Sitting of 19 February 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Markets and Fairs Clauses; Public Undertakings Clauses; Gas Works Clauses; Waterworks Clauses.
2° Factories.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Captain Pechell, from Brighton, for Alteration of Law respecting the Registration of Voters.—By Mr. John O'Connell, from Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, for Alteration of Marriage Law (Ireland). — By Mr. John O'Connell, from Ireland, for Removal of Disabilities as regards the Roman Catholic Regular Clergy (Ireland).—By Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth, and Mr. Ald. Humphery, from Southwark, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By Mr. S. Crawford, from Cumberland, and Sir W. Somerville, from Drogheda, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries.—By Mr. M. Philips, from Manchester, for Repeal of the Duties on Butter and Cheese.—By Mr. Pattison, and other Hon. Members, from Shipowners of several places, for Reduction of Lighthouse Dues.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Drogheda, against the Proposed Alteration of the Duty on Rum.—By Sir T. Esmonde, from Wexford, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Hutt, from Guardians of the Gateshead Union, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland and Scotland).—By Sir C. Coote, from Guardians of the Mount Mellick Union, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, and by Mr. Stanton, from Guardians of the Stroud Union, in Favour of the same.—By several Hon. Members, from a great many places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act. — By Mr. Blackburne, from Lancaster, in Favour of the Ports, Harbours, &c. Bill (1846).—By Mr. Beckett, from Leeds, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Corbally, from County of Meath, in Favour of the Railways (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. M. Gibson, and Sir R. Peel, from Manchester, against laying the Burden on the Revenue for the Relief of Ireland.—By Lord Brooke, Mr. W. Ellis, and Lord Rendlesham, from several places, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.—By Sir R. Peel, from Robert Falk, of Winsford Lodge, Chester, respecting certain Losses in the East India Salt Trade.—By Mr. Barkly, from Inhabitants of British Guiana, and Mr. Pattison, from Merchants of London, against the Proposed Measures respecting Sugar and Rum.—By Mr. Aldam, from Leeds, and Mr. B. Smith, from Norwich, for Repeal or Reduction of Duty on Tea.—By Mr. Ferrand, from Bradford, for Inquiry respecting the Anatomy Act.—By Mr. Muntz, from John and James Aldan, Shipowners, of London, complaining of the Seizure of the Black Cat Schooner.—By Mr. Williams, from Pembroke, respecting the Use of the Welsh Language in the County Courts of Wales.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Preston, and Glasgow, in Favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from Landed Proprietors, Merchants, and others, resident in Ireland, for Relief of the Destitute Poor (Ireland).—By Major Macnamara, from Ennis, for Facilitating the Transportation of Grain and Provisions to Ireland.—By Mr. O. Gore, from Irish Waste Land Improvement Society, for Alteration of the Landed Property (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. V. Stuart, from Waterford, respecting the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act.

BERBICE—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYbogged to call the attention of the Under Secretary for the Colonies to a transaction which he had seen described in a Berbice paper, and which seemed to call for some notice on the part of the Government. The facts of the case, as stated in the Berbice Gazette of the 10th of December last, were shortly these:—
246
"The Rev. Mr. Bell, the Presbyterian chaplain to the gaol, and the Rev. Mr. Johnstone, attended an African convict under sentence of death, named Panzo; these rev. gentlemen having failed to make any religious impression, a Catholic priest, the Rev. Mr. Kelly, was solicited to try if his attendance would avail the man in his last moments for the preparation of death. On the morning appointed for the execution, Mr. Kelly had access to the man, and succeeded in eliciting from him a desire to receive the ceremony of baptism. The wish of the criminal being communicated by Mr. Kelly to the gaoler, Van Cooten, Van Cooten refused to permit Mr. Kelly to officiate without an order from Mr. Bell, the chaplain of the gaol. A message was sent to Mr. Bell, who immediately repaired to the spot, and rudely and unceremoniously refused to permit Mr. Kelly to fulfil the sacred office, or to permit any other minister to do so, at Mr. Kelly's entreaty; Mr. Bell pleading as a reason for his refusal, that Mr. Kelly had come 'too late.' Mr. Kelly then hastened to Mr. Sheriff Winfield's residence, the execution not having then taken place, who also refused to interfere, because Mr. Kelly was 'late in his application;' and although there was ample time to have administered some of the comforts of religion to the dying man; and though Mr. Kelly urged that it was not too late, even at the eleventh hour, to officiate, the mandate of the law was put in force, and the consolation of religion denied to this victim of sectarian jealousy."
He regretted that he had too much reason to believe in the truth of the report; and therefore he begged to know whether Her Majesty's Government were cognizant of the circumstance, or if not cognizant of it, if they would institute an inquiry?
MR. HAWESstated, that no information relative to the circumstance described by the hon. Member had been received by the Government.

THE FOREST OF DEAN.
MR. G. BERKELEY, seeing his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, begged to bring a circumstance under his knowledge, and to ask a question on it of considerable importance to a great portion of his constituents. It appeared that, some time since, a Mr. Cook, resident at Gloucester, was appointed coroner for the district comprising the Forest of Doan. This officer resided fifteen miles from the nearest point of his duty. A change was subsequently made, and Mr. Cook was appointed to another district, comprising the town of Cheltenham; and a Mr. Barnet, resident at Cheltenham, was appointed to the district comprising the Forest of Dean. This placed the coroner still further from his duties, and made the nearest point at which he could be reached from the forest about twenty-eight miles. Now, when it

247
was known that the forest was a mining district, where accidents might be said to be rife, such a distance from the coroner was of considerable disadvantage; the more so, from a superstitious feeling among the working classes, as to not labouring in a mine where an accident had happened while the body lay unburied. He (Mr. Berkeley) had been told of instances of five days' delay of an inquest, during which time no work, was done, creating much loss to both the employer and the employed. He therefore wished to know from his right hon. Friend in which way the grievance was to be remedied, as it was one exciting considerable attention in the forest district?
SIR G. GREYwas not prepared to say. He apprehended that it was not within the province of the Government to interfere directly in such a matter.

IRELAND—IMPORTATION OF FLAXSEED.
MR. FORSTERsaid, that much excitement prevailed amongst individuals engaged in the flaxseed trade, in consequence of a current report, that Her Majesty's Government were making purchases of flaxseed for the purpose of importing it into Ireland. He wished to know if that report was well founded, and if so, what were the intentions of Government with reference to the subject? It must be obvious, that if the Government entered the market as a dealer, it would materially affect private enterprise. In proof of this, he would read an extract from a letter which he had received from Limerick:—
"We should feel extremely obliged if you would ascertain for us, distinctly, the intention of Government with respect to the article of flaxseed this season, in the Limerick market. We have information that flaxseed has already arrived here for Government account; and we have reason to believe that the regular importers of this article (our firm being among the number) will suspend all operations until the Government measures be made known."
The writers withdrew their flaxseed order from their seed broker when they heard of the arrivals to Government in Limerick, as it was scarcely to be expected that merchants would expose themselves to competition with Government.
MR. LABOUCHERErequested permission to state the grounds on which the Government thought they were justified in introducing, to a limited extent, flaxseed into Ireland. Representations were made to the Government, that though the soil
248
and climate of the southern part of Ireland were peculiarly favourable to the cultivation of flax, hardly an attempt had been made to cultivate it there. It was thought desirable that in the present circumstances of the country, a well-conducted attempt should be made to introduce the culture of flax into that part of the island; but it was represented that none but American flaxseed of an inferior description could be obtained, and the aid of Government was solicited to procure seed of a better kind. Under these circumstances, the Government undertook to import some flaxseed of the best description into the south of Ireland. The quantity was small, namely, 600 bushels; and it was not intended to import any more. As a general rule, it must be admitted that such proceedings on the part of Government could only disturb private enterprise. Still, under the peculiar circumstances of the time, the Government thought they were justified in making this exception, with a view to encourage the cultivation of flax in the south of Ireland.

WEST INDIES—IMMIGRATION.
MR. BARKLYwished to know when the Government would be prepared to carry into execution their intended plan for establishing steam communication between the west coast of Africa and the West Indies, for the purpose of facilitating the emigration of free labourers?
MR. HAWESsaid, that not a long time would elapse before a steam vessel would be prepared to enter on the service for which she was destined. All parties were agreed that the West Indian colonies were greatly in want of labourers; and the proprietors had frequently applied to the Legislature and the Government to afford them facilities for the introduction of labourers. Immigration from the East Indies had been tried, but it was found to be too costly to be continued; and therefore Government had thought it right to furnish facilities for a cheaper supply of labour to the West Indies. For this purpose a steam-boat, fitted up under the authority of the Government, and carrying out engineers appointed by the Government, was about to proceed to the west coast of Africa—the Kroo coast—where slavery did not exist. Labourers from that coast at present in the West Indies had expressed a wish to be sent there, in order that they might persuade their fellow-countrymen to emigrate to the West

249
Indies, to obtain the wages which were given to labourers there. He wished it to be distinctly understood that this project was merely in the nature of an experiment; it would be conducted under the immediate superintendence of the Government; and, at present, it was not intended to extend beyond the period of one year, by which time it would be ascertained whether voluntary emigration was likely to take place from Africa. [Mr. BARKLY: What is the name of the vessel?] The Scourge.

TENANTS IN TAIL.
MR. FERRAND, seeing the Attorney General in his place, begged to remind him, that he had formerly complained in that House of the injustice which he had suffered, as a tenant in tail of property in Yorkshire, from the proceedings of railroad companies; he now wished to know whether it was intended to introduce into the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill any provision to prevent injustice being done to tenants in tail?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the law upon the subject to which the hon. Member referred, was involved in so much doubt, that he must take time to consider before he could give an answer.

WEDNESDAY SITTINGS.
MR. HUMEwished to ask the Speaker a question for the information of the House as to the adjournments at the Wednesday sittings. During the last Session and the present, an order of the House directed the Speaker to leave the chair exactly as the clock struck six, without any Motion of adjournment; after that hour no Member was allowed to address the House. Now, he understood that on Wednesday last a report was made to the House after six o'clock; the matter ought to be clearly understood, because if they could deviate from the rule by five minutes, there was no reason why they should not by fifty. The time for the adjournment might unfortunately arrive in the middle of a division; and the question was, what the rule should be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite right in stating it to be the rule of the House, that the Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock without any question being put; but the adjournment cannot take place during a division, as at that time the doors of the House are locked, and cannot be opened till the Speaker has been
250
reported in the chair. Therefore it is necessary for the numbers of the division to be reported to me before I can obey the order of the House.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
MR. HUMEwished to ask if Government intended to institute any inquiry into the constitution of the trustees of the British Museum? They were a self-elected body; an election, he understood, had been held that day; and he had heard that the departments of natural history and science had not been properly represented in that election. He thought they ought not to go on voting 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. a year to a self-elected body without some investigation. Did the Government intend to make any such inquiry?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it was a question if certain improvements might not be made; but whether a Committee of inquiry should be appointed, was a matter for mature consideration.

