouds that dimly lower,
And darken round our weary way,
Gild with a gleam of distant day."
But your Lordships may materially assist those efforts. I therefore pray you to adopt the measure which I have now to request your Lordships to read a second time—a measure which will have the immediate effect of preventing a certain proportion at least of that amount of calamity which presses upon the country and demands instant attention. While thus addressing your Lordships, I have been painfully reminded by the place in which I now stand, and I beg also to remind your Lordships, of the striking contrast which exists between this hall, glowing with all the colours of prosperity—the very type and manifestation of all the luxury, of all the wealth, and of all the power of the country

75
which it so faithfully represents—I have been, I say, painfully reminded of the contrast between this scene of imperial grandeur and the depth of that dark abyss of misery, the pains and suffering of which your Lordships are called upon, and which it is your duty, to alleviate. All that I pray is, that you may be enabled from these splendid heights to look down with a clear and undazzled eye upon those prospects of want and misery which in that portion of the kingdom for which you are called upon to legislate no one can doubt exist, and which, existing, entail the solemn necessity on your Lordships of endeavouring to provide for. I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
The EARL of CLANCARTY: I can assure your Lordships that I have not felt myself excused by the notice I gave of moving an Amendment upon the Motion just made by the noble Marquess for the second reading of this Bill, from the duty of following the noble Marquess through his speech, rather with the desire of being convinced by his arguments, than with the view of finding grounds of objection. I watched, however, in vain, for that which was to have been expected at this stage of the Bill, viz., a recommendation of its principle. The noble Marquess has certainly not in any degree attempted to recommend the principle of the Bill to your Lordships. On the contrary, he has admitted the dangers and evils to be apprehended from the Bill, the risk of which is only to be justified by the emergency which has induced Her Majesty's Government to propose it. My Lords, I cannot think that an emergency—a state of things that may be, and, it is to be hoped, will be, of very temporary duration—is any warrant for proposing a permanent measure fraught with so much difficulty, danger, and positive evil as that which the noble Marquess has just brought forward and explained to your Lordships. On the contrary, I am rather justified in the opinion I before entertained, that it is a Bill that your Lordships ought not to pass. I am far from desirous of throwing any obstacle in the way of a properly extended and complete system of poor law for Ireland. The part that I took on the question when it was first introduced into this House nine years ago—the pains I have since taken to bring the law into beneficial operation in the part of Ireland with which I am connected—and the labour which in common with several of your Lordships, I last year devoted to an inquiry into the working of the Act,
76
with a view to its improvement—are earnests at least that I am no enemy to the principle of making provision for the destitute, or indisposed to co-operate in making legal such provision as effectual as possible for its object. But, desirous as I feel, that a good and efficient poor law should be enacted, and most willing as I am to subscribe to the doctrine, that the destitute poor of Ireland should be provided for from Irish resources alone, although I think the destitution in that country is quite as much attributable to bad laws, and to bad government, as to any neglect on the part of the proprietors of land—I cannot but feel that the question is one that should be cautiously dealt with; that the inquiries which have from time to time been made as to the peculiar circumstances and character of the poorer classes of the Irish people, should be more carefully considered than they appear to have been, and compared with the results of poor law experience in this country; that no step should be hastily taken, no Act of such a nature as the Bill on the Table, passed as it were by surprise, least of all at a time when those the most interested in the question—those with whom the local administration of the law must rest, and upon whom the burden must fall—are so taken up with the onerous and very painful duties which the Legislature have recently cast upon them, that they can neither be consulted nor find time nor opportunity to consult together, so as to lay their views individually or collectively before Parliament. I ask your Lordships, is this a time when such a Bill as that now before your Lordships should be carried, I should rather say hurried, through Parliament? The haste with which the temporary relief Bills of the last and present Session have passed, was only justified by the pressing nature of the emergency; but the consequences of haste, even in a measure of temporary duration, have been severely felt in the experience we have had of the Labour-rate Act—an Act, be it recollected, against which Irish land-lands alone remonstrated. Millions of money squandered, the land mortgaged, for the purpose of raising the money, the communications of the country in many cases injured, the labourers demoralised, and the cultivation and improvement of the land neglected, at the very time when the protection of our home agriculture having recently been withdrawn, it was most requisite to stimulate the skill and aid the enterprise of the husbandman. We have yet to learn what will be the result of the Act

77
of the present Session: whether it will prove effectual in ensuring the diligence, order, and economy, so necessary in the distribution of food to the multitudes now dependent on public resources. Anxiously as the operation of this temporary Act must be viewed with reference to its immediate object, the preservation of life in the midst of famine, it is also interesting in another point of view, viz., as affording a practical illustration of that system of out-door relief in food which is embodied in the Bill upon the Table of the House. The Relief Commissioners in their report, recently presented to the Lords of the Treasury, express in a few words an opinion respecting it well deserving of consideration:—
"Your Lordships are aware that the relief we are now administering is not only of a temporary character, but necessarily of a nature contrary to all sound principles of policy."
I shall not trouble your Lordships by discussing the abstract question of giving out-door relief to the destitute; the subject has been fully investigated by the most competent authorities. I, therefore, shall limit myself to reading, with your Lordships' permission, a short extract from the report I hold in my hand, of the Commissioners who inquired into it in 1834—a report which has happily led to the adoption in this country of the policy of abandoning a principle previously found to be injurious in its operation:—
"We have dwelt at some length on out-door relief, because it is the relief which is now most extensively given, and because it appears to contain in itself the elements of an almost indefinite extension—of an extension, in short, which may ultimately absorb the whole fund out of which it arises. Among the elements of extension are the constantly diminishing reluctance to claim an apparent benefit, the receipt of which imposes no sacrifice, except a sensation of shame, quickly obliterated by habit, even if not prevented by example—the difficulty often amounting to impossibility on the part of those who administer and award relief of ascertaining whether any and what necessity for it exists; and the existence, in many cases, of positive motives on their parts to grant it where unnecessary, or themselves to create the necessity. The first and third of these sources of maladministration are common to the towns and to the country. The second, the difficulty of ascertaining the wants of the applicant, operates most strongly in large towns."
After quoting some evidence they proceed:—
"From the preceding evidence it will be seen how zealous must be the agency, and how intense the vigilance, to prevent fraudulent claims crowding in under such a system of relief. But it would require still greater vigilance to prevent the bonâ fide claimants degenerating into impostors; and it is an aphorism amongst the active parish officers,
78
that cases which are good to-day are bad to-morrow, unless they are incessantly watched."
I consider it, my Lords, a very sufficient ground for asking your Lordships to reject this Bill, that it goes to introduce this objectionable principle into a permanent poor law for Ireland. As shortly as I can, I will now address myself to the consideration of what is likely to be the practical operation of the proposed enactments. If the principle of the Bill were good, the details would be comparatively unimportant; but the principle being condemned by the testimony of every authority worth consulting, the endeavour has manifestly been, and it is so admitted by the noble Marquess, to correct by the details of the measure the bad results to be apprehended from it. By the first clause in the Bill, workhouses are to be kept up as establishments that may be, but need not be, made use of, except for able-bodied paupers. The consequence of this will be that the able-bodied, in place of looking upon the workhouse as a place of refuge and succour in the day of want, will view it as a place of coercion, and add to the too great unpopularity that attaches to the system. Now, my Lords, as the option is given to the guardians of relieving all other destitute persons, if they so please, out of the workhouse, and as it is alike notorious that relief can be more cheaply so given in individual eases, and most certain that the destitute poor, in general clinging to those indolent and squalid habits which I regret to say characterize the uneducated poor in Ireland, will accept the mimimum of out-door relief in preference to subjecting themselves to the restraint of the workhouse, the consequence is obvious: these establishments will be for all, except the able-bodied, practically abandoned—a result indeed, that I, for one, should little regret if I believed that it would be for the advantage of the poor; but as by the testimony of the most competent witnesses, the discipline and regulations of the workhouses have been found to operate beneficially upon the health, morals, and habits of the inmates; and as they provide for the children of the destitute an education the best fitted to improve their condition, and to render them as they grow to mature years, useful members of the community, instead of becoming burdens for life upon the public—I sec with regret the probability that under the operations of this clause, which thus permits out-door relief, the comparative cheapness of giving it, combined with the willingness of the poor to receive it, may

79
check that which has been found beneficial in the existing law, and the country be betrayed into the general adoption of a practice alike demoralising to the poor, and fraught with eventual ruin to property. If, however, it should happen, that using the discretion given them in the Act, some boards of guardians, more wisely avoiding the danger of out-door relief, should apply the workhouse to its legitimate purpose of an asylum and refuge to the destitute, where the aged, the widow, the orphan, and the able-bodied, may be cared for in the manner most suitable to their several cases; while in other unions the guardians, prejudiced against the workhouse system, or greedy of the popularity that may be earned by abusing it, or looking to the saving that may immediately be effected, though at the sacrifice of the ultimate interest of the ratepayer, by giving out-door instead of workhouse relief, there would be that want of uniformity that could not fail of interfering with the economical working of the law; the vagrant or unsettled portion of the population, that is to say, those who have not, by continuous residence, become legally chargeable to any electoral division, would be induced to migrate into those unions where out-door relief prevailed, and thus would be created the greater discontent among the paupers in those unions where the workhouse system was stringently enforced. Such a discretion, if even it could be beneficially exercised by boards of guardians, should be withheld until the country becomes better settled, and its resources sufficiently developed for the population to be allocated and proportioned in the different districts, according to the means of profitable employment that might be found to exist in them. Another objection against vesting this discretionary power in the boards of guardians, is the injury it will do to the charities that are now upheld by private benevolence. The existing poor law was, at its introduction, much objected to as likely to extinguish the charitable institutions which, in proportion to the means of the gentry and middle classes, are found in most parts of Ireland; some in connexion with the Established Church, others in connexion with the Church of Rome, and others supported by persons of all religious persuasions. This apprehension was not well founded, while legal relief was confined to the workhouse. The relief of the destitute in the workhouse was an act of justice; without is the legitimate field for the exercise of private charity—the work-
80
house, in fact, comes in aid of it, by enabling the benevolent, where there might be danger of imposition, to leave the applicant to the resources which the law provides. But it was the province of such institutions as the Indigent Roomkeepers' Society, and others of the like kind to be found in most large towns in Ireland, to administer to the necessities of those whose circumstances it would be harsh to drag before the public, yet to whom relief was necessary. The provisions of this Bill, the extending of the powers of the guardians to relieve in their own houses the aged, infirm, and helpless poor, as it will in some degree supersede the necessity of longer upholding such charitable institutions, so it will do away with the voluntary contributions of the charitable, by which they were solely supported, and thus will be broken one of the most valuable bonds that link the poor and the wealthy together; and the formal and stipendiary services of the relieving officer will supersede the active benevolence of the unpaid agent. This is a strong ground of objection to the Bill, and rendered the stronger by the clause which excludes persons from relief who happen to be in the occupation of more than a quarter of an acre; for to these the loss of private aid will not be compensated by the acquisition of any legal provision. I cannot, my Lords, approve of the clause; it will, I fear, aggravate instead of lessening the evils of out-door relief. At present, the workhouse, besides operating as a test of destitution, and thus aiding the guardians in their selection of fit objects to be relieved, limits their powers by the extent of the accommodation it affords. The framers of this Bill appear conscious that without this aid the guardians will he liable to be imposed upon, or may be inclined to extend relief too widely; hence the proposed limitation. It would be an intelligible principle, and one of easy application, to lay it down as a rule that no one should be considered destitute who was in possession of rateable property; that, therefore, holders of land should not be admissible to relief as destitute persons. The necessity of parting with the land that was found insufficient for the support of the occupier, would correct the evil of small holdings, for it is unquestionably true that many are in destitution from the insufficiency of the land they hold to supply them with food; but if relief is to be given to these upon the condition that in each case no more than a quarter of an acre of land be retained, instead of correcting the acknow-

81
ledged evil of minute subdivision, you hold out a direct encouragement for it. A man may hold three or four acres of land, and through misfortune or incapability fall into want; if you give him relief only on the condition of his alienating his land, he probably alienates it; but, if allowed, he will prefer subdividing it. There is injustice as well as impolicy in the proposed restriction. Why is the poorest occupier of the soil, the tenant labouring to improve an acre of bog, to be excluded from relief, when the occupier of a quarter of an acre of good land is not? The acre of bog may be of much less value, and the occupier's need more urgent; but before he can obtain relief he must go through the process of reducing his tenement to one-fourth of an acre, parting with the remainder, and thereby adding to the pauperism of the land before he can make application to the relieving officer. With such consequences to be apprehended, sound policy requires that the line should be otherwise drawn. Either the judgment of the guardians should be unfettered, which would be dangerous, or the possessors of land or other rateable property should be absolutely disqualified. To the principle of the second clause in the Bill, I do not object; the physical wants of the destitute, when the workhouse accommodation is insufficient, must be otherwise provided for; and, under circumstances such as the present, the Government should have the power of requiring, for limited periods, the dispensation of such relief in food; but I would submit that wherever such eases arise, the fact should be looked upon as established, that there is a redundancy of population, which, with aid from national resources, and under Government care, should be enabled to emigrate. The fifth section appears to be a consequence of the system of out door relief. It will, of necessity, interfere with the medical charities, and might have been rendered wholly unnecessary, had these been, as recommended by your Lordships' Committee, placed upon a footing of proper efficiency apart from the poor law. The next portion of the Bill which I shall bring under your Lordships' notice is the 11th section, which will practically do away with the operation of the law of electoral division chargeability. This was a subject much inquired into by your Lordships' Committee of last Session; and the result of such inquiry was, to confirm the opinions of those who were in favour of it, and to alter the opin-
82
ion of one noble Lord, by whom a general rate had been advocated. The Committee were unanimous in support of the principle of the existing law; and observe, that "should it hereafter appear desirable to amend this portion of the poor law, it should be with a view of maintaining a principle calculated to create a direct local interest in the management of the poor rate, and to encourage the profitable employment of the poor." The provisions of the clause in the Bill are, I think, open to much objection, and likely to produce confusion in the accounts of the union; that, however, is a matter of little importance compared with the power and encouragement it would give to the lessors of cabins in the suburbs of any town to accumulate pauperism in them, which shall be made chargeable to the union at large. The proposed mode of rating the tithe rent-charge, as a separate hereditament, is, I think, likely to prove a hardship to the owners of such property. Under present circumstances, the rate-collector goes to the occupiers of the land for the rate. Under the proposed enactment, a rate may be imposed of 20s. in the pound; and the clergyman, though his rent-charge is in arrear, is compelled to pay the rate. This is a matter that will, no doubt, receive the consideration of the right rev. bench; the more so, as from the zealous devotion of the Protestant clergymen of Ireland at the present time to the duty of affording relief to the famishing poor of Ireland, they are precluded from giving attention to their own interests as they may be affected by this Bill. The 19th Clause of the Bill, for increasing the number of ex-officio guardians, is one that I confess I am much surprised at, and expected, but in vain, to have heard from the noble Marquess some reasons for its introduction into the Bill that might be satisfactory, or likely, in some degree, to compensate for the unpopularity of the step. I hog to observe, that although the subject was examined into by the Select Committee last year, such an alteration of the law was not recommended, neither was it called for, that I know, by any part of the Irish public, or even by the magistrates themselves. It has not even the merit of assimilating the measure to the English law, for as if in anticipation of a conflict between the elected and the ex-officio guardians, and with a view to fair play, it is provided, that the magistrates must in no case exceed the number of the elected guardians. The

83
reasons given in support of this clause are various. Sir G. Grey is reported to have said in another place, in reply to Mr. J. O'Connell, that under the clause less opportunity would be found for the exhibition of religious intolerance. The only excuse for so unfounded and injurious a reflection upon the Irish magistracy, if the report that has gone before the public be true, is, that the right hon. Gentleman is utterly unacquainted with the country for which he is legislating. There are undoubtedly to be found in every country persons more or less prejudiced and intolerant; but I deny that such is the characteristic of the educated classes in Ireland. Party spirit has, indeed, been fostered and called into action by bad laws; but that persons appointed to the commission of peace can, with any truth, be said to act in the spirit which the Home Secretary supposes, I emphatically deny; and if he were right in his opinion of them, the magistrates are most unfit to sit as ex-officio members of the boards of guardians. But what is the testimony of the Relief Commissioners, six in number, only one of whom was an Irishman, respecting the disposition of the gentry of Ireland?—
"Nor could we always apportion the nomination between creeds and parties. We consider, however, and have found, as far as we can at present judge, that these distinctions have become far les essential than was formerly the case, and that there is a spirit of social feeling generally prevalent now amongst the people of this country, that (laying aside exclusive motives) leads them anxiously to co-operate with each other for mutual support and assistance, as members of one community, and independent of any partial considerations."
There is, therefore, upon the ground of avoiding the exhibition of religious intolerance, no necessity for the enactment. The other ground upon which this clause is elsewhere recommended, viz., that it will afford a more ample representation of property, is, I think, equally untenable. I am, I confess, surprised that the authors of the Reform Bill should have discovered that nomination by the Crown was preferable to election for the purposes of representation. So far from improving the working of the poor law, I think, this clause is calculated to interfere with the growing confidence of the public in the representative character of the boards of guardians, and with the beneficial influence upon the social condition of the people, which might be looked for from the stability of free institutions. There could have
84
been no objection originally to the formation of the boards of guardians in Ireland upon the English model; but now to propose an augmentation of ex-officio members of those boards, as a better security for property, implies a reflection upon the elected guardians, who, if they have acted unfairly by the proprietors of land, are not likely to be improved in their feelings by such an alteration of the law as that now under consideration. I have now stated my principal objections to this Bill. They were to have been inferred from the report I had the honour of presenting from the Committee of Inquiry last Session. They were also partly stated in a series of resolutions to which my name, in common with those of several Members of both Houses of Parliament, was subscribed, which was presented to Lord John Russell at the commencement of the Session. I have heard nothing either in the reflections that have been made against the so-called Irish party, or in favour of the out-door relief system, against which the resolutions were mainly directed, to make me regret having thus announced my opinions. Had I been in London at the time, I should have been glad, as hereafter at any time I shall be, to discuss with Irish Members of Parliament, irrespective of party prepossessions, those measures which most immediately affect the interests of Ireland. I think that by so meeting differences of opinion, referable rather to separate political associations than to reason, would often be avoided, and that the result would generally be a well-understood union in favour of measures of real usefulness, instead of that division upon nearly every subject, which leaves it to be practically decided by those who may have neither knowledge nor interest in the question at issue. Such meetings and discussions among Irish Members would not be the introduction of a party into either House of Parliament—not the establishment of separate interests, as between English and Irish, but the communication, through the constitutional channel of the more immediate representatives of that portion of the United Kingdom, of that advice upon Irish questions which ought to have weight in their decision, and might reasonably be expected to produce good results. I regret that the meeting I have alluded to, exhibiting as it did all but unanimity of sentiment, did not produce more union of action in reference to the Bill upon the Table. I do not think the answer of Lord J. Russell to the de-

85
putation that presented the resolutions, afforded any justification for taking a step in legislation so condemned by reason and experience; nor is it quite fair, without notice of such a question, to say, what measure do you propose in lieu of what you object to? It rather argues that due attention has not been given to the subject, and that very little attention is considered necessary. The present poor law of Ireland was much condemned at its introduction, as the work of a man who, though experienced in poor-law matters, had made but a short tour of inquiry in Ireland. It is reasonable to ask, upon what inquiry has this Bill been founded, and by whom it has been framed? It is certainly not the production of the Poor Law Commissioner for Ireland, for it is directly at variance with his opinions given in evidence. I know not whether it is the production of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but if it is, able and respected as he is, your Lordships will please to look upon it as the work of one who, like nearly all his predecessors in that office, went over to Ireland a total stranger to the country, and ere he could leave the precincts of Dublin, must have been called upon to propound a law, than which none could be proposed more vitally affecting the interests of all classes of the population. Whether Mr. Labouchere be the author of the Bill or not, one thing May at least be observed, viz., that whoever drew the Bill up is distinguished by the independence with which he has done so, regardless of all the inquiries, the facts, and dear-bought experience which might and ought to have guaranteed Ireland against the infliction of such rash legislation. Instead of any deference to such authorities, the Bill is characterized by a marked disregard of them. I think that the reports which have of late years been laid before the House might have supplied the materials of sound legislation; but by this Bill it is manifest that, for the purpose of relieving the mere physical wants of the poor, and keeping them at home, the improvement of the moral condition of the population has been wholly overlooked. I will not trouble your Lordships by entering minutely into what might be done for the amelioration of Irish pauperism; but one object it is most important to keep in view, which is, to distinguish between poverty and destitution. The Bill before your Lordships makes no such distinction. All who are without land, and some who are
86
possessed of land, are qualified to be relieved under the same law; the labourer, the artisan—those who, humble though they be, form the largest and most important class in the community, are in no degree distinguished from the profligate and the mendicant; the same rule applies to the relief of all: sickness or misfortune, according to this Bill, place an industrious man and his family upon precisely the same level of common destitution and of claim to relief as the most loathsome objects whom it is still the duty of humanity to relieve. I have often urged upon public attention the importance of raising the condition of the working classes, and especially of the agricultural labourer. This, as a first step, can only be done by means of a sound system of national education, based, as in this country, upon the Word of God, and should be followed by other measures—by the encouragement of agricultural improvement, by the suppression of mendicancy, and by placing the medical charities of the country upon a proper footing of efficiency. Were the medical institutions supported, as they should he, apart from the poor law, there would then be afforded to the labouring man, when suffering from sickness or accident, that out-door relief in medicine and nourishment which he can receive without any feeling of degradation, and which would enable him, at the earliest period, to return to habits of active independence. Having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, I will only in conclusion beg of you to recollect that if there is a pressure upon you to enact a stringent poor law, it is not the fault of the Irish people, but of the Government and Parliament, that this has not been sooner done. In 1842, the present law may be said to have first come into general operation; its deficiencies were then first generally felt, and a meeting of gentlemen, headed by the Duke of Leinster, assembled prior to the Session of 1843, to pray for immediate inquiry, and the placing the law upon an effective footing: the Government did not accede to this application, but brought in a Bill amending the Act in some respects, but leaving it in most respects deficient. Repeated applications have since been made to Parliament to remedy these defects; but it was not till Liverpool and Glasgow began to feel the pressure of Irish destitution—it was not till they felt themselves aggrieved by the visitation of a starving multitude, suffering from a calamity ordered by the