EXPLANATION.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Labouring Poor (Ireland) Bill having been read,
MR. H. J. BAILLIEsaid, he had to ask leave of the House to say a few words as to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn on what had fallen from him on a former occasion. He was represented by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn to have stated, that as a Scotch representative he would not vote public money for the relief of Irish distress; and the noble Lord said, that on the part of Scotland he repudiated such language. He also repudiated it as strongly as any one in that House could; but when he objected to vote 16,000,000 l. for the purpose of making railways in Ireland, he stated, at the same time, that it was his wish to improve the condition of Ireland, and to give every facility to the landlords of Ireland to improve their estates, and improve the condition of the people by making them accustomed to better food. But the noble Lord was not satisfied with misrepresenting him. The noble Lord thought it worth his while to tell the House, he (Mr. Baillie) was not a Scotchman. He knew not if the noble Lord's railway information were better founded than that statement; but he hoped it was, or it would be very inaccurate. Whether it were an honour to be a Scotchman or not, was a matter of opinion; but he could tell the noble Lord that his

251
family owned the property that now belonged to him in Scotland, long before the family of the noble Lord owned an acre of land in England. He had only to assure the representatives of Ireland, that he was ready to give his support, not only to the measure before them that evening, but to any measure Government might bring forward, whether for public loans or grants of money, which he might think calculated to relieve the distress which prevailed to such a fearful extent in Ireland.

IRELAND—DESTITUTION.
MR. R. D. BROWNErose to call the attention of the House to the fearful accounts of destitution which reached him every day from Ireland, and more particularly from the county he had the honour to represent. He thought it only his duty to acquaint the House with these facts, which called for the immediate prompt interference of Parliament. A fortnight ago the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) stated the deaths in Ireland to amount to 15,000 a day, and that statement had been fully borne out by the accounts from that country: it appeared that 500 persons were dying each day of hunger. The hard-worked priests could not relieve them—multitudes died on the road side—their corpses were mutilated by rats, or they dragged their weary limbs into the poorhouses, that their bodies might not be desecrated by uncoffined burial. He would, with the permission of the House, read some horrible extracts from the local papers:—
[FROM THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, FEB, 18.]
"We had intended to run through the individual inquests, but our space forbids us. A few, however, will show the utter ruin and wretchedness of the unhappy people. In No. 4, one poor woman swore that her dead husband and perishing children 'had no breakfast since the harvest.' A constable entered the hovel, and on entering 'saw a coffin before him on the floor.' He asked whose it was, and the mother went, removed the lid, and said it was the corpse of her child. Miserable mother! In No. 5, an occasional spoonful of gruel was the food of six persons for several weeks. No. 7, a young man died in the workhouse three hours after admission. He came for a coffin and a Christian burial. No. 8, the wife saw her husband leave her home on Monday to go to the public works, ten miles distant; next day she saw him dead in the fields!. No. 11, a farmer related that the man placed his hand on the latch of his door, 'which he was unable to lift.' A servant opened it, when the wretched creature fell back and instantly expired! At these inquests Mr. White stated that the last bill for coffins against the unions, furnished the day before, was 671!'"
"Riverstown, 8th. Feb.
"Sir—Half-a-dozen starvation deaths have been reported to Mr. Grant this evening, and he directs me to write to request you will attend here early to-morrow morning to hold inquests.
"JAMES HAT, Head Constable.
"Alexander Burrows, Esq."
"We have just seen one of the coroners, Alexander Burrows, Esq., and it is with the deepest anguish we announce that matters are much worse than they are described in the above paragraph; although he knocked up three horses, he was only able to hold five inquests yesterday; he will resume his awful duties to-day (Saturday). There were forty dead bodies in the district of Maugharow, kept waiting for the coroner. The following are the names of five persons upon whose bodies Mr. Burrows held inquests: Yesterday, John Hagerty, Mary M'Guinnes, Mary Conway, Brian Nolin, and Mary Costello. These deaths all occurred in the parish of Drumcliffe, up to the 10th instant. In the four first cases the verdicts were—'died of starvation.' The facts of the last case are particularly touching. The family of Mary Costello were in a starving state for the last three weeks, the deceased had not any food for two days previous to her death, one of her brothers procured the price of half a stone of meal, for which she was sent to town; on the following morning she was found dead by the road side, with the little bag of meal grasped tightly in her hand. The verdict in this instance was—'died from exposure to cold, and previous want of the necessaries of life.' In our last we accidentally omitted one inquest held upon the body of a man named Owen Mulroony, who died at Cloneen, of starvation, on the 3rd instant. We will publish the substance of the evidence given before the coroner to show the nature of the disclosures made at these awful and hitherto unheard-of investigations."
[FROM THE GALWAY MERCURY.]
"MORE DEATHS FROM STARVATION.—On Monday last an inquest was held by Mr. Perrin, deputy coroner, on view of the body of a poor man named Daniel Lee, said to be a native of Moycullen, who was found dead at Mervale, in the county of the town of Galway. The remains of the unfortunate deceased presented the most emaciated appearance, and bore evident marks of the greatest destitution and we. The jury returned a verdict that the deceased had died for want of the common necessaries of life.
"A poor man employed on the public works at the village of Killibane, near Tuam, dropped down from utter exhaustion a few days since. He had been endeavouring to support a wife and large family on his scanty earnings; but that being insufficient to procure a sufficient supply of food, his feeble frame sunk beneath the effort, and though every assistance was at once afforded, his spirit winged its way to another and a better world."
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMAN.
(From Mr. M'Manus, P.P.; Mr. Fitzpatrick, R.C.C.; and Mr. M'Hale, R.C.C.)
"Lainsburgh, Fob. 13, 1847.
"Dear Sir—So incessantly occupied have we been for the last few weeks, both in preparing for eternity and in consigning to the grave the victims of starvation, that we had not time to put their number on public record. Since the 1st of January, the number that perished by hunger in this

253
parish exceeds sixty—there is scarcely a house or cabin that is not the abode of disease and death. In solemn truth, if we even had time for writing a public communication, our hearts have been so unnerved by the magnitude of the calamity, and its numerous harrowing results, that feelings bordering on despair of being able to procure anything like adequate relief, have almost supplanted our humble capability of making any other effort save that of attending to the spiritual wants of the starving people committed to our charge. We have neither rest nor respite by day or by night. Look to the extent of this district, and consider the vastness of the population, numbering twelve thousand souls, scattered over a surface of mountain and sea-coast, upwards of fifty miles in circumference, and you can easily conceive how incessantly three priests must be engaged. Mark, too, that there are not thirty families of this large population that have not fallen into the calamity, for the holdings throughout the length and breadth of the parish do not exceed on an average two acres and a half of arable land; in truth, our people were all of the cottier class, depending entirely upon the potato for their staple food."
[FROM THE MAYO CONSTITUTION.]
"We, with much regret and feelings of horror, have to lay before our readers the details of the deaths of so many of our fellow-creatures, who have been the victims of disease and hunger during the past week, In the neighbourhood of Newport, on Sunday morning last, a poor man named Molloy was found on the road side. His emaciated frame betokened that his death was the result of want. He was a native of Burrishoole. On Friday last a poor man died at Deradda, near Newport, of actual hunger, leaving a family to follow in rapid succession. In the neighbourhood of Breaffy, near this town, the following deaths have occurred from starvation and disease: Michael M'Enally, of Roemon, on the 12th; Peter Swords, of Derrinacrishan, on the 12th; his wife, on the 13th; James Gavan, of Ballyshawn, on the 8th; his wife on the 12th. All these cases proceeded from dysentery and exhaustion. On Sunday, the 7th instant, Mr. Atkinson, coroner, held an inquest on the body of Patrick Maughan, at Doonanarrow. The deceased has a family, who are in the most indigent state. The verdict was—death by starvation. In this village there is not a family that do not appear likely to fall victims to famine! On same day, on the body of James Brislane, at Kilcrimmin. The deceased was put on the public works, a few days previous to his death, and was hastening on Saturday evening to the office of the pay-clerks, but being very weak from want of food he fell on the way, and was found dead next morning. Verdict—death by starvation. On Monday the 8th, on the body of Pat Howley, at Saltfield. The deceased was employed on the public works, and was found lying on the road where he had fallen, by a person passing by, when removed to the nearest habitation he died shortly after. Verdict—death by starvation. On the same day on the body of William Sheridan, at Cloonta. The deceased had been in a state of great destitution, and going from one village to another he fell into a small rivulet which he attempted to cross, and from his debility was unable to extricate himself. Verdict—death by drowning, but attributed to starvation. This coroner states, that there were twelve more in-
254
quests reported in his district; but which, from indisposition, he has been unable to attend. During the past week Mr. O'Grady, coroner, held inquests on the following persons: Anne Philbin, Pat Hannon, Francis Gannon, Jordan Morrisroe, Anne Teatum, Patrick Carey, Thomas Costelloe, Constantine Mullen, John Mulloy, Bridget Mulloy. In each of these cases the verdict returned was—death from starvation."
As an Irish representative, he could not remain silent when scenes, such as those he had described, were witnessed in his country; and he entreated the Government to take measures to supply immediate and effective relief to the destitute people. The House could not doubt the existence of the distress, and he warned them of the consequences, if by delay and inactivity they permitted the people to perish; let them recollect, to use the words of the Irish poet, that—
"A bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed can never be supplied."
MR. LEFROYregretted that Her Majesty's Ministers had thought it advisable to postpone, even for a single day, or to delay for a single hour, the measures which had been announced as destined to afford succour and relief to the unfortunate people of Ireland. It was of the utmost importance the Irish Members should not be detained from their post of duty, in the present crisis; their presence was required in Ireland, and before the sufferings, which he could assure the House had not been exaggerated in the description, their absence only added to the evil. While he bore testimony to the correctness of the statements read to the House, he did not wish to be understood as casting the slightest degree of blame on the Government. He admitted their intentions were most benevolent, and their efforts most praiseworthy; but when famine was abroad, it was impossible for any Irish Member to sit in that House, night after night, without manifesting some impatience and some desire for greater speed in their legislation. He begged to read some extracts from letters, received recently, containing the most afflicting statements of the condition of the peasantry in Roscommon:—
"You will perceive we are getting worse, when I tell you that the clergyman's horse near this, having died from overwork on parish duty, on Saturday last, four men insisted upon carrying it off to cut up and eat the remains. He was greatly shocked, as you will suppose; but what could he do? He feeds his own family on brown bread, and has given up sugar, to assist as far as he can by this saving. His family are constantly employed in supplying meal, rice, and soup, to great numbers of the destitute who have nothing