87
will of the Almighty, which, by a like decree, may fall (though God forbid that it should!) upon this country in another year, and against which no human laws can afford a guarantee—it is not until these wealthy towns feel their interests touched, until their case is pleaded, that your Lordships are called upon and pressed seriously to take up the question of poor-law legislation for Ireland. It is certainly hard that these towns should feel, as they have done, so much pressure from the immigration of Irish poor; but if from their situation they are now necessitated to bear some portion of the burden of Irish pauperism, it should be recollected that to the same cause, viz., their vicinity to the shores of Ireland, they owe it that they have practically obtained the monopoly of the trade between the two countries, and become the emporiums of Irish as well as of English commerce with the rest of the world. Neither have they been altogether losers by the distresses of Ireland. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow) has this evening noticed the impulse given to the provision trade. I must add that, to the shipowners, at least, great must have been their gain by the increased emigration, and the increased prices they have lately charged for the passage—greatly aggravated have been the sufferings of many poor persons by what I must call the inhuman act of raising the passage-money, when the very existence of many families depended upon their realizing purposes of emigration to a foreign land, in preparation for which they had sacrificed every resource at home. Thus to take advantage of the necessities of the emigrant at such a time as the present, appears to me like locking the door of a house that is on fire, and preventing the inhabitants from escaping. My Lords, I would entreat of you to consider in the measure before you, not the interest of particular English towns, but that of the country to which it relates; and I venture to affirm that you will thus best consult for the interest of the empire. Thanking your Lordships for the attention with which you have heard me, I now beg to move that the second reading of this Bill be postponed to this day six months.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSconsidered that the only new principle embodied in the Bill before their Lordships was, that which enabled the Poor Law Commissioners, under particular emergencies, to empower the boards of guardians to afford
88
out-door relief to the able-bodied pauper for certain periods. It had been argued, that such a measure as the present would increase the evils of Ireland by causing the degradation of the Irish peasantry; but, he would ask, was the position of the Irish pauper so satisfactory at present that he should dread the effect of such a change in his condition? If he (the Earl of St. Germans) thought that this measure would aggravate the evils of Ireland, he should be the last man to give it his support; but he anticipated no such result. He did not approve of indiscriminate out-door relief; he had witnessed the injurious effects of that system in this country; but it was unfair to argue from an abuse against a use. It was not at all probable that the Poor Law Commissioners would set aside the workhouse test, and direct out-door relief to be given indiscriminately. Reference had been made on a former evening to the very able report prepared by the Commission of Poor Inquiry of 1836, of which the most rev. Prelate opposite (the Archbishop of Dublin) was a member; and he remembered that a noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had expressed his condemnation of this measure, because it was one which, it was said, had been thoroughly considered by that Commission, and pronounced to be inapplicable to Ireland. Now, he had looked through the report, and could find nothing to justify the interpretation which the noble Lord put upon it. If the report in question were worth anything as an authority, it rather made in favour of the Bill under consideration; at least, it was as good authority against the workhouse system as against a system of qualified out-door relief. After giving the subject the best consideration in his power, he had come to the conclusion that the measure would have a beneficial effect upon Ireland. It would tend materially to diminish the monstrous competition for land in Ireland, which was at the bottom of all the evils of that country. The poor people now felt they were without any resource whatsoever, and that the possession of a plot of ground was their sole protection from want and destitution; they consequently clung to the possession of the land with the most reckless tenacity; and he (the Earl of St. Germans) was under the impression that this measure would have the effect of inducing the owners and occupiers of land to find profitable occupation for the people. There was nothing novel in these views; for so long ago as

89
the year 1835, it was minutely inquired into by the Committee of which Mr. Lynch was chairman; and he (the Earl of St. Germans) begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the evidence of Mr. Griffith on the subject. It appeared that a great deal of waste land was now in process of reclamation: he was happy to think that a great deal of profitable employment would be afforded; and it was to be hoped that the people would be converted from miserable cottiers into prosperous and independent labourers. To bring about that happy result, must, of course, be the work of time. It was impossible to do it at once; and one of the main grounds on which he based his support of the present Bill was, that it was a measure calculated to provide against the miseries which, in all probability, would attend upon the transition state. The time had now come that the property of Ireland ought to be made applicable to the support of the destitution of Ireland. Was that the case at present? Let them now see what was the whole amount that was so applied. The amount of the poor rate for the year ending December, 1845. was 298,000 l.; and for the year, up to 31st of December, 1846, 426,816 l. That was the whole annual expense to which the property of Ireland was at present liable in respect of the poor law; and if he assumed the value of the property assessed to the relief of the poor in Ireland at 16,000.000 l.—though he dare say the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle) would hardly concede that point—he would scarcely allow that the actual value of the property rated for the poor in Ireland was so much; but if the noble Lord referred to the report of the Poor Law Commissioners in 1843, he would find the whole value of the property rated for the relief of the poor to be 13,200,000 l. and odd pounds. That, as he (Earl St. Germans) believed, was assumed to be 20 per cent below the real value; but he would take it to be 13,200,000 l. Suppose the total amount of rate to be 426,000 l., and the value of the property assessed to be 13,200,000 l., that would give about 7½d. in the pound as the charge to which property was liable in Ireland for the relief of the poor; and if the estimate of the supposed real value of the property were taken, the assessment would be reduced to 6¼d. in the pound. It might be said, that large sums were raised by voluntary subscription for the medical relief of the poor. He wished to state the
90
case as favourably as he possibly could, and he would therefore mention the sums paid for the support of infirmaries, dispensaries, and fever hospitals. In 1839 (the last year for which there were any returns on the subject), the assessment for infirmaries in Ireland was 25,252 l., and the private subscriptions were 4,305 l., making together 29,557 l.; for dispensaries the assessment was 34,000 l., and the private subscriptions 34,000 l.; for fever hospitals the Parliamentary grant was 22,000 l., and the subscriptions 7,000 l. These sums made a total of 126,000 and some odd hundreds of pounds; and adding that latter sum to the amount raised for the direct relief of the poor, and supposing that the property of Ireland was not under-estimated at 13,000,000 l., it would appear that the extent to which the landowners and land occupiers in Ireland were burdened on account of the poor was only 9½d. in the pound. There was a wide margin between that and confiscation. As to the working of the present measure, he had come to the conclusion that there was no disposition to extravagance on the part of boards of guardians; he rather thought they were inclined to be parsimonious and sparing in doling out relief to the poor; and he did not think there was any danger to be apprehended from the exercise of too much liberality on the part of those bodies; but, supposing that they were inclined to be extravagant, they could be controlled and restricted by the central authority, the Poor Law Commissioners; but he thought they would not allow any extravagant expenditure of the funds committed to their care. It should be recollected, that a portion of the charge must come out of their own pockets, and if they indulged in extravagance, it would be partly at their own expense. He would now look how the measure was likely to work practically. He believed the workhouse test was absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the poor-law system; and he could never bring himself to believe that it would be set aside by the Poor Law Commissioners. With regard to the clause having reference to the election of ex-officio guardians, what he was about to say was this—that the election of ex-officio guardians should, if possible, be avoided. For his own part he should not object individually to the introduction of all magistrates into the boards of guardians as in England; but there was a difference between the circumstances of England and Ireland in this respect; the

91
unions in Ireland were of much larger size; and there was a much larger number of justices resident in those unions. He happened to have a return, from which it appeared, that in nine unions the number of ex-officio guardians would exceed—if all justices were to be made ex-officio guardians—the number of elected guardians. He did not think there would be any harm in that. He thought they would use their influence very properly; but, as the noble Marquess had said in the course of his speech, they must consider the feelings and prejudices of the people, and they should not close their ears against the expression of the general feeling of the great body of the people. His noble Friend had said, there was a strong feeling on the subject; and he would suggest to the noble Marquess that it might be better to provide that all justices should be ex-officio members of the board of guardians, provided that in those particular cases where the number of the ex-officio guardians should exceed the number of the elected guardians, then that the Poor Law Commissioners should take measures to increase the number of elected guardians. He should next refer to the 9th Clause of the Bill, which enacted, that occupiers of more than a quarter of an acre of land should not be deemed to be destitute. The effect of that clause would be, to put the people in a worse position than they were in at present. Under the existing law, if a man in the occupation of land met with an accident, or was out of employment, the guardians might give him relief; but under the clause now proposed, however great might be his necessities, if he was in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land, it would be quite incompetent for them to grant him relief. It was perfectly true, that in England the board of guardians had a right to call on any person having property and applying for relief, to give up that property; but that right was not enforced in all cases; and he (Earl St. Germans) would be inclined to leave the matter in Ireland as in England to the discretion of the board of guardians. He hardly thought they would give a man relief if they conceived he could pay his way; and he called their Lordships' attention to this clause for the purpose of expressing his conviction that the clause should be omitted; that it should be left to the discretion of the board of guardians to grant or withhold relief, under the circumstances, as they thought proper.
92
He begged to express his earnest hope that their Lordships would not agree to au Amendment to which it was perhaps somewhat irregular then to advert; but which he believed it was intended to propose in Committee, on the subject of the payment of the rate, because he believed that the success of that Amendment would be entirely fatal to the operation of the Bill. He was quite aware it might be said, that all the rates and burdens came out of the land eventually; but the Irish small farmer did not understand this. The fact was, that the cases of England and Ireland were in this respect, as in many others, very different. In England there was not the same competition for land as in Ireland. In this country, if a tenant found he could not pay the taxes and rent, and leave a reasonable profit for himself, he would look for a farm in a different part of the country; but in Ireland land was a necessary of life. A man must have land or starve. Such was the disposition of the people of Ireland to acquire land that they would promise any rent. He did not mean to say that the Irish landlords charged exorbitant rents; but unquestionably the land was generally let according to the system known by the name of "cant," a sort of auction, by which they took the chance of getting as much rent as possible. He (Lord St. Germans) was of opinion, that the practical effect of such an Amendment as he understood was to be proposed, would be to throw the burden of the rate not merely nominally, but really on the tenant—at all events the tenant would think so, and the result would be an utter impossibility of collecting the rate; and, therefore, such an Amendment as the one to which he referred ought not to be inserted in the Bill. He would not trespass further on their Lordships' attention; but would conclude with expressing a hope that they would agree to the present measure, taking it as the noble Marquess had introduced it—as ancillary to other measures which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and which it was their intention to introduce for the better cultivation of the Irish soil, and the general improvement of the country. If, however, their Lordships were irreconcilably hostile to the measure, it would, in his opinion, be very much better that they should reject it at once openly and manfully, because of the principle it contained, than that they should emasculate it by adopting amendments which would destroy its effects.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he always listened to his noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans) with great pleasure. He uniformly spoke with great clearness and effect; but he (Lord Monteagle) had never heard him with so much surprise as on the present occasion. His noble Friend, after having a full opportunity of looking into the various authorities on this question, had come down to that House, and sought to controvert the authorities which he (Lord Monteagle) on a former occasion relied on as unfavourable to the out-door system, by quoting a passage from the report of the Commission of which the most rev. Prelate on the right of the Chancellor was a member, and which was generally known as the Archbishop of Dublin's Report. If ever there was a document to which the opponents of the out-door system might confidently appeal as entirely substantiating their position, and entirely disproving the necessity and desirability of that system, the report in question was that document.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSwould save his noble Friend the expenditure of much unnecessary energy, and their Lordships the waste of some time by a single word in explanation. What he had said, or at least what he had intended to convey, was simply this, that the report of the Commission with which the Archbishop of Dublin was connected, made as strongly against the workhouse system as against the out-door system. This being so, he had expressed it as his opinion that it was scarcely fair for the noble Lord to rely for the substantiation of his position on that report; he could not admit its authority in the one case, and reject it in the other.
LORD MONTEAGLEhad still to express his surprise that the noble Earl should have cited passages from the report in question for the purpose of showing that a principle of out-door relief was inculcated in that document, whereas the very reverse was the fact. If a decisive and unqualified denunciation of the out-door system was to be looked for anywhere on earth, he should say that it ought to be sought in the pages of that report. But the noble Earl, though he had endeavoured to deal with several of the authorities which he (Lord Monteagle) had adduced on a former occasion, had totally omitted to allude to one authority—the last of all in point of date, and perhaps the most remarkable of all—namely, the report of their Lordships last year on the question of out-door relief—a report in
94
which it was expressly stated that their Lordships' opinions on the question were in entire consonance and conformity with the evidence and authorities which were relied on by the opponents of that system. The noble Earl was himself a member of the Commission from whom that report emanated, and a party to the declaration against out-door relief. Now, he would wish to ask the noble Lord one question, which was this—whether he thought that the report in question was fairly susceptible of any other interpretation than that which he (Lord Monteagle) put upon it.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS The EARL of ST. GERMANS, having been so directly challenged, would say a few words in reply and in explanation. The passages in the report alluded to, were undoubtedly to be found there; but they were the production of the noble Lord himself (Lord Monteagle), and the report was drawn up at the close of a long, wearisome, and laborious Session, in the presence of but few Irish Peers, and of no English Peer but himself. He might dilate on the inconvenience and almost the impracticability of offering an opposition at such a period and under such circumstances; but on this he would not dwell. He would content himself with observing, that the unexampled emergency and pressure which made the present measure necessary, had no existence at that time; and he accordingly had not felt himself called upon to moot a question of such gravity and importance, on his own single authority, by then bringing forward a counter-resolution declaratory of the necessity of out-door relief. It was his noble Friend who had engrafted that opinion on the report; and he (the Earl of St. Germans) therefore left it to their Lordships to say whether there was any greater weight to be attached to that passage in the report, than to a speech of his noble Friend in that House.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought that his position was now made still stronger than before, for he had now the admission that the noble Lord, who had claimed the distinction of standing alone as the representative of all England in the Committee, in that authoritative character had not hesitated to give his sanction to a report condemnatory of out-door relief, which report had been agreed to on full deliberation. Most assuredly the report had not taken any of their Lordships by surprise; on the contrary, it had been printed and reprinted and circulated before adoption; nor had he until that night