255
to eat the days they don't come to them. A member of his family was much rejoiced by receiving 20 l. to help her soup-kitchen, from Mr. Forster, the kindhearted Quaker. The distress will continue for many months; and I trust additional help will come, and indeed it should and must be distributed with economy, to effect much good. Six persons here died in houses close to each other and near to this, on Friday last. The few resident gentry make soup, and do what they can, but they cannot reach to half the extent of help required. In one of the houses my informant saw a boy who had been dead four days, for whose remains his mother was looking out for a coffin; and her other son was so near death from exhaustion, that he could not swallow a drink which was brought to him."
In this neighbourhood the landlord was a constant resident, had expended for forty years past his whole income there, employed and fed some hundred persons daily, and was now not even receiving his fair and reasonable rents. This was another description of the present condition of the counties of Roscommon and Longford:—
"I consider this part of the county is in a ruinous state, the land being totally neglected. If men are not immediately encouraged to sow their lands, we shall be still worse off next year."
He denied altogether the assumption that the great misery prevailing in some districts, was the consequence of the neglect of the landlords as a body. Some landlords had undoubtedly committed great faults; but in his opinion the resident landlords generally were doing their duty. Cases of distress and starvation had occurred even in places where the landed proprietors were making the most energetic exertions, where they were expending their entire incomes in aiding those in want and in providing employment; and, this being so, how much greater and how much more severe must be the destitution in those places where the landlord did not reside, where the benefit of his means and influence was not felt? He called upon the Government to consider if their measures for temporary relief were adequate to the accomplishment of the purpose in view, and if they were doing wisely in at once withdrawing, from the hundreds of thousands who otherwise would starve, that employment which had been found on the public works. He trusted they would also increase the fund to be granted for the purchase of seed; he asked them to remember how the horrors of the situation of the Irish people would be multiplied if they were next year to be left without the means of further support. It was useless for hon. Members to censure the conduct
256
of the landlords. Many of them were now powerless, unable to collect their rents, and, therefore, altogether incapable of assuming that function which could only be properly exercised by the Government. In the indiscriminate and unfounded vituperation, some distinction should be made between those who were and those who were not doing their duty. The resident landlords, who spent all their wealth and endangered their lives in the country, were held up for execration; while those who were absentees, and who drained Ireland of her lifeblood, escaped attack and evaded punishment.
SIR B. HALLcould assure the House and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the observations made by him on a previous evening in reference to the conduct of the Irish landlords generally, were founded on data of undoubted authenticity and on fact, and that, consequently, he had now not one charge to retract or one word to unsay. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps right in stating, that at this moment the landlords were well disposed to second the efforts of the Government, and would evince that charity which became their position, if they could succeed in collecting their rents. He granted that the rents were not well paid; but when they were well paid last year—when the calamity they had since suffered from was predicted—why was not some provision made for the danger? why was not some exertion used to avert the event? The Irish Members, however, would probably shelter themselves under those two assertions so repeatedly heard in an Irish debate: first, that all the evils of Ireland resulted from the Union; and, secondly, that an English Member could not possibly know anything about the matter. There were many gentlemen in Ireland who were not landlords, and who yet contrived, having formed themselves into an association, to collect great rents. He would ask, what assistance had those rent collectors given to the distressed people? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Browne) had told them of the dreadful state of Mayo; but he had not been able to inform them that the money obtained by this association in the shape of "rent" from that county, had been applied to the relief of the people. It was an anomaly most remarkable, that Members of that House, who were also cognizant of and participators in the proceedings of the association, could rise and call upon Government to supply food to the

257
poor, when they themselves applied not one farthing of their vast funds to that object. They appointed functionaries, whom they called "wardens," in the different districts, not to distribute relief, but to collect funds, afterwards to be placed in that exchequer in Dublin which was filled with the contribution of a people at the point of famine. From April in last year, to the first month in this year, many thousand pounds had been subscribed to the funds of the Repeal Association. Why, he asked, was this money drawn from the people? and why, having been drawn, was not some portion of it refunded in a time of unprecedented distress? [An Hon. MEMBER: We deny the fact.] Was it denied there was this distress? that there was starvation at Skibbereen, and suffering throughout Ireland? If the Irish Members now, after all that had been said, denied these facts, and that these funds had been received by the association, certainly they must be allowed to be the most extraordinary people in the world. It was quite as extraordinary to hear hon. Members get up and contest the liberality of the English nation. Subscriptions were being raised in every quarter: men and women of every class were subscribing: and that, therefore, was not the time for the representatives of Ireland to keep alive bad feeling in their own country, or to check generosity here by taunts and aspersions of the most unjust character.
SIR W. VERNERwould go the whole length with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in what he had said with reference to the collection of the funds to which he had referred from many parties in Ireland, and particularly from the starving people of that country; and, he would add, what was deeply to be regretted, that he believed the unfortunate people had no option whatever in the matter, but that it was compulsory upon them to make those payments. There was one subject to which he would shortly direct the attention of the House, as it was one of the very greatest importance, and had been, he believed, the chief cause which had led to the present state of that country—he meant the subletting of land, or, more properly speaking, the cutting it up into shreds and patches, known by the name of the conacre system. He did not believe the House had any idea of the extent to which this system was carried in Ireland. They were told that this state of matters was originated by the former proprietors of the land, and that pre-
258
sent landlords were only suffering from the misconduct of their predecessors; but was it not unjust that the landlords of the present day should be made responsible for the conduct of those who lived, perhaps, sixty years ago? The parish in which he resided, was situated two-thirds in Tyrone and one-third in Armagh. At the commencement of the present distress, a relief committee was established, of which he was chairman, and a fund raised, by means of which they distributed meal once a week and soup twice a week; and a single statement or two of the proceedings of that committee would show to the House the extent to which the subdivision of land was carried. There were seeking relief from the fund 430 families; and of these, 35 families only possessed as much as one acre of land. Most of them had none, but only 35 possessed as much as one acre. But, perhaps, the matter would be better understood by taking the state of one townland, in which there were 35 families, consisting of 166 persons. The whole amount of land in the possession of these 35 families was eight acres and a few perches; of these eight acres seven were in the hands of four persons, which left one acre and a few perches to be distributed amongst the remaining 31 families. This would give the House some idea of what out-door relief would become in Ireland. It would show that to attempt to give out-door relief would convert all Ireland into a great poorhouse, and that the whole landed property of the country would not be sufficient to support the poor. He should like to know from the hon. Member for Bath what description of landlords in any country would like to have such a tenantry upon their properties. He must say that if Ireland was the curse of England, the conacre system was the curse of Ireland. He had received a letter from the rector of a parish adjoining to his, and who had been induced to write in consequence of some observations as to the want of exertion in Ireland, which had been made in that House. This clergyman he knew to be indefatigable in his efforts to relieve the wants of those around him; he had not merely given his personal labours for that purpose, but had expended his means also, so that he had been himself left not only without money, but without food. He was the brother of a noble Lord, a Member of that House; and as the circumstances to which he had referred were in the highest degree honourable to him,

259
he had no hesitation in saying that he meant the Rev. Mr. Clements. In his letter he stated, that on several nights when he had been out very late, he had witnessed the loom going in every house he passed for miles; and that on returning on one occasion, at two o'clock in the morning, from the bedside of a dying man, he found the people as entirely engaged as by day. He knew families where they got up almost simultaneously after twelve on Sunday night; and other families who sat up three nights in the week. There was a notion that in the north of Ireland the people could support themselves by means of the linen trade; but when he mentioned that for a web of sixty-four or sixty-five yards only 2s. was paid, some idea might be formed of the earnings that could be derived by this branch of industry. Every day's post brought him intelligence of the dreadful amount of misery which prevailed. He had received a letter from his agent that day, who stated that though they constantly heard of vessels laden with grain sailing for Ireland, still the price of food continued to rise; and, what was worse, the grain purchased by the relief committee was adulterated to such an extent with beans and other articles that they were often forced to return their purchases. The dealers joined together to raise the prices of food; and the day which they selected for that purpose was Saturday, when they knew the poor people received their wages. He maintained that the Irish landlords did everything in their power to relieve the distress; but though their means were ten times greater than they were, it would be impossible to do all that the necessities of the case required; and he contended that the present was a time when they had a right to look for relief from this country. It had been said the other night, by way of reproach, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had an understanding with the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Now, that was precisely what he wished to see. He wanted to see the wisdom, the talent, the energy, and the experience of every party united for the relief of the distress in Ireland. He should like to see such a remedy applied to the evils of that country, as would enable them, should they again be visited by such another calamity, to meet it in a way that would make it press less heavily on the country. He cared not whether the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet concocted measures out of the House or not, provided
260
those measures were for the good of Ireland.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I am not disposed to make any complaint of the conduct of Gentlemen connected with Ireland, especially of those who are about to return to their own country to perform there most important duties, and who have taken this opportunity to lay before the House statements as to the appalling distress and misery that exist in many parts of Ireland. Some of those Gentlemen have expressed an opinion that this House was not fully aware of the depth and extent of that misery; but they will at least do me the justice to say, that I have never attempted to conceal from the House what my opinion was upon that subject. I have said—and I now say—that I believe it is scarcely possible to overstate or exaggerate the amount of human suffering which in many parts of Ireland is now endured. It is impossible for me—imperative as the duty is, that I should read the accounts which every day's post brings, of details the most distressing, as to the effects which scarcity of food has produced in Ireland—to disguise what my impressions are upon that subject. And let me say that if the statements which have been made by hon. Members, have been put to the Government in order to urge them to take every means in their power to alleviate that distress, I can assure the hon. Members who have made those statements, that it was altogether unnecessary. It is not because the Government are unaware of the misery existing in Ireland, or indifferent to the extent of that misery, that anything can be wanting in what they have done for that country; but that the powers of the Government are far more limited than those Gentlemen seem to think. Gentlemen may suppose that the exertions of the Government and the Legislature have not been most judiciously applied under the circumstances; but still they must admit that they have been applied on a most enormous scale; that we have not spared the power or finances of this country in the attempt to cope with an unparalleled state of distress. I believe I may say that more than 600,000 persons are at this moment employed and receiving Government money under the Act of Parliament that passed at the end of last Session. This is an enormous effort—an effort we cannot make without taxing the finances of this country most severely; but under the circumstances, we thought we