95
heard from the noble Lord a single word symptomatic of doubt or distrust as to the opinion to which he had made himself voluntarily a party. The noble Lord pleaded, in justification of the present measure, and in defence of his change of opinion, his support of the fact that the pressure and emergency with which the country was most unhappily afflicted, had no existence when the report was adopted. No doubt it was so; but that constituted one of his (Lord Monteagle's) main objections to the Bill: he protested against their Lordships legislating permanently in a special emergency. If they were justifiable in taking this course, the noble Earl (Earl St. Germans') justification would be quite admissible. But he denied that under the pressure of a temporary emergency it was competent or discreet for them to decide on the case of Ireland, or to adopt a permanent system of legislation on the most difficult of all questions, the support of pauperism. He had given his cordial assent to the Temporary Relief Bill, because, as its name implied, it was designed to meet a temporary evil; but if they were about to make their permanent legislation dependent, not on those principles to which both science and experience taught them to look for the security and well-being of society, but on impulses derived from an emergency the greatest and strangest that had ever existed in the history of the civilized world, and from a social state disorganized and anomalous—if they were to frame their legislation in reference to such an emergency, and overrule the resolution they had adopted when there was a greater calmness and absence of excitement than at present—they would run the hazard of passing very bad laws. If there was an insurrection in the land which endangered the public peace, and rendered the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and the enactment of other measures of repression or punishment necessary, would that, he asked, be a proper period in which to devise laws to affect permanently the liberty of the subject? He willingly admitted the ability of the speech made by the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill; but it was worthy of remark, that all his arguments in defence of the measure were founded on the present emergency; not one argument was adduced to defend the measure as proposed. The argument of his noble Friend the President of the Council seemed throughout to admit that it could not be rational that legislation devised for the purpose of meeting a tem-
96
porary emergency ought to be of a permanent character. He would not now anticipate the discussion in Committee; but he thought it as well to notify to their Lordships, that, in conformity with this principle, it was his intention to propose in Committee to limit the duration of the present measure. He would endeavour to convince the House that such a course was just and expedient; and he would take the sense of their Lordships on it. For the present it was scarcely necessary that he should do more than call their Lordships' attention to this fact, that although in a previous debate he had shown that the whole current of authorities, from the time of the Union to the present hour, were on his side of the question, neither at that time nor on the present occasion had even a shadow of an authority been adduced against him. It should also be remembered that the Legislature was at this moment in a very peculiar position. Rumour assigned but a brief duration to the present Parliament. With that, however, it might be said, perhaps, that the House of Lords had nothing to do: his motive for alluding to it was for the purpose of declaring his unqualified conviction, that if they were at the beginning of the Session, and had months before them, he could adduce in favour of his position an authority even more conclusive than all the reports and evidence he had hitherto pressed into his service. He could have appealed in that case to the conclusive authority of experience. Parliament had passed a Bill for the temporary relief of the people of Ireland, which to a certain degree contained the same principle of danger which was unhappily to be found in the present measure. To the temporary measure, neither he nor those who felt with him had offered any objection; they had been ready to run any risk; they had been ready to make any sacrifice; and to place at the disposal of the public under that measure the property which they held, admitting that their property was held by them not merely as proprietors, but, as trustees for the public good. That Act, passed as it was to meet a temporary emergency, would soon furnish experience of the working of the system of out-door relief. It would have afforded him unaffected pleasure, and would have relieved his mind from great uncertainty, if it had been possible for the noble Marquess to have declared that from the good working of the temporary measure, the Government were confidently assured that the operation

97
of the permanent measure now under discussion would be found to be salutary and beneficial. On this subject, however, his noble Friend had been ominously silent; and as no documentary evidence was furnished, any effectual reference to experience was, at present, out of the question. They could only refer to the opinions of those who wore the best possible authorities. on such subjects, and their opinions would be found to be uniformly adverse to the out-door system. Neither was English experience a very safe guide—at least, without much caution. The condition and circumstances of both countries were so essentially different, that it would be most irrational to assume that it was always wise to apply the same measure of legislation to both. Of 130 unions in Ireland, 19 varied in extent from 250,000 to 500,000 square acres, and 111 unions only were below the lowest of those numbers; whereas in England there were only two unions out of 600 which exceeded in extent 250,000 acres, while 582 were below that average. How, then, could they believe that the workhouse test would work equally in the two countries, where not only the state of society, but the order of things, were so essentially dissimilar? Without an immense addition to the number of workhouses in Ireland, it would become imperative to give out-door relief almost universally, if any relief at all were given. Under these circumstances, even if Parliament were introducing the proposed system of poor-law administration for the first time, without any disturbing causes arising out of the widely-spread distress, and the still more widely-spread relief works, they would have great difficulties to surmount; and he asked those who were most conversant with the operation of the English poor law, how it would be possible, even in England, with the advanced state of society in this country, that with such difficulties they could expect such a measure to succeed? How could the poor laws be administered in the workhouse ten, twenty, thirty, and forty miles from parts of the union? How could guardians fulfil their duties? In England, there were 600 workhouses, for a population of 16,000,000. In Ireland, for a population of 8,000,000, the workhouses were but 130. But there were other difficulties which would arise. The noble Marquess assumed that the manner in which the law under this Bill would be administered, would be the "wisest, discreetest, best"—that few would ask for relief who
98
had not a title to receive it—and that all who had such title would be rejected. He (Lord Monteagle) very much doubted this. Destitution would, no doubt, too often arise; but the excuse of destitution would never be wanting. As for the relieving officer, he believed it would be found that that personage would he wholly unable to do justice to the intentions of the Legislature. Let them look to the distance between the workhouses, and to the immense size of the unions, and to the fact that it was only proposed to appoint one single relieving officer in a union, and they would see reason to think that it would be impossible that the caution necessary for the administration of relief could be exercised. How could one solitary relieving officer, stationed in a remote part of Ireland, and subject to the popular influences by which he would be surrounded, be safely entrusted with powers such as this measure proposed to confer upon him? Could he exercise them freely? Could he administer them with personal safety? Did they think that any insurance office could be found to insure his life for a week, if he performed his duty? If there were no other objection, the vesting in a single officer these extraordinary powers, would render the Bill totally impracticable, and highly dangerous to the peace or the property of Ireland. He felt, too, that there would be the greatest difficulty in the selection of these very responsible officers under any arrangement that might be made; but it would be better to have them selected by an impartial Government than by the guardians of the unions. Then with respect to the workhouse accommodation. They had workhouse accommodation in Ireland at the present moment for 110,000 persons; but there were at present 120,000, or rather more, obtaining relief in those workhouses. How, then, were they to bring the workhouse test into operation? It was said some of the present inmates must be removed. How was this to be effected? Of these 110,000, upwards of 50,000 were children. Could these children be removed? That could not be done without depriving them of the education they were receiving there; and, generally speaking, the workhouse education in Ireland was going on remarkably well. Again, it was said that the Board of Works was giving employment on a great scale, 500,000 or 600,000 being engaged on the roads and drainages; I but there was a period beyond which that

99
employment could not be given; and when that period of the reduction of labourers arrived, they would have a flood of paupers to be relieved in the workhouses. The workhouses would be choked up, the workhouse test would cease, out-door relief without any test at all would be the alternative, and ruin to property and the degradation of the people the inevitable result. Therefore, he considered that the workhouse test in this Bill was a more fallacy. His noble Friend had informed the House that this Bill was to be accompanied by a measure for the suppression of vagrancy. That would be found a very difficult subject. He rejoiced, however, that the Government had considered it; but he took the liberty of stating to the Government, that they would find it difficult, if not impossible, to root out mendicancy from the rural districts of Ireland; they could not root out of the Irish heart that which was cherished, not only as a natural sympathy, but as a part of their religion, namely, that the administration of alms to the destitute was a moral and religious duty. But it might, perhaps, be said, that the people would be satisfied in this respect with paying their poor-rates; and that if they paid their rates they would think that was satisfying this duty. But this argument, too, was inapplicable; for it must be borne in mind that the great mass of occupiers of land in Ireland were exempt from all payment of rates, and therefore they could not set off rates to which they did not contribute, to excuse the non-compliance with an obligation which they felt it to be a duty to perform. Very few persons were aware of the amount of charity that was displayed in Ireland. He believed that very large amounts were collected for charitable purposes in the towns of that country; and, speaking of Dublin, which he mentioned the more readily because he was totally unconnected with it, he believed their Lordships would find that there was far more collected there, in proportion to its size and its wealth, for charitable purposes in connexion with religious duties and with education, than in any other city of the empire. If their Lordships were to be led away by the statement of his noble Friend (Earl St. Germans), they would have a most erroneous as well as a most miserable idea of the charities in Ireland.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSspoke only of the legal burdens of the land.
LORD MONTEAGLE: But what were the legal burdens? They were then speak-
100
ing of what was done for the relief of distress in Ireland; and if it were found that that consisted of voluntary relief in the shape of charity, it was entitled to be considered a charge and burden on the land. Were their charities to be the less considered because they were spontaneous, and not the result of coercive laws? With regard to what had been called the confiscation of Irish property, although he contended that this Bill would very seriously affect the interests of property in that country, yet he was willing to treat that question as a secondary argument, provided it could be shown that this measure was a safe and judicious mode of administering permanent relief in Ireland. If the Bill would tend to improve the moral and physical condition of the people—if it would open up new sources of industry—then he would admit that the money charge on land was the least part of the question. However, this much he must observe, in passing, that the argument respecting confiscation, though he would treat it as secondary and subordinate, was by no means undeserving of serious consideration. The noble Lord had talked glibly upon that subject; he had anticipated as a benefit a large change of property, and the passing of estates into new hands. But he (Lord Monteagle) would respectfully warn their Lordships, that this was not always an easy or a safe process. They could not abruptly tear asunder all the connexions that had existed for a long series of years in an old country, and attempt to rejoin them by artificial means, without running some hazard to the safety of the framework of society itself. The noble Marquess who opened the present debate, had expressed a hope that this measure would be the means of substituting the plough for the spade in the cultivation of the land in Ireland. But what would be the effect of such a change? It might increase the gross amount of the produce; but it would not increase the demand for agricultural labour. It might benefit the landlords; but there never was a greater fallacy than to contend that an improved system of agriculture would give the tenant-farmers greater power to employ labourers. More than double the number of agricultural labourers were employed in Ireland than in England; yet it was well known that agriculture—improved agriculture—would lessen, not augment, the demand for labour. This Bill would not increase that demand. It was against all