261
were justified in making that effort. Sir, it is not possible in a Christian land to see our fellow-creatures perishing by thousands without at least attempting to cope with the calamity which has fallen upon them. And I have the satisfaction of stating, that if these efforts have not prevented the occurrence of such scenes as we have heard described to-night—if they have not prevented the extreme misery and destitution, and loss of human life, which have been brought before us in the accounts of this evening—accounts which, so far from controverting, I am prepared to say are not overcharged—yet, if we could take into account those who have been saved from untimely deaths by the exertions which Government and the Legislature have made, they might be reckoned by hundreds of thousands. The measure to which I have already adverted, has been the principal means which Government has resorted to in the discharge of the duty devolving upon them; but it has not been the only one. The establishment of soup-kitchens, through the medium of the relief committees, who have been actively engaged in raising contributions from private sources, has been extensively followed all over the country; and the Government has liberally granted money to meet the contributions so made from those resources. Had I been aware that this discussion was to come on, I should have come down to the House prepared with facts to show that this system has extended itself throughout the country to the most distressed places in Ireland, and that it has worked in such a manner as greatly to stop the progress of famine and disease unfortunately affecting so many parts of the country. One great cause of the misery that now prevails in Ireland, is doubtless the high price of provisions; but no one will suppose that it is in the power of the Government, when other causes operate to make provisions high, to interfere by artificial means so as to make them low. It is not in Ireland alone, but in France and other countries, that there has been a rise in the prices of provisions; they have been extremely high in France, and it is as impossible that Government could keep the prices of provisions low in Ireland whilst they were high in other countries with which Ireland has intercourse, as to keep the level of the Irish Channel below that of the Atlantic Ocean. Do all you can, you can only mitigate these calamities; you cannot prevent them; without a change in
262
the social system of Ireland, it is impossible to prevent great distress in that country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne), who introduced this discussion, has called the attention of the House to the state of the county he represents. Mayo has, I believe, at all times, been one of the most distressed counties in Ireland; and in the present state of that country, Mayo is suffering more than any other county in Ireland. Of the numerous cases of deaths which have arisen from starvation, a very great number have happened in the county Mayo. I believe in most of the cases, the individuals have belonged to the class of mendicants, at all times a very miserable class in Ireland; but at other times, they have a great resource in the charity of the poorer classes; but, in the present year, the mendicants have no means whatever of obtaining assistance from those classes, and their habits render them peculiarly averse to resort to the poorhouse, until the last pressure of want comes upon them, and then they enter it only to die. I believe it is in this class of mendicants that mostly, not exclusively, the deaths have happened. How the Government could prevent this, I am at a loss to imagine. I am ready to bear my willing testimony to the exertions of many among the clergy and the landholders of Ireland, as far as their means permit, to relieve the distress around them; at the same time, I must say that I think it is the duty of all persons of influence, whether landholders or clergymen, not only to co-operate with individual charity, but to do all in their power to prevent the circulation of mischievous delusions amongst the poorer classes. I am anxious to call the attention of the hon. Member for Mayo and of the House to a communication I have received to-day from the county of Mayo, which convinces me, that unless persons of influence in Ireland, whether landholders, clergymen, or belonging to any other class interested in the preservation of property, exert their influence to prevent the people from becoming the victims of delusion, the consequences will be alarming. I understand that in a part of this wretched county of Mayo, an organized combination exists to discourage systematically the cultivation of the soil; the authors of which promise the poor people that if they will but leave off cultivating the soil, the Government and this country would be obliged to maintain them. I call upon all the influential classes in that country, whether landholders or

263
clergymen, to exert themselves by every means in their power to warn the unhappy people of the consequences of falling into this snare. The consequence would be that the state of the country next year must be far worse than it is at present. The communication to which I referred states, that a great body of men, amounting to 200, went round, warning all persons not to attempt to till the land this year. Now, when Gentlemen call upon the Government and the House to employ the most energetic efforts to enable us to meet this great calamity, I think we have a right to call upon all classes to use their utmost influence with the poorer classes, and to co-operate with the House and the Government in warning them of the consequences. I cannot pass over one subject which has been adverted to in the course of the present discussion—I mean, the conduct of the landlords of Ireland, with regard to the exaction of rents in the present crisis. I believe that in some parts of the country, especially in Mayo, there have been many civil-bill processes, not always connected with questions of rent, and not always at the instance of the landlord, but mostly at the instance of middlemen; but I am afraid that in some parts of the country these suits have been going on to an extent which all must deplore. But, with respect to the conduct generally of the landlords of Ireland, I am bound to say that, according to my information, they have exercised their rights with forbearance towards their tenantry, who, by the total failure of the potato crop, had no means of paying their rents. I am bound to say, from the information I have received, that the landlords of Ireland, as a body, have exercised their rights with forbearance. I have letters from different parts of the country upon this subject; but I forbear reading them; I confine myself to the general practice. I have a letter from Cavan, from the assistant barrister, Mr. Murphy, dated January 9, in answer to an inquiry upon this subject, in which he says—
"In this county, the ejectments have diminished considerably in amount within the last two or three years; at this sessions, not more than one-half of what I have known in former years. Upon the whole, the landlords in this county have acted with kindness and forbearance to the tenantry; Lord Farnham, at the head of them, admirably."
I am bound to say that most of the great body of the landlords of Ireland have conducted themselves in this manner with regard to the class of tenants who depended
264
wholly upon potatoes. With respect to another class of tenants, who were solvent men, well able to pay their rents, and who did not depend upon their potato crop, not only were the landlords justified in making them pay their rents, but they could not be expected to contribute to relieve the necessities of the poorer classes, if they were not to compel those tenants to pay their rent who were able to pay it but would not, but took advantage of the general state of the country as a pretext for not paying their rent. I will not detain the House at any greater length upon this occasion. I sincerely hope that the elements of dispute which have been introduced into the present discussion, will not be allowed to interfere with the consideration of the measures before the House. I shall think it most unfortunate if in the discussion of Irish measures such topics should be allowed, night after night, to obstruct our progress. If this is to be persisted in, I should despair of making any progress in the important work before us. Before I sit down, I will just advert to what fell from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Verner) as to the delay of the other Irish Bills. After full consideration, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that they ought not to postpone those Bills till after Easter; I think it would be improper to do so, and I give notice that on the 8th of March, the Government will proceed with these Bills.
MR. JOHN O'CONNELLshared in the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman as to the state of Ireland, and wished they might at once proceed with the business of the evening. He deplored that so much bitterness had been introduced into this debate; but the fault did not lie with him or with those with whom he acted, but with others who had thrown out so much taunt and reviling. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), had attacked two or three of the Irish Members in a most severe manner, without having given them the least notice of his intention to attack them. He cared as little for the hon. Baronet's attack as for his courtesy; but when charges of delay, and having thrown bitterness into the discussion, were made, it was but fair to show where the blame rested. If hon. Members were willing to relieve Ireland, they ought not to accompany their charity with a taunt or a sneer—they ought not to make the unfortunate recipients wince under the dole which was extended to them. They might talk as they liked of the amount of

265
that charity, but the whole of it did not equal the amount of money of which Ireland had been defrauded by the iniquitous policy of this country. Let not hon. Gentlemen provoke him to tell them to be just before they were generous. On two occasions Mr. Pitt had confessed that up to a certain period England had constantly endeavoured to crush the prosperity of Ireland. Up to what period? Up to that period, when Irishmen, forgetting their differences, united together, and wrung from that House, by the dread of civil war, that freedom of trade which, in eighteen years, enabled Ireland to make an advance in prosperity unequalled in the history of nations. The Union, effected by bribery, since confessed, followed. Ireland lost her Parliament, and her population were reduced to depend on the lowest description of food, the failure of which had reduced them to a state of complete destitution. England was now paying for her misgovernment of Ireland. When these things could be proved, was it not monstrous for England to seek to evade the penalty? One standing topic with certain hon. Gentlemen was that of the Repeal rent, which they looked upon as money taken from the people. It was asked, what had been done with the money? The English Parliament, year after year, refused to grant religious freedom in Ireland. An association was formed. The shilling contribution represented a man. The amount was an index to the aggregate who were determined on obtaining their rights, and before whom the Parliament of England gave way and conceded emancipation. That was the Catholic rent. It had been asked what the Repeal rent had done? It had enabled them in many instances to put down petty tyranny, and to secure justice to the poor peasant who had no friends. The Repeal rent had also enabled the people of Ireland, at the time of the State Trials, in 1843, to vindicate their own cause, and prevent a precedent from being established as dangerous to the liberties of Englishmen as that prosecution which had followed to his death the ancestor of the noble Lord on the benches below him (Lord John Russell). It had enabled the people of Ireland, through the agency of the poor man's penny, successfully to fight against and resist the whole power of the Government of England, unscrupulously used as it was. It should be borne in mind that the decision of the court below in the case of these trials of 1843, would have been
266
used as a most dangerous precedent against the liberty of the subject, not only in that country, but also in England, had it not been reversed. He did not make this allusion to the trials from any personal consideration; for the men who were attempted to be made the victims of that prosecution, having once entered into the struggle in their country's cause, were prepared for any issue. They were resolved to shun bloodshed and violence, unless in the event of the Irish people being denied those rights of the constitution to which as British subjects they were entitled, in which case they were prepared to meet the aggression at the peril of their lives; but they risked their property, and everything that could make life valuable, and were resolved to do so still, until the great object of their political ambition was achieved. He did not speak, therefore, from a personal motive in making this reference to the trials of 1843; but this he did not hesitate to say, that had not the decision been reversed, it would have been pleaded as a fatal precedent for the overthrow of liberty in all parts of the British empire. How was its reversion brought to pass? By the help of the pence of the Irish peasant. Knowing that it was his cause that was at stake, he freely gave his money for its sustentation; and he had the gratification of seeing an unjust sentence trampled on and legally set at nought. The hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had this advantage over him, that the hon. Gentleman had taken him unawares in this attack. He was not prepared for such an onslaught. Had he been so he would have been in a position to go into the items, and to give the details of tyrannical aggression repelled, of the poor man's cause asserted, and of popular information diffused throughout the country by the instrumentality of the Repeal rent; but he would not now pause to dwell upon such matters. The hon. Member was welcome to his taunt. There was nothing more easy than to deal in such imputations, at the very moment when those who had the management of that rent were paying the expenses of the association out of their own pockets; but the sensible and the honest-minded would know what amount of value should be attached to such insinuations. The hon. Member had talked about Repeal being "a phantom." If it was so (which he most emphatically denied), it was at least a gorgeous, a beautiful, and an attractive phantom; but their Union had produced