101
facts and experience to entertain such an expectation. He had already addressed their Lordships on the injustice of the proposition for extending the area of taxation from the electoral district to the union, when the rate in any town district should amount to 2s. 6d. This was intended to operate as a benefit to the towns by preventing paupers from crowding into them from the surrounding agricultural districts; but the effect, in his opinion, would be the very reverse. It would operate as a bounty on settling in towns. The proposal in this Bill was, that when the rate in the towns exceeded 2s. 6d., the excess should be levied generally upon the union. He would briefly show the danger with which the plan was pregnant; for his belief was, that it would, on the contrary, whilst it injured the rural districts, have a tendency to cause a large influx of pauperism into the towns. There was no person who had travelled through the towns of Ireland, who had not been struck with the long lines of cabins and hovels that were erected in their immediate vicinity. Now, if the owners of these cabins and hovels could make their poor tenants the recipients of out-door relief, out of which they might be able to pay their rent, was it not obvious that a facility would be afforded to those landlords who had a larger interest in receiving rents to their interest in keeping down the amount of the rates? A capitalist might expend 1,000 l. in the purchase of a piece of land near a town; he might build upon it; his tenants might become recipients of the poor rates: which, according to this Bill, would fall not exclusively upon the town, but upon persons living twenty and thirty miles from the town, so soon as it happened that the rate amounted to more than 2s. 6d., because the excess of the rate would then fall upon the union at large. There would have been more reason to have enacted that the rate in the first instance should fall upon the union at large; but that, if there were an excess of pauperism in any particular part of the union, the burden of that excess should fall upon that particular locality. This would afford a motive for economy. It was said that this Bill would have the effect of preventing the immigration of Irish paupers into England. There was, in his mind, no delusion greater than that of attributing any such effect to the measure. Yet he could trace the origin of the Act, by much of the support it received, to this most fallacious expectation.
102
He did not attribute this selfishness to the House he was addressing. He would not attribute to their Lordships a disposition to do wrong to Ireland, in order to gain a possible good for themselves. Their nature would revolt at it; but undoubtedly there were some persons who were not guided by so high and generous a feeling as that which he presumed actuated their Lordships; and he certainly believed, from what he had read and heard, that not a desire to relieve Irish poverty, but the desire to check Irish immigration into England, was one of the chief motives with many for supporting out-door relief. That was not very generous, but it was likewise most unwise and illogical. Out-door relief could not have the effect of checking immigration into England, unless it raised the rate of wages in Ireland; but all experience had proved that the effect of out-door relief was to lower the rate of wages; if so, then the effect of a rate levied for out-door relief, instead of checking immigration, would be to increase it in the proportion that the rate of wages was lowered by its operation. For this statement he had ample authority. He had the authority of the experience of England. Where were wages lowest? In the southern, and some of the eastern counties. Where was the out-door relief of the able-bodied carried to the greatest excess? In those very districts. Where were wages highest? In the north, where no such abuse prevailed. In addition to this, he had the testimony of practical and enlightened men, as he would show to their Lordships by reading a passage from the evidence given in 1830, before a Committee of the House of Commons upon this subject. The noble Lord here read the following extract:—
"J. Musgrave, Esq., gave evidence—'Under a compulsory system of relief the immigration of Irish paupers into England would be increased, because many labourers who are now induced to remain at home in order to support their relatives, would be inclined to come over to England, where there is so great a difference of wages: as long as the difference of wages exists, there will be great inducement to labourers to come over.'
"The right hon. A. Blake said—'I have no doubt that a system of compulsory relief will augment the number of Irish labourers who come over to England. If the Irish found that their poorer relations who depended on them for support were sure of being provided for without their aid, they would feel less difficulty in seeking, as the phrase is, their fortune in England.'
"The late Mr. Eusor testified that—'A provision for families would be a husband to that

103
family whilst the labourer was abroad, and therefore he would soon be liberated to pass abroad.'
"General Bourke said—'If a system of assessment for the poor had the effect of lowering wages, as I conceive it would, the motive to immigration would be still stronger than at present, by making the difference of wages still more to the disadvantage of Ireland.'
"Mr. J. R. M'Culloch was asked—' How do you think the introduction of poor laws into Ireland would act on the immigration of the Irish poor into England?' And his answer was, ' I should think it would rather increase the importation of them into England.'"
If, then, any reliance was to be placed upon either general principles or upon authority, it was perfectly clear that whatever might be the other effects to be produced by this Bill, it was absurd to suppose that it would prevent the immigration of the Irish poor into England. He belonged to a much-reviled class, the landlords of Ireland; but he might say truly that the Legislature of Great Britain and of Ireland, and indeed the Legislature of the United Kingdom, were as much obnoxious to reproach as the landlords of Ireland. He was unwilling, however, to open that chapter, and to describe the vicious and selfish legislation of past times. It was not the burdens they were called upon to bear of which the landlords of Ireland complained; he, for one, and most of those he was acquainted with, not only thought they ought to hear burdens for the benefit of others, but were ready and willing to bear them. His objection to this poor law was not directed or limited to the amount of burden this impolitic Bill would cast upon the landlords of Ireland, but to the still more impolitic and mischievous appropriation of the fund which it was intended to levy upon Irish property. Nobody objected to a tax for the relief of the poor, who were impotent and unable to support themselves, and who had not persons bound to support them. No one objected to the most lavish expenditure for the support of medical charities. No one objected to contribute to the maintenance of lunatic asylums. Above all, he thought that a tax for the education of the people might be considered a fair burden upon the land. Their Lordships had been told by Her Majesty's Government that it was intended to educate the people in their proper pursuit, that of agriculture. If Parliament had thought of this before, their Lordships would not have seen what had taken place in Ireland, where the schemes of landlords for the
104
improvement of their estates had been entirely frustrated by the ignorance of their tenants. But the Government ought to have gone further than they had done by this Bill, and have devised a system of emigration. Without the aid of a large and well-considered system of emigration, it was vain to hope to deal with the calamities of Ireland. He would bring this proposition distinctly before Parliament at a future time; but, in the meanwhile, he gave notice of his intention, in Committee, to urge two propositions, of which he had given notice: one for the omission of the clauses of the Bill which introduced the principle of giving out-door relief to the able-bodied; the other, which had been practically supported by the arguments of the noble Marquess—a clause limiting the direction of a Bill which was admitted by its Mover to be founded, not on permanent, but upon temporary and partial causes.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSwished to correct a misrepresentation which had been made of his statements; he was speaking simply in reference to the apprehended effect of this measure upon the value of landed property in Ireland. The actual amount of legal charge upon that land at the present moment he had showed to be only 7½d. in the pound.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEhoped that his noble Friend (Lord Mont-eagle) would not expect him on that occasion to enter upon the subject of emigration or medical charities. He was glad to hear him speak so strongly in favour of improving the system of agriculture in Ireland, and supplying the farmers of that country with better agricultural instruction; but he had heard him with the utmost astonishment in an earlier part of his speech say that the introduction of an improved system of agriculture, instead of enabling the farmer to employ more men, would actually give employment to fewer. Why, did not every one know that, wherever they increased the resources and wealth of the country, they necessarily caused an increase in the means of employment of the people? They were compelled, under such circumstances, to give increased employment to the people, not only by direct but by indirect means also. The great argument of his noble Friend against out-door relief was made on a comparison with the state of things in England; but had he compared this Bill at the same time with the poor law that existed in this country, the comparison would have been much

105
fairer. The noble Lord had frequently, in the course of his speech, laid much stress upon the question of the unions to be created under the Bill, and the extent of poor whom they would have to relieve; but he appeared to forget that by the 20th clause, it was provided that, wherever it was found necessary, the unions might be altered, so as to meet the exigencies of the case. However, such questions were more fit to be discussed when the Bill had reached Committee. The noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) opposed the Bill because it would impose a national tax upon Ireland; and yet in a very few minutes afterwards he said that he should have no objection to see a national rate imposed upon Ireland in cases of emergency; that where in particular parts of Ireland the amount of pauperism became excessive, it was but fair that from the general funds of the State there should be supplied the necessary sum to relieve that distress. His noble Friend had, in his opposition to this measure, relied very much on the report which had been recently issued by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland. Now, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) entirely agreed with the recommendations in that report; and he was glad to know that they had the support of the right rev. Prelate who then sat upon the woolsack (the Archbishop of Dublin) in proposing this measure. In the twenty-fifth page of the report which had been so often alluded to, there was a paragraph which ended by recommending that out-door relief should be given to the aged and infirm, to helpless widows, to young children and females, and also to casual destitution. And what did they propose by this Bill? Out-door relief to the destitute and infirm. His noble Friend, in alluding to the principle of outdoor relief, had spoken as if out-door relief to all persons was to be given under this Bill; whereas it was only under certain circumstances that the Poor Law Commissioners would allow the guardians to afford relief for a certain time to distressed applicants. His noble Friend had said that the destitute condition of Ireland could not continue—that it would increase in misery; then if that were so, he would ask their Lordships whether it was not of the utmost importance that the effort proposed by this Bill should at once be made to renovate the condition of Ireland? Had not they better risk this measure, dangerous as it was described to be by his noble Friend, rather than let Ireland remain in her present de-
106
plorable condition. His noble Friend had also said that the evils under which Ireland laboured were only the effect of a passing emergency, and that the Bill was founded upon such emergency; but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) contended that the effects of that emergency would be lasting—and it was therefore absolutely necessary that their Lordships should adopt strong measures to relieve the effects of the calamity that had fallen upon Ireland. But he would remind their Lordships that it was the intention of the Government to have proposed a measure similar to this long before that calamity had happened. Why did Sir Robert Peel send forth the commission of which his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Devon) was at the head? It was because it was felt that Ireland laboured under evils which it was absolutely necessary to remove without delay; and he felt confident that if this measure had been carried into effect years ago, she would now have been in a much superior condition. If they intended to legislate properly for Ireland, they must look to the effects which the emergency which his noble Friend had spoken of had brought upon Ireland, which would undoubtedly be of a permanent character. They had heard much of the petitions which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) frequently presented from persons in Liverpool, and other towns in Lancashire, about the immigration of Irish poor into that county. He, for one, was not surprised at those complaints. He must acknowledge the pressure caused upon particular localities by such immigration; but at the same time he must say that those complaints were a little too loud, and that there was something of injustice in them. When they talked of the pressure upon particular localities in England, caused by the recent calamity in Ireland, they should recollect that at the time of prosperity Irish labour was of the greatest benefit to England. Those great towns which had recently arisen on the shores of the Mersey, and the great works which had been accomplished throughout Lancashire, and even in this very metropolis, were indebted to the supply of cheap labour from Ireland, which formed a sort of nursery for English capital, and by which it was enabled to fructify so rapidly. Whether the works were under ground, in mines, or above the ground, the great supply of labour came from Ireland. In agriculture, also, the same observation applied with