267
nothing that dazzled the fancy, or captivated the imagination. It had produced not a phantom, but the ghostly reality of the most appalling state of things that had ever existed in a Christian land. It was the denial of Repeal, the fraudulent abolition of the Irish Parliament, and the inexorable refusal of that House to hear the remonstrances of the Irish people in this behalf, that had reduced Ireland to the miserable condition in which she was now placed. With respect to the Ministry now in office, he was far from blaming them. He gave them credit for the best intentions. In their efforts to mitigate the distress in Ireland, they had gone farther than public opinion in that House and in England would warrant them. They were in advance of public opinion in that House and in the country, and were consequently entitled to the gratitude of the Irish Members, even though their exertions might fall very short indeed of answering the expectations which had been formed in Ireland. They (the Ministers) were bringing odium on themselves by their exertions to alleviate Irish suffering, and the Irish people were grateful to them for the sincerity and kindliness of their intention; but he very much feared that there were still in that House many hon. Members who even yet were not fully cognizant of the fearful extent of the calamity which afflicted Ireland, nor duly sensible of the appalling results which would accrue from it to this country when the wretches who were famishing at the other side of the Channel would come over to this country to spread disease and desolation amongst the English population. To those who were thus sceptical, he would recommend an attentive perusal of the letter of Commander Caffin, which appeared in the journals of that morning, merely observing in reference to it, that it would be no difficult matter to find a thousand parallels for the dreadful scene in Schull, depicted with such touching power by the gallant officer. He was in hourly receipt of accounts from Ireland, which pictured a state of things quite as afflicting, if not more so, in a thousand other districts. It was full time that the English Legislature should turn their attention to the condition of Ireland, and bear in mind that they owed a debt both of good government and of money to that cruelly-wronged country. He had to apologize for trespassing at such length upon the attention of the House; but the Irish Members who sympathized in the fortunes
268
of their country, and had her interests at heart, would be less than men if they did not repel the shameless revilings of the Member for Marylebone with that just indignation which their fealty to their country and to the cause of truth demanded of them.
MR. GRATTANobserved, that notwithstanding the extraordinary character of the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for Marylebone, the Irish Gentlemen in that House had some cause of consolation in the reflection that the hon. Baronet's feelings were not those of Englishmen generally. Most assuredly they were not the sentiments of the well-conducted and sensible amongst Englishmen. He appeared to be unboundedly indignant at the idea of public subscriptions being raised for political men or for political purposes in Ireland; but he had entirely overlooked the fact of such subscriptions being of frequent occurrence in this country. Was it not notorious that for one highly distinguished politician there had been collected in this country, within the course of a few months, no less a sum than 90,000 l.? and was it not a fact equally well ascertained, that there had been such a collection on foot in England as the Spottiswoode Fund? The plundered and misgoverned people of Ireland subscribed that they might recover their lost property and their filched liberties. The hon. Member had attacked a great public body—the Repeal Association of Ireland. To that body he (Mr. Grattan) belonged, and considered it an honour to be connected with it. He would fearlessly stand up for it, and defend it to the last for its many virtuous acts. It had been called into existence by the infatuated policy, and the disastrous system of misrule, adopted by this country in reference to Ireland. Why had that House withheld Catholic emancipation from 1800 to 1829, and why had they invariably pursued towards Ireland such a course of conduct as rendered such bodies as the Catholic Association and the Repeal Association necessary? Why had they neglected the advice of such men as Fox, Wyndham, and Ponsonby, and coerced the Irish people to the conviction that England was unwilling to concede anything she could withhold, and that they had no chance of getting even an instalment of liberty, unless they concentrated their powers, and made a joint-stock fund with their money? It was the gross misrule of England that had called such bodies into existence. He

269
conceived that gross injustice had been done in many instances, in the course of this debate, to the landed Irish proprietors. He was in receipt of a letter from one of the landlords who had been thus aggrieved, Sir R. Lynch Blosse, against whom some most unjustifiable charges had been made by Mr. Otway, the Poor Law Commissioner. To this document he would take the liberty of soliciting the especial attention of the House. [The hon. Member read the letter, and the writer denied that any arrears of poor rate were due on his property. When the last rate was struck, his agent offered to pay the proportion of the rate for which his property was liable; but, in addition to this, the collector claimed an arrear of rate which was not due. The fact was, it was due by a former collector, to whom it had been duly paid, and who had been dismissed from his office. The receipt for the money was produced by the agent, and the rate was then refused. The letter concluded with the expression of a hope that Mr. Otway, before making statements which were to come before Parliament, would make it his business to inquire whether there was any foundation for them, and not again expose himself to the discredit of making charges which were so easily answered.] He trusted that the House would consider this letter as completely satisfactory. The charges which were brought against Sir R. L. Blosse had as little foundation in fact as those which the hon. Member for Marylebone had brought against the Repeal Association. As a gentleman and a man of honour, he could unhesitatingly declare, that he joined that association for a good purpose, and to divest it of the sectarian character which previously belonged to it. He joined it because he thought it would be the means of stepping between the two countries, and preventing that which, so help him God, he then feared and still apprehended—separation. He had examined the accounts of the association; and to this distinct assertion he pledged himself, that, as far as he could see, not one single penny of the money had gone into the pockets of any private individual, and least of all into the pockets of a certain individual, to whom he would not more particularly allude, as he was a Member of that House. But this he did know, that the predecessors of the present Government permitted the Irish people to assemble in thousands, and hundreds of thousands, between the months of
270
May and October. Tara met, and Mullaghmast met, and not one word to the contrary did the Government utter, until at at length there came out, on a dark night, a Castle proclamation. The first he heard of their prosecution was when he was abroad, after attending several of the meetings. Such conduct as this convicted the Government of incapacity and ignorance, and showed that they were bad lawyers and bad statesmen, who succeeded in nothing but in making themselves ridiculous. No less than 25,000 l. were paid by the Irish people to defend themselves from the insanity of the proclamation and prosecution, and this was paid out of the Repeal rent. With reference to that fund he would say, as Chatham had said in reference to the American war—"There may have been extravagance—there may, in some instances, have been injudicious expenditure; but it is idle to conceal the fact, that it is a question of oppression on the one side, and of liberty on the other." It was not in the power of the hon. Member for Marylebone, nor in that of the petty parish he represented, to put down such sentiments or to crush such principles as these. As to the soup-kitchens about to be established in Ireland, if the noble Lord the Member for London were, unhappily for the country, to go out, he did not know of any one who was so competent to supply his place as M. Soyer, the cook of the Reform Club. His letter on the soup-kitchen question was admirable. If cooks were not given under the Act of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he predicted the kitchens would fail. The Irish landlords, he denied, had neglected their duty. They were most severe sufferers from this calamity. He knew one landlord in the county of Tipperary, who had a rental of 13,000 l., and could only get 700 l. out of it; another in Leitrim, who had two estates, one of 500 l., and another of 700 l., and who could only collect 5l.; and a third, in another district, who had a rental of 7,000 l., and only received 15 s.; and a fourth who, out of a rental of 3,000 l., only obtained 3l. 10 s. If any of the landed proprietors had neglected their duty, it was the absentees, and not the resident landlords, who were culpable. A statement had been made by a relief committee in the Queen's County, a short time since, which was to the following effect: Value of property held in the district by absentees, 25,578 l.; value of property held by resi-

271
dent proprietors, 530 l. Amount subscribed for distress by the absentees, 208 l.; ditto by the residents, 459 l. With respect to the Bill of Indemnity which was about to be committed, he thought it right to remind the House that not more than seventy-seven presentments had been made under Mr. Labouchere's letter. He had a statement that only ten depôts were open in Ireland since the month of November, and only a sum of 146,000 l. was granted in purchasing provisions.
MR. ROEBUCKhad come down to the House with the expectation of a Bill being proposed to render valid certain proceedings which were adopted for the relief of the people of Ireland, and for the employment of the labouring poor of that country. When he came into the House, the hon. Member for Mayo had communicated to the House a number of cases of extraordinary suffering, and an hon. Gentleman opposite had done the same. A personal altercation succeeded, and then the speech of the hon. Gentleman followed; and, although he had pursued him with great care, it defied his ingenuity to characterize his statement. There was "sound and fury, signifying nothing." They were told the people of Ireland were starving; but it was now about half-past eight o'clock, and though they began business about five o'clock, they had not yet got into Committee on this Bill. He thought it due to his countrymen on the present occasion fairly, and as briefly as he could, to state the case of Ireland, and the way in which he considered it on the present occasion. He never heard a Member representing any portion of the English people get up in his place and deny that it was their bounden duty to do all that in them lay to mitigate the miseries of Ireland. They had differed from Government and with many Gentlemen as to the precise mode of relieving that distress; but there was not a man amongst them but said he wished the distress of Ireland should be relieved. Yet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny had charged the English Members with being the authors of the miseries of Ireland; and another Gentleman, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Grattan), had said it was a punishment of Divine Providence upon them, in consequence of their horrible atrocities to Ireland; but he feared that the hon. Member did not recollect or know what he was saying. He did say that, though it was a rather Irish mode of retribution, that the
272
offended people should be punished, and not the offenders. He charged the hon. Gentleman with saying that; he said it was a visitation of Divine Providence, brought on the people of Ireland in consequence of the conduct of the people of this country. [Mr. GRATTAN: The hon. Gentleman has mistaken me.] "Mistaken!" I charge the hon. Gentleman with saying it. He may say he did not intend to say it. [Mr. GRATTAN: I deny that I said it. I appeal to my hon. Friend near me whether I said it or not.] I am quite willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's retractation; but I must trust my ears.
COLONEL RAWDON: I rise to order. I submit to you, that if a Member in this House denies having made a statement in this House, and if another Member says he accepts his retractation, that that hon. Member is out of order in not having accepted the total denial.
MR. ROEBUCKthought the conduct of the people of England on this occasion was far above the attacks of either hon. Gentlemen. Could it be believed that at this time the people of England, his countrymen, should be charged with a disregard of the feelings and miseries of the Irish people—that they should be charged at this time with being the cause of the visitation which was now unhappily felt in Ireland? Could it be said that those generous millions who were actually vieing with one another in the exhibition of their charitable feelings, were chargeable with anything like the atrocity with which those hon. Gentlemen were pleased to charge them? If they were open to those emotions with which they were charged, they might withdraw all their kindness and benevolence; but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew his countrymen so well as to know that in their bosoms there would be created a still further desire to do good to their fellow-countrymen in Ireland, in order to give the lie to all those base assertions connected with their conduct. It was not requisite at that time to refer to all that had been done to justify his countrymen against anything like this species of attack; but what he was there to do he would do, in spite of all this violence and vituperation which had been visited upon Englishmen who chose to get up and insinuate that there might be a better mode of supplying the wants of the Irish people. He would carry out the argument of the hon. Member for Marylebone. And