107
equal truth. He would ask their Lordships whether it was wiser that the poor of Ireland should he left to depend upon the voluntary contributions of the humane, or that proper legal regulations should be sanctioned which would compel all the proprietors of land in that country to contribute their fair share to the support of the poor? Was it not well that they should endeavour by such a measure as this to get the state of Ireland into a better order? Whether they passed or rejected this poor law for Ireland, it was absolutely necessary for the welfare, for the very existence, of that country, that some amendment should take place in her condition. He did not agree with the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin), whoso speech on a former occasion he had a right to refer to, because he had since given it to the world in the shape of a pamphlet—a speech which, it appeared, had made a sensation in Ireland and elsewhere which, in his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) opinion it ought not to have made. He did not agree with him that the Irish labourer was so desperately improvident, or altogether so perverse, as he represented him to be. Looking at what the Irish labourer did out of Ireland, and looking to what he did in Ireland, according to the reports of the best civil engineers, and the persons who employed labour to the greatest extent in that country, with the best economy, he contended that the Irish labourer was found to be actuated, like every other man, by the soundest principles of economy as regarded himself, and that he was willing to work, and to work well too, when he was well paid. The most rev. Prolate had said that the effect of a poor law for the peasantry of Ireland would be to reduce them to a state of slavery; and he had said that in order to employ as many as he could, he did not give the highest wages to the best men.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLIN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I did not say so.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: You say you prefer giving employment to a greater number at less wages with moral training.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLIN: Allow me to say I give them as good wages as they usually could expect to earn.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: If, in order to employ a greater number of persons, the right rev. Prelate lowered the wages, then he did that very thing which was considered the evil of the poor law.
108
It was undoubtedly an evil that, in Ireland, the people were employed, not because their employment was wanted; and, therefore, he must say that, considering the matter soundly and economically, such employment was not profitable. They were employed for the purpose of giving them relief; and that was in itself a species of labour-rate which had an injurious tendency. The price of labour was not regulated by the work to be done, but by the number of persons who wanted employment. It was said that there was danger of an out-door relief becoming the rule and not the exception, and that the tenant-farmers would be unable or indisposed to do their duty, and that in point of fact the poor law would not be carried out. Now, he was ready to admit that the laws of the land did not consist of parchment only, but that when they talked of law they meant the laws and usages of society; and there was no doubt that in Ireland much required to be done in the way of effecting a change in the habits and usages of the community. If, however, the necessity of carrying out the principle now introduced was not acted upon—if the farmers did not see their own interest clearly in the matter—if they did not act as they ought to do—they, above all men, would be ruined, partly by the operation of this law, but chiefly by the state of things to which that country would be brought. If, again, landlords would not countenance the efforts which were made in endeavouring to teach the people how this law should be administered, they would clearly fail in their duty. He would say, that the whole working of this Bill depended on the people of Ireland themselves; and if they did not do their duty, and consent to be guided by those who were able and willing to teach them, how was it possible to administer this, or, indeed, any other law under such circumstances? He would not believe, however, that such could be the case; he was convinced that the people of Ireland were pretty well alive to the duty which they had to discharge, and were prepared to discharge it with propriety. Objections had been taken to the ex-officio clause, but he regarded it as one of great value. He might state that two applications had been made to him by gentlemen in Ireland, requesting that he would recommend them to the Lord Chancellor to be put upon the commission as magistrates, because they wanted to be ex-officio guardians of the poor. This showed that the gentlemen of

109
Ireland were alive to the necessity of taking active steps towards the recognition and administration of the measure now before the House. He believed that the ratepayers of Ireland would soon find the pressure on them so great that if they did not introduce order and regularity into the proceedings connected with the working of this Bill, and attend to the paupers of the country, those paupers would become unmanageable on their hands. Looking at the state of society in Ireland, he thought that even if the passing of the Bill before the House would create the state of things apprehended that night, still Parliament should not be deterred from altering the state of things which at present prevailed in that country. He had confidence in the gentry, the farmers, and the lower orders of Ireland. He believed that they were governed by those feelings that regulated other men, and that they were really industrious where industry was profitable to them. He trusted and confidently believed that the evils which had been apprehended would be avoided, and that the Bill would eventually confer a benefit on Ireland.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLINsaid, he had no intention to occupy their Lordships' time upon the present occasion beyond a few observations, because he thought this was not the most suitable time for entering on the merits of the Bill, especially after what had been so ably said on both sides of the House. He rose merely to make a remark on an allusion to an expression in a former speech of his, which allusion was calculated to occasion a false impression. He was quite sure the noble Lord had no intention to misrepresent; but a very small difference in an expression would sometimes make all the difference between right and wrong. His (the Archbishop of Dublin's) expression occurred in a description of his own practice—ho was describing the fruits of his own experience—and what he had said was, that he did not give "high wages." That, of course, was a very indefinite expression; but he did not mean it to be understood by that that he was in the habit of giving lower wages than the best wages such workmen could earn anywhere else. By saying that he did not give high wages, he meant that he was not in the habit of giving such wages as he would wish to see an industrious able-bodied man earn—such wages as he would wish to see him bring home to his family to increase their comforts and well-being. He gave such wages as would not dis-
110
courage the man from finding employment elsewhere to the best of his powers, and such as would not draw labourers off from the ordinary pursuits of agriculture. But he (the Archbishop of Dublin) must take leave to draw a distinction which the noble Lord who spoke last overlooked. He did employ many persons; and so did several noble Lords present, and one in particular, who expended with great liberality a large part of his income in providing employment for labourers for whose services he had not actually any need; and he (the Archbishop of Dublin) thought that a legitimate and proper mode of conferring relief so long as it was done voluntarily, and secretly. He and many of his neighbours on certain occasions might say, "Here is such a one and such a one who are steady active men, and willing to work. Do not let us de-grade them by driving them to parish relief, but let us find work for them. I will employ John; do you employ Thomas; and let another employ Charley, and so on, for a few weeks, in order to enable them to maintain their families. I will level a ditch or a bank, or make a ditch or a road, although I do not much need it; do you do likewise, in order to keep them in work till a busier time of the year arrives." This plan had been frequently acted upon in England, as most of their Lordships were aware; and by that means proprietors frequently saved themselves cost in the end, and, what was of much more importance, they saved the character of the labourers. In that case, above all others, he should say, "You should not let your left hand know what your right hand doeth." When this practice was found to be so useful, it was frequently supposed that it would be a good plan to make it a regular compulsory thing, and that the labourers should be divided among the occupiers, who should pay a certain rate commonly called a "labour rate." But as soon as it was discovered by the labourers that they were employed to keep them from the parish—to keep them from being a burden on the rates—then the spell was broken, and the whole charm was destroyed; they felt themselves in the condition of paupers—as a sort of slaves—as persons who must be employed because you must feed them at all events. It was not his intention to detain the House with any full discussion on the Bill now before them; but, being on his legs, he could not but take this opportunity of expressing how much he felt the difficulties and embarrass-

111
ments in which Her Majesty's advisers were now placed. He was perfectly certain that various persons of different opinions were calling on the Government to perform impossibilities. Such persons were giving suggestions which could not possibly be acted upon, and censuring the Government for not removing the afflictions which Providence had sent upon us, and the removal of which was far beyond their power. He wished to take this opportunity of expressing his full concurrence in what fell from the noble Lord who opened this debate, in respect of the gratitude he felt himself bound to express in behalf of the Irish people for the great bounty and genuine liberality of the people of England, and he might add the people of America likewise, towards the Irish people. He had been made the channel of conveying to the people of Ireland a large portion of the contributions that came from America. He had received, not long ago, intelligence of the arrival of a large cargo of corn meal, purchased by the contributions of the people of Philadelphia, through the suggestion and instrumentality of Bishop Potter, a Protestant Episcopalian bishop, who announced to him the collection that had been made. He had received intelligence of the arrival of the first cargo, and was also informed that another was on the way. Those liberal contributors, both from the United States and from Canada, and other of our colonies abroad, had been entrusted to his care; and he had, therefore, taken the opportunity of returning thanks for them on behalf of the people of Ireland. He trusted he need not assure most of their Lordships that the distribution of those contributions was made in such a manner as would most effectually carry into effect the beneficent purposes of the donors. Various attacks had been made upon him in reference to his share in the inquiries made under a Commission of which he had bad the honour to be a member; and other accusations had been brought against him by various parties, in several quarters, for many years. But during the number of years that he had the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House, he never troubled himself with any defence against them. The first time he had the honour of addressing their Lordships—now fourteen years since—he undertook to declare the maxim on which he acted—"That character that will not defend itself is not worth defending." With reference to the present measure, from what he knew
112
of human nature, he did feel that it was a perilous experiment to hold out the prospect of relief provided by law for all parties in want. He trusted he should not be conducting himself harshly towards the advocates of this measure if he called on them to consider how many rocks and shoals there were—as they themselves acknowledged—through which they would have to steer their way. In Ireland there was not the requisite machinery for carrying out the measure; there was not a rudder or compass to guide them through these shoals. There might be a very good chart laid down in the Bill; but there was neither sail nor tackling nor paddle-wheels to steer them through. That was the main ground of his objection. Owing to the faults of the lower classes of the people—the claimants of relief, and of those next above them, the distributors of that relief—for he did not mean to say that the higher classes in Ireland wore without their share of various faults, insurmountable difficulties, and irremediable abuses, might be expected to arise. The more faulty both classes were, the greater would be the danger of administering this most difficult system, and carrying it through safely. He would not detain their Lordships longer than to say, that it was a sense of the great hazard, the difficulty, and the extreme importance of the measure, and of the difficulty Parliament would find of retracing their steps, which induced him on a former occasion, and now again, to urge on the House to exercise the greatest degree of caution and deliberation before they passed this as a permanent law—a law which it would be both unpopular and dangerous hereafter to repeal, and still more dangerous to retain.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I exceedingly regret the duty devolving on me of troubling the House with a few observations. I am, however, relieved, first, by the hope and confidence I entertain, that, after the discussion that has taken place, my noble Friend behind me will not ask the House to proceed to a division; and also because a great portion of that which I have to address to your Lordships has been much more ably addressed to you already by my noble Friend opposite, in almost all of whose arguments I am disposed to concur, although I am not prepared to run those arguments the whole length he does. I entirely concur with the right rev. Prelate who last addressed you, that the question is fraught with great