273
what did he say? That there were certain Gentlemen in that House who got up and gave them an affecting description of the miseries of the people of Ireland; that Gentlemen came there and asked them to subscribe; but, said he, "I have a right to consider the situation of my own countrymen, and the conduct of those who ought also to contribute to relieve the misery of Ireland." He said he saw in that House Gentlemen—he could not help pointing his finger at them—who were accustomed to take rent from the people of Ireland, and he gave a significant instance of collections from the Irish poor by a body of Irish gentlemen in Dublin. He pointed to the month in which these collections were made, and he showed that no contribution from that body of gentlemen had been made to ameliorate the misery of the people of Ireland. He would go a step further, and say that the Irish landlords had not contributed, as they ought to have, to relieve the miseries of the Irish. Why did they say so? He took the case of Skibbereen, and he had a right to take it. There was a poor law in Ireland, and the people of Skibbereen were fully capable of paying the poor rate to a very great extent. The poor rate was not fivepence in the pound, and that poor rate was not collected. Were not English Gentlemen then justified in turning round and saying—"Before you wring from our people those enormous sums which we are now paying for the maintenance of the people of Ireland, are we not justified in calling on the Gentlemen from Ireland to bear their full quota?" He would say, they were not come there to bandy abuse with any Gentleman; but they had a right to consider the state of their constituents. What was now occurring in a town in the county of Somerset? He held in his hand a paper, calling a meeting in the town he represented, to relieve the poor in that district. He had received description after description of the state of the peasants—of the people in the county of Somerset, who were absolutely at this time living on the lowest possible kind of food, of which they had the scantiest supply. They were at the present moment—(and hon. Gentlemen knew what the English peasant was and what he was accustomed to be fed upon)—they were at the present moment, out of a large portion of Somersetshire, living on horse beans, and had a very small quantity of the same. They were absolutely obliged to go into the fields
274
to pick up rotten turnips to get food from them. He was not bringing forward those instances to throw them in the teeth of those Gentlemen who asked them to relieve Ireland; but he said when this was the condition of their own peasantry, it became a solemn duty on their part to see that all paid their shares; and, depend upon it, they would make them pay their shares. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath had talked of the Government, and had charged them with having distributed only some petty quantity of meal. He said they had established an insufficient number of depôts, and had distributed some small quantity of meal; but he (Mr. Roebuck) asked, did not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland state in that House, not an hour and a half ago, that 600,000 persons had received relief from the Government funds? The hon. Member had charged the Government with dereliction of duty, because he said they were niggardly in the distribution of meal; but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland showed that 600,000 persons were receiving support from the Government. The hon. Gentleman had said there was an insufficient distribution of meal; and the answer to that was, 600,000 persons were fed. The conclusions from that reply were unanswerable; but the statements of the hon. Gentlemen were those of heat and passion and utter indiscretion, and were not based upon that which ought alone to guide them in making declarations in that House. He was quite prepared to give to the Government the most unqualified meed of his approbation (if it were worth a farthing) for their kindly-meant endeavours for the relief of the people. He believed they had assumed to themselves a responsibility that hardly any Ministry ever before took upon themselves to relieve the people. They had spent moneys which in any other case would have alarmed and terrified an Administration; and they would no more dare go on with that degree of expenditure than put their right hands in the fire. But they, having a thorough confidence in the kindly feeling of their countrymen, knew that they were perfectly safe in doing that which was right, and generous, and benevolent, towards the people of Ireland. It was that very feeling that made them bold; but when they knew what it was that made them bold, they ought not to hide from themselves the extraordinary steps they had taken, and the great responsibility

275
which they had the courage to take upon themselves. The Bill which he held in his hand proved what he asserted. There was a large deviation from an Act of Parliament; and so great was the noble Lord's confidence in the feelings of this country and of Parliament, that, although they had sat many weeks, they had not troubled Parliament to pass a Bill, for they felt quite certain that the kindly feelings of Englishmen would induce them to pass it. Was this then a time for this species of remarks? These were the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilkenny and of the hon. Member for Mayo, detailing the misery that exists in Ireland; but did they deserve the comment that had been made upon that statement—that they had created the misery—they being anxious and willing to do all they could to relieve it. There must, in a visitation like this, be much misery and suffering; but was it honest towards the Government, or the people of England, to say, "That is your doing—see what you have done for Ireland!" What, he asked, was the meaning of this reiteration? They acknowledged all the misery of Ireland; but they only said, "For God's sake, do you come forward yourselves, and aid and assist us in giving relief." He (Mr. Roebuck), as a representative of the English people, would say to the Government, that he entreated of them, in all they were doing for the relief of Ireland, to be aware of the frightful consequences to which he would direct their attention. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said—and the statement was verified by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland—that the land of that country was not now being tilled, but that there was a combination in parts of it not to till the land—[An Hon. MEMBER: In Mayo]—but let them beware lest they created a state of feeling that would lead of necessity to the same result. Let them beware, that, in their proposals of regenerating and relieving Ireland, they did not take away the people from the tilling of the soil, and make them dependent on the Government not only for this year, but the coming year. If Ireland were dependent, and if she put down her hands, and did not assist herself, the year that was coming would fall with tenfold horrors upon her. They who told the Irish people that, were not their enemies but their friends; and they who called upon the Irish gentlemen to assist and aid them in stimulating the industry of the population, and in telling
276
the people not to depend upon Government for support, were, in reality, the most beneficial friends that Ireland could have at the present moment. It might be said that Ireland had lost her best adviser—that her large wolf-dog was dead—the name might remain, but the substance was gone—the great spirit had fled, though the name was still cherished. He (Mr. Roebuck) had seen, when going into the City, a great name over an old firm; but the great name, in reality, was gone—the capital was withdrawn—an empty name remained—a name, nothing more—without wealth to conduct its concerns, without one single particle of intelligence to direct it. So it was with the Irish: they had now nothing but the name, and empty and violent vituperation, to support them; and it might be truly said, that although there were the contortions of the Sybil, the inspiration was gone.
MR. SHAWhad been unwilling to delay the regular business of the night by taking any part in that preliminary discussion; but after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), he (Mr. Shaw) could not remain altogether silent. He would, however, endeavour to reply to it briefly, and, although that might be difficult, with good temper. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, in deprecating the acrimonious spirit which had been so constantly infused into the debates of that Session, upon the calamity with which Ireland was visited. He must say, however, that generally, and on that night in particular, the acrimony had not been introduced by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne), who had commenced the discussion, and his (Mr. Shaw's) hon. Friend, who had followed him (Mr. Lefroy), could hardly be blamed for laying before the House and the country some few of the instances with which they were daily supplied from Ireland, of the truly heartrending sufferings of the people in many parts of that country, especially when the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had, in an early part of the evening, put off the other Irish measures for a fortnight; and those hon. Members had done so in no irritating spirit. He was not so much surprised at the bitterness of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck)—for it seemed constitutional to him—as at the unprovoked attacks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall)—so

277
contrary to the hon. Baronet's usual habit and demeanour in that House—against the Irish landlords. The hon. Baronet it certainly was, who had led to all the interruptions and altercation which had occurred that night. The hon. Baronet had very inappropriately, as he (Mr. Shaw) must think, referred to the proceedings of the Conciliation Hall in Dublin, and that naturally provoked an angry reply from Gentlemen connected with that association,—which it was not for him to defend, no more than some of the sentiments elicited from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan); although he must so far agree with the hon. Member, that what he had said had not been fairly represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck). Nothing could have been more unfair on the part of the hon. Baronet, than to have selected one instance out of 136 poor-law unions in Ireland, where the law had been badly administered, and hold that forth as a sample of all, while the Poor Law Commissioners had given a very favourable account of the general progress of the law since the date of their last report. More unjust and injurious still was it, without sufficient inquiry, to hold up the names of private individuals to opprobrium in that House for neglect of duty. Two cases, those of Lord Lucan and Sir William Becher, had been met and answered on the moment in the House. Another very strong case of misrepresentation, that of Sir F. Lynch Blosse, had been that night alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan); and he would then mention a third. He had received a letter from a clergyman residing in the neighbourhood, stating that the greatest pain had been given to a venerable and much-esteemed lady, the Dowager Lady Carbery, by a statement made in that House by the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), that the estate of Lord Carbery, in the county of Cork, was neglected. That estate was not in the hands of Lord Carbery at present, but of that benevolent lady, who was then residing on it, and devoting her time and her fortune to alleviate the poverty and distress that, from no fault of hers, prevailed there; and he would take that occasion to remark, that there did not appear to have been that reasonable caution which ought to have been observed, in the writing or in the publication of some of the official letters, on the subject of Irish distress, which had been laid on the Table of the House. The
278
hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) complained that the Irish Members had accused the people of England of violence and vituperation. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have mistaken himself; for the people of England—the exertions and the sympathy of the Government and the English public—had been acknowledged by all Irish Members who had shared in those debates; while the violence and vituperation of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had been, and, as he (Mr. Shaw) considered, very justly denounced by them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in error when he said that the 600,000 men, then employed on public works in Ireland, were paid with English money. It was no such thing. The money was, no doubt, advanced, not by England, but from the Imperial Treasury; but all freely charged, to the enormous extent of 6,000,000 l., on their own lands by the maligned landed proprietors of Ireland. And what was the other great boon of which the hon. and learned Gentleman so vaunted and complained, namely, the Bill for the improvement of landed property, and to afford employment to the labouring classes? Why, this, that a sum of 500,000 l. was to be granted for that purpose, in addition to the 1,000,000 l. voted last year, without reference to the present calamity; and that was to be supposed adequate to meet the emergency, and a sufficient means of enabling the landed property of Ireland to bear the accumulated charges that were about being cast upon it. His object was not then to find fault with or discuss that Bill, which was not before them; but to rebut the absurdity of its being represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman as an extraordinary boon to Irish landlords. The different circumstances of England and Ireland were not sufficiently borne in mind during these discussions; the poverty in Ireland being probably tenfold greater than that in England, while the property in Ireland available to meet it, could not bear a proportion of one-tenth to that of England. Call it a poorer country, if you will, and find fault freely with the system that prevails there; but do not make your accusations personal. The real gravamen of the charges made by the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), and reiterated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), and which had caused such just offence to Irish landlords and Irish Gentlemen in that House, was this: "Be charitable

279
yourselves, before you seek charity from us." Now, he would not stand up in that House to declare that every landlord in Ireland did his duty, any more than he would deny that there were good and bad in all bodies of men both in that country and in this. But he would boldly grapple with the insinuation that charge conveyed, and say that, take them as a body, the landlords and resident gentry of Ireland were at that moment cordially sympathizing with, and generally devoting their time, their energies, and their fortunes to alleviate the miseries of the deeply suffering people of that country. It was painful to be driven, as they were, to speak of their own exertions; for if they could be tenfold greater under the present crying exigency, it would be no more than their obvious duty. But he had spent the last six months in Ireland, a daily witness of what he described; and he spoke not of individual cases, but almost every friend or acquaintance that he had in Ireland was engaged in attending to the public works, the relief committees, or otherwise providing for the wants of the poor; their sons, their daughters, their entire families, forsaking their usual amusements and pursuits, wholly gave their time, and minds, and means to mitigate—and withal they could do little more than mitigate — the sad destitution which pervaded that country. It was not more distressing to him (Mr. Shaw) to have such statements drawn from him, as if in the spirit of self-praise on behalf of the Irish resident gentry, than it must be to the class of high-minded English Gentlemen whom he addressed, to hear their undoubted generosity vaunted, and Ireland upbraided with her poverty at such a moment as that. It had pleased Providence to send an awful visitation on a large portion of their people; surely, then, it was not too much to expect that it should be received as a national calamity, and discussed without mutual recrimination in that House by the representatives of every part of the United Kingdom. He trusted that such might be the spirit of their future debates on the subject, and that the House would now pass on to the proper business before them.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I wish to say a few words before the House goes into Committee upon this Bill. I agree so entirely in the spirit of the observations which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in asking the House to depart from that bitter-
280
ness of spirit in which hon. Members have spoken on one side of the House and the other, that I could not refrain from adding my wish and exhortation to hon. Members to go into the consideration of these measures in a better temper towards those who come from a different part of the empire from themselves. I am far from boasting of the generosity of Parliament; but I think we may also claim to be exempt from the charge of insensibility to the distress of the Irish people, which, before the Session began, was so freely advanced. Now, there are but one or two matters on which I wish to make any observation; but with regard to the future prospects of Ireland, it is impossible to look forward to what may happen next year, without feeling the most serious apprehensions. Although I can hardly believe that any efforts which Parliament, or the Government, or the people can make, can carry us through that transition which must take place in Ireland without very great suffering, still I think that by taking precautions, which are within our reach, these sufferings may be considerably mitigated. I am sorry to find, as my right hon. Friend has stated to-night, that there is a great neglect of tillage by the small tenants, and in Mayo almost a determination not to assist at all in its cultivation; but I have also heard from a Roman Catholic priest in a totally different part of Ireland, that the smaller tenants not only say that they could not cultivate land, but that they did not intend to do so, because they did not believe that they would derive any advantage from the prospective harvest. This arises, I am afraid, from a very unfortunate constitution of society—a very unfortunate constitution, I repeat, of society in that country, because I observe that when Irish landlords speak of their tenants, and the conduct of tenants, that they are apt to find some fault with them, speaking of them as neglecting the cultivation of the soil, and of concealing the real amount of their produce; and the tenants, when speaking of their landlords, continually say that they are pushing their rights to the utmost, and depriving them of the very means of existence, in their efforts to force the payment of rent. I think that in a period of real calamity like the present, unless a better spirit be displayed—unless the landlords do show a greater spirit of confidence—unless they go more among their tenants, and convey their wishes with that forbearance which I really think they mean to exercise—and

281
unless the tenants be brought to believe that they may rely on the forbearance of their landlords, that the prospect for the next year is gloomy indeed. I do think the landlords on their part, and the clergy of different persuasions on their parts, might contribute greatly to this end. I do not believe that any legislative enactments that we may pass in the Imperial Parliament, or any enactments that could have been passed in a Parliament sitting in Dublin, had such existed, would prove effectual, unless a spirit of co-operation and kindness existed amongst the various classes to make the laws effectual. There is another matter upon which I would say a word, because while I do not think that there is the smallest hesitation on the part of the people of this country to make any sacrifice to relieve in a degree the pressure of the great calamity which has fallen upon Ireland, yet I believe that in the opinion of the people of this country, and the opinion which is springing up amongst the people of Ireland, that the distress, that the want, that the actual state of starvation to which the people may be reduced, ought to give them a claim on the property of Ireland—I believe the same claim which exists on the property of England in years of great distress. I believe it is the opinion—the growing opinion, that whatever may be done for the present, that in future a provision by law should exist, by which, when the workhouses are full, relief ought to be given to all those who are in a state of destitution. I have not heard, myself, from the Irish Gentlemen a contradiction of that general impression. I do not believe that that proposition, when we come to discuss the mode in which relief should be given, will meet with resistance—that whatever discussion there may be about the details—upon the mode in which the proposition should be carried out—I do not believe that with respect to the principle itself there will be any portion of the Irish representatives who will give resistance to it. I say this at the present moment, because I do believe that while there is no reluctance to agree to the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers, there is a notion, which I deem to be unfounded, that with respect to the future, Irish landlords wish to avoid the burden of providing for the destitute. My own impression is, that they will not attempt to avoid the burden. I believe that all classes are prepared to agree to measures which impose any pecuniary sacrifices on the people
282
of this country, if they are satisfied that measures of the kind I have alluded to will be cheerfully assented to on the part of the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) has said, and other Irish Members have said, that for all the advances made, Irish proprietors are ready to charge themselves. I do not mean to say anything to the contrary. There is no intention, however, to impose that charge upon the landlords without assistance. There is no intention to ask them to bear the whole; but if the proposition of the Government be carried out, there will be a sacrifice made by all parties in the United Kingdom, it being proposed that one-half of what is advanced to the present year, according to the Act of last Session, shall be remitted. I have not heard a single objection to that proposition. I do not believe it will be objected to; but it is expected that the property of Ireland—although a poor country—still it is expected that Irish property shall be liable to the charge of affording relief to the Irish poor.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENhoped they would be allowed to discuss the measures before them without the introduction of topics calculated to excite hostility on either side. Nothing could give him more satisfaction in that House than the appointment of a Committee of resolute men, who would not be afraid to visit the scenes of Irish distress—if necessary, the charnel-house and the hospital—to see the condition of Ireland as it was, both as respected the people and the conduct of the landlords. He would volunteer to accompany any such committee or commission, and assist them in procuring information. With reference to the measures introduced by the Government, he was bound to express his opinion that they were utterly inadequate to the present crisis. He could not help, too, expressing his surprise, that after five weeks' consideration before the meeting of Parliament, they should have already sat upwards of four months, and yet the measures for the relief of Ireland, which they were told would be brought forward, had not been submitted to the House. With respect to a permanent poor law, he, for one, was ready to tender to the Government his support of the principle of that Bill. He had always been an advocate for a poor law in Ireland; and the opinions which he expressed many years ago in favour of that measure, had been confirmed by subsequent experience. With reference to the measures of temporary relief, he

283
feared that the establishment of soup-kitchens would disappoint their expectations, and be by no means applicable to many parts of Ireland. The adoption of a system of out-door relief, whether in food or money, was a duty which ought to be performed not only in the present year, but in all others. With reference to the able-bodied poor, he thought the Government had not provided productive employment for them to the extent that was desirable. There was no security against the recurrence of famine; and even under the most favourable circumstances they must contrive to stimulate employment for several years. Then he wished to know how the Government would absorb the labour of the country. What would 1,500,000 l. do in taking off the roads 600,000 men? At most it would only give a year's employment to 100,000, and what was to become of the remainder? He thought the Government were to blame for not resorting to colonisation; for he thought a large portion of the population might advantageously transfer themselves to the colonies under such circumstances as would guarantee their future well-being. That resource, however seemed put aside altogether. Again, it was well known that there were numbers of men employed at this moment on the roads, who ought to be employed in the fisheries. He had heard of no scheme on a large scale for transferring this portion of the population back to their natural and more profitable employment. He thought, too, the Government were much to blame for not preparing some measure to adjust the relations of landlord and tenant. For want of this, many tenants who possessed capital, were unwilling to employ it in cultivating the soil. Any proposition, however, of this nature appeared to be indefinitely postponed. Neither did he hear anything of an absentee tax to compel the landlord either to sell his estate or reside in Ireland, or to make some equivalent compensation. The proposal of the hon. Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) had been rejected. He confessed he deeply regretted it. Everything he had heard in the discussion, only confirmed the opinion he had formed—that it was a measure that would do more good even than its proposer contemplated. He thought they might have much more usefully expended on railways the millions they had employed in the destruction of roads. When it was said the finances of the country could not bear it, he would ask were they not ex-
284
pended freely on much less useful objects? If there should be a rebellion in Ireland tomorrow, they would cheerfully vote 10 or 20 millions to put it down; but what they would do to destroy life, they would not do to save it. The hon. Member then read some letters relating to the distress in Ireland, and said the distress there last year was not a tenth part of what it now was; yet much more was then done by the Government. He had hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would not have refrained from offering his counsel on this great emergency—that he would not have limited himself to finding faults, which might be found in every plan—but, as a statesman, would have told the Parliament of Great Britain how this great crisis ought to be met. He told the noble Lord that it ought to find means to remove from the roads the immense army placed upon them; but he did not venture the smallest possible suggestion how it was to be accomplished. As to the proposals before them, they were nothing but a series of temporary expedients. These would be useless, for he would frankly tell the hon. Member for Bath that he saw no reason why the present state of things should not continue for several years. He therefore implored the Government to lay before the House and the country a system which should give the people of Ireland an assurance that they would be employed on something else than useless works, and that the painful scenes which were taking place every day, and which it was in their power to prevent, should not be permitted to recur.
MR. BICKHAM ESCOTTsaid, that one or two circumstances had that evening occurred, to which he deemed it his duty to allude. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) had spoken of the measures proposed by Ministers as inadequate to meet the evils which existed in Ireland. In this opinion he agreed in so far as a permanent remedy was concerned; but the measures in question had not been proposed as permanent measures. In connexion with these proposals, he must say that he rejoiced at the declaration that had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He must say that no speech which that noble Lord had made from that bench that Session, or for many Sessions, held out such a prospect for the relief of Irish distress as the speech he had made that evening. He had promised a substantial poor law for Ireland; he had promised that which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had pointed at