113
danger, and requires the most dispassionate deliberation, and that it is fraught with inconveniences much greater and more serious in their character than the pecuniary results, whatever they may he, which are likely to follow from the adoption of this measure. I think that there have been some difficulties in the way not understood by the noble Marquess who moved the second reading. I think that there has been some little misunderstanding in regard to this measure arising out of this emergency; and I think that probably this Bill would not have been brought forward at this period, if it were not for that emergency which forces on your consideration the affairs of Ireland in the most painful light. But, my Lords, I do not say, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the question; for, although the present emergency is great and pressing, and may be of a temporary character, yet it will operate for many years on the social condition of Ireland; and the effect of the present emergency, caused as it has been by the destruction of the potato crop, will last for many years, and, for sonic few years at least, cause a serious alteration in the social condition of Ireland. I am prepared to admit the importance of legislating cautiously on a subject of this vast importance in a moment of excitement, when all our feelings of pity and commiseration are aroused, and when the feeling of alarm is too general and too wide spread to enable the Legislature to give to the condition of Ireland that dispassionate consideration which is called for; but at the same time, whatever inconvenience there may he in legislating on a subject of this importance, especially at a moment like the present, I may be permitted to observe that there are some circumstances which give facilities for well-considered change in the law regulating the relief of the poor in Ireland, which might not exist under other circumstances. All classes of society in Ireland are now prepared for great changes in their social condition. There is a general breaking up of many old habits and old customs, old feelings, and old prejudices. Stern necessity has forced upon the Irish people lessons which they have been slow to learn; and therefore it is I say that, under these circumstances, there are facilities for carrying into effect great changes in the social system of Ireland, which would not have been offered under circumstances of less aggravated pressure. But, my Lords, although the present time
114
unquestionably affords these facilities, it does not exempt Her Majesty's Government, neither does it exempt your Lordships, from the necessity of divesting ourselves of all personal feelings—of all individual interests—or of all feelings which may have the effect of warping the decision of our calm and sober judgments, so as to prevent the consideration of the peculiar nature of the emergency, or of the ultimate result of this line of policy which is proposed for our adoption. My Lords, it may be that by a hasty and ill-considered measure you may not in a temporary manner, but for a permanency, lay property low before an overwhelming mass of pauperism; and it may be, on the other hand, that by good legislation you may be conducted through this great danger—it may be that we shall be led, through great ruin to individuals and loss to ourselves—it may be that we shall be led, through great difficulties and dangers—to a sounder social state than Ireland has yet known—and it may be, out of this nettle, danger, we may happily pluck the flower, safety. These are the questions for your Lordships to deliberate upon; hut, whatever may be your decision, it is of importance, as the most rev. Prelate has warned you, that you should take no step which you can be called upon to retrace—that you should commit yourselves to no course which you are not assured is prudent—no course that does not offer the best chance of remedy. My Lords, I have before said, that in my mind the pecuniary consequences which must result from this measure are the least important; but I must say, that with regard to those considerations, the noble Earl on the cross bench (the Earl of St. Germans) appears to me to have inadequately estimated the amount of evil to be apprehended from them. The noble Earl spoke of 7d. and 10½d. as the amount of legal charges to be assessed on landed property in Ireland. All I can say is, that in the union in which some of my property is situated, I received information a short time ago that a rate of 6s. in the pound had been struck. But, my Lords, this is not all; for I know that there are more aggravated cases, and that at the present moment—I don't say permanently, God forbid that I should!—but I say that at present there are unions in Ireland in which a rate of more than 20s. in the pound has been assessed for the relief of the poor. Whether that state of things is to continue, I cannot say—whether it is to be modified, I cannot say—or whether it

115
is altogether to be done away, I cannot say; for it depends not upon the humanity, not upon the good feeling, nor upon the kindness of disposition, but on the wisdom and sound prudence of your legislation, under the awful circumstances of the present crisis. If this Bill had contained a provision for an indiscriminate out-door relief to be granted to the population of Ireland, there would have been no warmer or stronger opponent to the measure, so far as my power of opposition could have gone, than I should have thought it my duty to be; but, if I understand the measure aright, it is practically, so far from sanctioning, putting a negative on the claim to out-door relief. At the same time, there could be no doubt it was largely extending—and, as I think, wisely—the amount of relief which is to be offered to the destitution of Ireland from the public funds. As the law at present stands, there is no claim to relief on the part of a single individual in Ireland. But the noble Earl on the cross benches says that the guardians of the poor-law unions are bound to provide for the destitute. I think otherwise; and I believe that no person can go before a board of guardians in Ireland, and can insist, as a matter of right, upon their maintaining him at the charge of the union, wherever it may be. This Bill has this great claim, that it is no longer discretionary, but mandatory and imperative, upon the guardians to provide for the permanently destitute, the sick, and the infirm in the workhouse, or out of it, according to their discretion. My Lords, it goes further, for it authorizes assistance to be given to the able-bodied out of the workhouse, in certain cases. Let us for a moment look at the position of an able-bodied pauper in Ireland, as the law at present stands. He applies for relief; he is refused by the board of guardians; and he has no power to compel them to administer it. They exercise their discretion; they cannot relieve him; but they offer to take him into the workhouse. But it so happens that the workhouse is full; and yet they have no power to provide for him. By the proposed law, it is true, there is nothing imperative upon the guardians to relieve him; but the Poor Law Commissioners have the power to call upon the guardians, provided the workhouse be full, to grant to the able-bodied pauper relief for a period not exceeding two months, such relief to be administered only in food. I must say, that if this clause stood alone, I do not
116
think it is open to serious abuse; for the relief can be afforded only in food, and when the workhouse is full, the man absolutely destitute, and, above all, only for two months, and then under the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. But, my Lords, we must not forget, when we talk of workhouses being full, that there is already a law empowering the guardians to hire temporary buildings and to increase the workhouse accommodation to any extent that may be deemed requisite; there is no limit placed to the extra accommodation so to be afforded; in point of fact, the guardians may order any amount of accommodation they please. There is, then, a great facility offered by this Bill, because the present inmates of workhouses are, not exclusively, but in a great measure, composed of that class for which power is given of providing relief in or out of the workhouse. In the event, therefore, of any great or sudden pressure on the resources of the union, the first and second step which would naturally be taken by a provident board of guardians should be, to make provision out of the workhouse for all those for whom they are authorized to make such provision—leaving the workhouse available for the able-bodied poor—and then to add to the extent and augment the number of the workhouses. Now, when I talk of powers for extending workhouses, I perfectly agree with my noble Friend opposite as to the utter inefficiency and inadequacy of the present workhouses in Ireland to meet the requirements made upon them. When we find one workhouse for a circuit of from 800 to 1,000 square miles, and perhaps distant from the pauperized districts some forty miles, I think it is clear that the workhouse test cannot be effectually applied in Ireland. This is a subject which requires the most careful and serious attention. It is true, the Poor Law Commissioners have the power to increase the number of workhouses, and to diminish the size of the unions; but remember, the power is not one of a compulsory nature. The size of the unions and the number of the workhouses which might be adequate to a limited system of relief, previously to the passing of this Bill, will be entirely insufficient when applied to the new measure. If, therefore, you are to make the workhouse test effectual, the increase of the number of the workhouses is a sine quâ non to the good working of the measure. But I go further, and entirely concur with my noble Friend, that if there

117
is to be any safety in the measure it must be by enlisting all classes of ratepayers and all the property of Ireland in one common interest, for the purpose of preventing lavish expenditure, and of guarding against an undue administration of the funds. It has been stated by a noble Lord, that there are not in Ireland the elements requisite to the local administration of such a measure. If this is so, your efforts are hopeless. If for one moment it could happen in carrying out the poor law in this country, that throughout you do not possess a local administration, with all the knowledge and all the will to develop its principle, the principle would break down under them in a trial of three months. My Lords, before I proceed further on the subject, I implore of you not to be led away by the false and vague denunciations which have filled the public press of late, and which have been repeated out of doors and in another place—denunciations against the Irish landlords for exercising tyranny and oppression against their tenants. My Lords, I must go further, and implore of you not to throw upon the property of Ireland, and upon the landlords of Ireland, burdens which in your conscience you know you could not yourselves bear. I must also beseech of you not to call upon them to do that which you could not effect yourselves. I must solicit you most earnestly to compare the authority and power which you exercise over your estates in this country, with the authority and power which the Irish landlords exercise over theirs in Ireland. It is the fashion now-a-days to talk of the unlimited powers of landlords over their tenants; but I think it would be more appropriate to say, with respect to the case of Irish landlords, that the power of the tenants over them is very much greater than the authority of the landlords over the tenants in this country. This I do not hesitate to say, though I am quite willing to admit that there are individual cases of landlord oppression, especially on the part of small proprietors. In point of fact, however, whatever it may be theoretically in law, it is in Ireland the tenant who has the power over the landlord, nor the landlord over the tenant. I, therefore, pray your Lordships to abstain from laying on the property of that country a burden to which it is unequal. God forbid that I should deny property has its duties as well as its rights; but it must be conceded its rights in order to perform its duties. I ask you, for that reason, not to
118
call on property, invested with rights inferior to those it enjoyed in this country, to exercise duties which, under similar or more favourable circumstances, you yourselves would be incapable of performing. My Lords, I am now about to refer to one provision already commented upon, and to a suggestion which has been made in the other House of Parliament. The one is, with respect to the extent of unions, and the other, to the question of the rate falling on the occupying tenant. I have already said, that your only safety is in enlisting in the control of the measure the interests of all who are concerned directly in the payment of the tax. Now, I must ask you first, with regard to the size of the union; and, looking at the inducements which they ought to offer to all concerned in the payment of taxes to curtail the expenditure by voluntary effort, what possible motive can any landlord have to make a temporary and great sacrifice—a sacrifice of present income for the purpose of placing his tenant in a more prosperous condition? What advantage can he gain from the improvement of his estate, from the employment of his people, and the suppression of pauperism, if, with all the charges that are to be brought upon him, he be reduced, if not to the condition of a cipher, to that of a mere item, in an enormous union exceeding 800 square miles, of which, perhaps, two or three square miles were his own property, and the remainder in the hands of other persons, not of the same provident character, not of the same kind and liberal disposition as himself, but who will be encouraged by this Bill to pursue a careless course, covering their land with pauperism, because, knowing that the charge would fall not on them, but on the man who conducted his affairs more economically? The evil and difficulty of those extensive unions are at present severely felt; and how much more severely will they be felt under the operation of this Act! Various electoral divisions at present comprise 10,000 acres; and I ask what motive will there be for individual exertion, when you will have extended those divisions to 150,000 acres? If this principle of enlarging electoral divisions be adopted, you will no longer make the charge conterminous with the bounds of property; and, by making the rate of the careless and indifferent manager of his property fall with equal burden on him who is judicious and careful, you will be laying the foundation of an ill-

119
directed, useless, reckless expenditure. I do, therefore, most sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the proposition of extending the area of taxation, for I am sure it will he found to work most mischievously. It has been suggested that the townland division should he the area; but such an area will, I consider, he much too small. To work the measure well, it will be necessary to increase the number of workhouses and the number of unions; but it will also he necessary to increase the number of electoral divisions in those unions, and to diminish the area of taxation in order to furnish a motive to individual responsibility. I now come to another question, which I deem to be one of the greatest importance. It is a question upon which the noble Marquess who opened this debate expressed the strongest opinion; and my opinion is equally strong in opposition to his. The question is, upon whom—not retrospectively or immediately, but prospectively and ultimately—is to fall the weight of this taxation? What principle will you lay down as to the class of persons who are to bear it? You know at present the charge is borne by the occupier with power to deduct from the landlord one half of the rate. That is the principle of the taxation, but the real result is that more than two-thirds of the rate are borne by the landlord, leaving scarcely one-third to be borne by the tenant. The result may be, that when you introduce out-door relief, and make the landlord wholly liable, the tenant will have an interest in causing a large expenditure of the rate for the purpose of maintaining some persons whom he might otherwise have to maintain himself. Even in England, my Lords, where the farmers are comparatively wealthy and intelligent, and where the farms are of considerable extent—even in England, I say, it would not be endured that a board of guardians, composed of farmers, should be able to deduct two-thirds of the rate from the owners of the soil. In this country the farmers commonly hold 300, 400, 500, and even as much as 1,000 acres, whilst in Ireland the farms—if such they can be called—are five, ten, twenty, or thirty acres; and yet it is upon a body of farmers of that description that you are about to confer the power of raising the rate. I tell you I look upon this provision of the Bill with the utmost dread and alarm. The noble Marquess opened his speech by saying, that the result of the present state
120
of things would be to diminish considerably the number of small holders of land. He looked forward with hope, as I do, to the time when the system in that country will be somewhat more analogous to the English system. I, too, look forward with expectation to the period when, as my noble Friend said, the plough shall he substituted for the spade—I mean as the spade is at present employed—and I must here say, that I do not agree with my noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) that the substitution of an improved mode of husbandry will diminish the demand for labour. On the contrary, I believe that the best chance for an increase of employment in agricultural pursuits, is the introduction of a more scientific system of cultivation. The noble Marquess said, the landlords must increase the size of estates, decrease the number of tenants, and employ the surplus labour. All this sounded very well, but it is exactly what the landlords cannot do; it is what the Government itself could not do, with all the power of the Crown, upon the model estate it held in its own hands. For sixteen years the Government has been engaged in vain attempts to dislodge one single tenant, and he a tenant-at-will! and not one of them has for years paid one penny of rent! They were put in as caretakers of the property, and they took very good care of it indeed, for they took such a liking to their charge, that they could not be induced to part with it. They locked their doors against the landlord, and refused either to give up their farms or to pay a single shilling in any capacity whatsoever. I should like to ask what has the Crown done for the improvement of that property? And when the landlords in Ireland are called to so severe an account for not having their estates in a better condition, and their farms better ordered—landlords, too, who are in the midst of a starving population and a turbulent peasantry, I think they may point with some sort of justice to this model farm, and also, my Lords, to the confessions of the Ministers of the Crown in their capacity of Irish landlords. I admit as willingly as any one that the system of small holdings in an evil—I admit that a diminution ought to take place; but how is that to be done? How, but by diminishing the motive which at present influences so large a proportion of the population to be holders of land—by making them feel the duties and responsibilities of landholding—by obliging them to contribute a fair propor-

121
tion towards the maintenance of the poor. As the Bill originally stood, there was not one of these holders of small farms that might not come forward and demand relief from the rates. The provision of the Bill prohibiting the giving of relief to a man occupying land, will go a considerable way in diminishing the attachment to the land in Ireland; but it is not enough; it will not produce any effect on the social condition of the country, the progress of agricultural improvement, or the employment of labour. If the occupier of a small plot cultivates it tolerably by the labour of his family, it is as much as you can expect; but he cannot employ labour, and he allows his land to remain half cultivated. The peasantry were content to remain half starved and half clothed, in habits of ease and indolence, until this alarming visitation of Providence came upon them. Do not let me be mistaken. When they have sufficient wages to stimulate them to exertion—when they are well fed and taken care of, and thoroughly well overlooked—they get through their work very well. They work hard in this country: why? because for a bad days work they would get no wages at all. They get full wages, but must give full work. In his own country, the habits of the peasant and his mode of labour are quite different; nine-tenths of the labouring population, as they are called, prefer receiving 6d. a day for six hours' work, to 1s. 6d. a day for twelve hours. The only chance, I say again, for the welfare of Ireland is in the diminution of the number of the small occupiers of land, and in the multiplication of the number of independent labourers. We must endeavour to multiply that class which has the power to employ labour, and extend the area over which such a class will have influence. It is ridiculous to expect that the landlords can employ the surplus labouring population. I do not mean to say but the landlords may afford some relief in the parishes in which they reside, by employing a greater quantity of the surplus labour than they absolutely require; but, as a rule, the labourers must be employed by the occupier, and not by the landlord. It would be ridiculous, if it were not so lamentable, to indulge the fatal error that the owners of the soil can employ the surplus population, when all their estates are subdivided into portions of ten and fifteen acres each, and held by men who have not the means of occupying a single labourer; and the landlord would be resisted to the
122
death who sought, at his own expense, even to run a straight division between two holdings, if one of the tenants thought he should get half a "cow's grass" the less by the change. Then, my Lords, what I say is, compel the occupier who takes the land to bear the responsibility of it. Do I say, throw a heavier burden on the occupier than he at present bears? I mean no such thing, my Lords; and I wish to guard against misrepresentation upon this part of the subject, of which there has been already too much. What I mean is, that when the tenant is about to bargain with the landlord for his farm, the latter should say to him, "Now, recollect, I let you my land on condition that you pay the poor-rate;" and from that moment the tenant would have a direct interest in keeping down pauperism by enlarging the field of employment, and his interest would be identified with those of the landlord. But it is a vain, a foolish, a visionary expectation, to suppose that the substantial farmers will employ additional labourers for the purpose of diminishing the rates which are paid by the landlord. I do not object to out-door relief, guarded as it is in this Bill by proper restrictions; but to the two great points I have described I entreat your Lordships to give your most careful consideration. But, my Lords, let me warn your Lordships not to be led into the fatal error of legislating against "impressions." The noble Marquess has spoken about "impressions"—I wish he had not used the phrase. Do not be led away, my Lords, by any such delusion. You are about to make a great, a dangerous, and it may be a fatal experiment. I entreat of you not to make it more dangerous, more fatal, by being led away against your better judgment in order to adapt your legislation to impressions. Exercise your free and unfettered discretion; and recollect that you are better judges of what will be ultimately advantageous to those to whom the law is intended to apply, than those persons themselves. If you do not give to the owners of property greater means of improvement—if you do not give encouragement to improve those lands nominally theirs—if you do not give to them greater facilities of obtaining (by fair means undoubtedly) that land which has been mismanaged by small occupiers—above all, if you do not give the occupiers themselves an interest in keeping down the rates, depend upon it that the introduction of this Bill will be one of the most fatal boons

123
that ever was conferred by England upon Ireland. Again, my Lords, I entreat you not to be led away by any desire to yield to these impressions. Enter upon the great task as statesmen—as provident, foreseeing, and bold statesmen—bold, because convinced of the truth of the principles by which you are actuated. Do not be deterred from doing what is just—do not stop half way—do not throw upon the land burdens which you know the land is unable to bear—do not think to confer a been upon the occupier by leaving him in possession of all those motives which now influence him to withhold the possession of that land which he cannot till. I entreat you, my Lords, to weigh well these most grave and important questions, and not to be carried away by the impressions of the moment, but to be swayed by calculations of the future. I believe, if the Government boldly face the difficulties—and difficulties of the most serious kind they will have to contend with—that they will be assisted to the utmost in the endeavour to overcome them. They will have to encounter no factious hostility, no party opposition, no political manœuvres, no paltry desire of triumph; on the contrary, they will have every party in this and in the other House of Parliament cordially engaging in cooperating with them in bringing this scheme to a successful issue. Do not be led away by impressions—do not be guided by what may be popular for the moment; but seriously consider what is the safest, or I should rather say the least dangerous legislation—what measure will ultimately lead to a state of society better organized, more harmonious, more closely knit together, more prosperous, than ever existed in Ireland up to this day, or than ever can whilst the present subdivision of land exists in that country. It will not do to bring one of the elements of prosperity into operation. There must be a combination of the three—of land, labour, and capital. At present there is a surplus of labour beyond the power of demand. Emigration has been suggested. My belief is, that you must provide for the expatriation of a portion of the population. I do not share in the alarm so freely expressed, that it is only the possessors of capital who are emigrating. I have before stated in this House, and I now repeat my belief, that the middle classes of the people, even the small farmers of Ireland, are far from being destitute of capital; and what I say is often proved in the transactions between
124
the man who disposes of his interest in a farm to another, as well as upon other occasions. I believe there is abundance of capital, but the cultivation of the land cannot be advantageously carried on according to the present distribution. There must be a class of people created who will have the will as well as the ability to employ the population; and whose interest it will be, not to encourage pauperism, but to repress it—not to promote turbulence and disorder, but to put them down. I was about to speak of the large and, I think, dangerous powers which are given to relieving officers; but at this late hour of the night I will not further trespass on your Lordships. My Lords, I may say in conclusion—and I believe that in saying so I represent the feelings of most of your Lordships—that we do not grudge the Government the credit of framing and bringing forward a scheme which, if successful, will be most important, and most useful indeed; we freely take our share of the burden of deliberation, and are willing to use all our exertions in assisting the Government to carry it through Parliament—we tender our suggestions with frankness—we state our objections openly, and not captiously—we shall spare no pains to bring it to a successful issue; and our earnest prayer is, that this most perilous measure may, by our joint efforts, our acting harmoniously together, listening with patience to the arguments proceeding from either side, and guided only by the voice of reason, ultimately lead to the social reconstruction of Irish society, and the permanent improvement of that portion, and, if of that portion, of the whole united empire.
The EARL of DESARTexpressed his gratification at the noble and disinterested conduct of the people of England, and strongly reprobated the language used by agitators and fomenters of discord in Ireland, whom he beseeched their Lordships not to regard as representing the sentiments of the people. The noble Earl (who was heard but indistinctly) was understood to express an opinion, that the only means of remedying the evils of Ireland would be to furnish employment for her surplus population, whom it would be idle to think of supporting by means of any system of out-door relief.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that having recently declared his opinions fully with respect to this question, he felt it to be unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with

125
many observations at that moment. He differed from those who thought that the present pressure of circumstances afforded a reason for adopting the measure; he thought it a reason for not legislating on such a subject. In his opinion, the opportunity was taken to carry the measure, which but for some such extraordinary pressure of circumstances, no one would have dreamt of proposing. To meet a temporary pressure, they were about to impose a permanent burden. He hoped that, at least, the operation of the Bill would be limited to one year, and from then to the end of the next Session of Parliament. Still they would be sinning against principle in passing the measure at all; and, having once given it a temporary existence, it would be found very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal it. It would be desirable to throw the burden upon the occupier, as in this country; but it was impossible to do so. Great as would be the responsibility of the Government, and great as would be the risk to the public peace, if they were to do nothing in this matter, that responsibility and that risk would be a mere jest compared with what they would have to encounter if a Bill should be sent over to Ireland which would impose the burden, even prospectively, upon the occupier. It was absolutely and hopelessly impossible to do any such thing. The consequence would be that the occupier, who was the person that ought to control the expenditure, would have no interest in doing so, because he knew the money would come out of the landowner's pocket. The whole course of that night's debate had more and more thoroughly convinced him that the Bill would be found incapable of execution, from the want of the machinery to work it. The diversity of opinion which prevailed on the subject, confirmed him in his opinion. Every noble Lord who had spoken that night had taken a perfectly different view of almost all the essential particulars of the plan. Indeed, one noble Lord, who had spoken from the cross benches, was so enamoured with poor-law relief, that he expressed great indignation because the owners of land could not obtain relief under the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord did not care whether the owner or the occupier of the land paid the rates; but he wished the landowner at any rate to come in for his share of relief.
LORD COLCHESTERwould give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the broad principle that he thought that
126
in every civilized and Christian land care should be taken that no person should perish from destitution, or should be without a regular legal provision in case of distress. But that was not the case with Ireland at present; the poor there had absolutely no claim to relief; it was in the discretion of the guardians whether they should give relief or not; but the two first clauses of this Bill conferred upon every one in Ireland a right to relief—to the aged and infirm, and those of the able-bodied that were in casual distress; the relief to the latter class to be given out of doors. But while he urged as strongly as he could the principle that it was their duty to provide moans of relief for the poor, he thought it but right that they should fix the manner in which that relief should be given; and he, therefore, only supported out-door relief on this principle, that when the workhouses were full, relief might be afforded outside the workhouses. To that extent he supported out-door relief for Ireland.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.