285
as necessary—namely, that the property of Ireland should be responsible for the relief of Irish distress. He did not believe that there was much difference, after all, between the opinions of honest men, although acrimonious feelings had been excited in the expression of them. He did not believe that there was any honest representative—that there was any portion of the representatives of Ireland, or England, or Scotland—who did not wish to see equal justice dealt out between the two countries. This was the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath; and he begged to tell the hon. Member for Limerick, and the other Irish Members, that justice from the Imperial Legislature implied equality of burdens as well as equality of rights. The whole argument lay in that. The English people were willing to give their Irish brethren equality of rights, but equality of burdens must be a condition. With the exception of three hon. Members, no representative had proposed amendments on the measures of Her Majesty's Government: although the Member for Limerick had expressed his regret that Ministers had not brought forward a great and comprehensive plan for the relief of Irish distress, still he had not brought forward any plan of his own. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn had acted differently. He did propose a measure which he thought would be a great improvement, and the House had dealt with it. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had adopted a similar course. With regard to the all-important point, about the cultivation of the soil, he was glad to learn from accounts he had himself received, all that was required to enable the Irish people to reap the rich advantage which the present Session held out, was exertion. He suspected that the noble Lord at the head of the Government understood the intensity of the distress which prevailed in England; but he (Mr. Escott) was in a position to corroborate the statements which had been made on that head by the hon. Member for Bath. Had it not been for the meritorious exertions of the landlords in the West of England, the people there must have been in as bad a condition as were the people of Ireland.
VISCOUNT BERNARDhad no intention to protract the debate, or impede the progress of the Bill; but he had heard, he confessed with no little surprise, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the question, taunt those with whom he acted with not
286
having proposed a great and comprehensive measure for the relief of the present distress in Ireland. He (Viscount Bernard) should not occupy the House for any time; but be could not hear such taunts thrown out against the side of the House on which he sat, against the Irish Members and the Irish landlords, without offering a word in reply to them. It was not their fault if the progress of relief for Ireland was impeded, and the debate protracted night after night by the taunts of hon. Members on the other side; but he, for one, should not in that respect imitate them. As far as he was personally concerned, he should have passed over these taunts against the Irish landlords without notice, being only anxious for the relief of the suffering poor; but residing, as he did, in a part of the country where these gentlemen were particularly attacked, he felt it to be his duty to rise and repel the accusations launched against him. The hon. Member for Marylebone had attacked the Irish landlords on a former evening upon the authority of statements made in a blue book; but he cautioned the hon. Member against the assumption that everything contained in the blue books was true; and he cautioned the House against being led away by them. One of the allegations of the hon. Gentleman was, that a nobleman had property in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen of the value of 15,000 l. a year. But he held in his hand a letter from the agent of a venerable lady in that district, the widow of the nobleman alluded to, in which it was stated that her property in the two baronies of the county of Cork was of the nominal rental of 8,500 l. a year—that the actual rental was scarcely ever more than 5,000 l.—and, that during the last year only 2,000 l. was received from it. A noble and eloquent Lord, in another place, had borne testimony to the great sacrifices that had been made by that excellent lady in the cause of the poor in her district; and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to do more than confirm that noble Lord's statements. [The noble Lord then read a letter, or letters, from Ireland, which were almost wholly inaudible; but which corroborated, as far as could be gathered from an occasional word, his general assertions.] Another gentleman, whom he had the honour to know, was put down in that blue book at 4,000 l. a year. He had stated his belief that his income did not amount to more than 400 l.; but he had had a letter from that gentleman,

287
who, he was bound to say, was quite unaware that his name was brought before the public as it had been, in which he asked to be informed as to the intentions of the Government in advancing loans to the landlords of Ireland on the security of their estates, and whether they would introduce a measure to enable the proprietors to dispose of incumbered property; proving a most commendable anxiety on his part to improve his estates, and to give employment and relief to the poor people of his neighbourhood. It was also alleged against the gentlemen of Ireland in his district, that they did not pay up their poor rates; but he held in his hand a paper which showed that out of five rates which had been struck in a year and a half, there was only an arrear of 124 l. due in that district. The Irish landlords had been charged with an inimical feeling to the introduction of a poor law into Ireland. He had always admitted that it would be better if Ireland and England were upon an equality in that respect; and he believed that to be the sentiment of a great number of the landlords of that country. It was not, however, the fault of the Irish landlords if there was not an adequate poor law for Ireland. There was no opportunity for its introduction. If it had been proposed before the present time, it would have ruined the operation of the existing law. The Government were alone responsible for it. Year after year Irish gentlemen had applied to them to change the present poor law; but it was not changed nevertheless. He urged upon Her Majesty's Ministers, in the most earnest manner, the great danger which would accrue at the present moment if a sudden stop was put to the system of relief upon public works at present existing in Ireland. A letter from his own neighbourhood, which he received that morning, stated, that the stoppage of some of the public works in that district had created the greatest destitution among the poor people. It was impossible that agricultural operations alone could absorb the whole population of the country; and he urged upon the Government the necessity, not alone of not suspending the public works at present in progress, but of bringing forward others. It was not too late for them, even now, to reconsider their determination as regarded the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, or to introduce some measure analogous to it in character, and having in view the same object. Among other works which would be of a most re-
288
munerative character in every respect, were the neglected harbours of Ireland, in many of which, from the want of the necessary attention and expense, vessels at this moment incurred great risk of danger. A notice was on the Paper of the House, in the name of the Secretary to the Admiralty, for a breakwater and harbour in the island of Portland; but he asked the House and the Government, whether, under the present circumstances of Ireland, the cost of that undertaking would not be better applied to the harbours of that country? The hon. Member for Marylebone had taunted the Irish landlords with having received their rents last year, and with not being prepared against the present contingency; as if human foresight could provide against a visitation of Providence. A most unfounded charge was now made against them. How could they anticipate a famine? They did all in their power, as far as his own knowledge of the facts went, to induce their tenants to cultivate a less destructive crop than the potato; but if tenants on leases refused to accede to their wishes, what could they do?—what power had they to compel obedience to their wishes? The noble Viscount, who was somewhat inaudible, was understood to conclude by expressing a strong hope that out of the present calamity might come a great good for Ireland, and that by its means the people of that country might be induced to forego in the future all political and religious differences, and unite, one and all, for the development of its resources.
MR. M. GOREbore testimony to the correctness of the hon. Member for Winchester; but that was no reason why they should not extend all the assistance in their power to their Irish fellow-subjects. It was his wish to defend the conduct of the Irish landlords generally; but he was bound in justice to state that he knew many instances of the most praiseworthy conduct on their part. The hon. Member read a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman, describing the misery existing in Connemara, and stated that a chief cause of the distress in that country was the immense number of small farms; whatever they might do for Ireland would be ineffectual as long as this system of small holdings prevailed. A poor law would be futile as long as they continued to exist; a poor law in Ireland would be impeded in its effect by the want of machinery to work it. Where were the men who could act as

289
guardians? The class that should supply them did not exist. Many of the present evils had been pointed out at former periods; the precarious nature of the potato as a national food had been pointed out in 1823, when an inquiry was instituted into the state of agriculture. But he trusted a better day was dawning on Ireland; even the present afflictions might tend to hasten it. It had been said of the two great calamities that befell the metropolis, that they proved the occasions of exercising great Christian virtues. As to the measures of the Government, and any blame that had been cast on it for what took place last autumn, he was fully convinced of the difficulties it had to encounter. He was convinced no one was more anxious to promote the welfare of Ireland than the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government; and to measures calculated to prove beneficial to Ireland, brought forward by any party, he should give his support.
MR. R. A. FITZGERALDdid not wish to detain the House from going into Committee, as he perceived evident signs of impatience; but he must express the regret with which he had heard the speech of the noble Lord on a former evening. He had hoped the noble Lord would have proposed some great plan for the advantage of Ireland; and though his feelings were with the Government, he confessed he was disappointed in its policy. He thought indeed the Labour-rate Act would do both direct and indirect good; and he hoped that the efforts made by the Irish landlords at the present time would not be judged only by the sums they gave to public subscriptions.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONappealed to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury to alter the day which had been named for going into Committee on the Poor Relief Bill. It would probably have fallen under the notice of the noble Lord, that the day to which the Committee had been postponed, occurred at the very time when the assizes were being held throughout Ireland; and the absence of many hon. Gentlemen desirous of taking part in the discussion on that very important measure, would consequently be occasioned. If, therefore, it was possible, without any serious prejudice, to postpone going into Committee to a still further day, it was most advisable to do so. He made this suggestion in no spirit of opposition to the Government: it was simply a matter of convenience; and he, for one, was not at all
290
scared at the prospect of out-door relief being applied to Ireland.
LORD J. RUSSELLwas afraid, if he postponed the Order of the Day for a still further period, the only effect would be that they would fix upon another week, when there would be other assizes, and when the request of the noble Lord would again be preferred by some other hon. Member. The subject was one of great importance, and he was most unwilling to accede to the suggestion. He admitted it was desirable that the representatives of Irish constituencies should be present at the discussion which would take place; and it was with regret he could name no more convenient day. The desire was to send up the Bill as early as possible to the House of Lords.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONfelt convinced it was only the pressure of public business which put it out of the power of the noble Lord to grant the delay for which he had asked. He was well assured of the earnest anxiety prevailing in that House to pass speedily all the measures calculated to alleviate the distress which existed in Ireland. He tendered his thanks to the English Members for the liberal spirit which they were now evincing towards Ireland. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had fired up with unnecessary warmth, in answer to the remarks which had fallen from various quarters, in reference to the course which Irish landlords should now take. Some of those observations were, no doubt, offensive; but excellent, and salutary, and perhaps necessary, advice, had thus been conveyed; and, in consideration of the sound sense, the manner and the language in which the recommendation was couched, might have been passed over. It was a humiliating confession certainly; but it could not be denied that there had and still existed in Ireland too strong an inclination to rely, in the hour of need, upon the English Treasury, to the neglect of those means of relief which were at hand at home. It was of frequent occurrence that offence was given, when none was intended; for instance, he had been more offended by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin (Mr. Shaw), than by any speech he had heard. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the English Members had proved ungenerous to Ireland in her misfortune. [Mr. SHAW: I spoke only of two indviduals.] Why did not the right hon. Gentleman mention the boundless generosity of the people

291
of England, as evinced in the great subscription funds? The right hon. Gentleman laid too little stress on that point, and paid too much attention to the attacks of individual Members of that House. If he did not mistake, the right hon. Gentleman was one of a party which at Dublin had proposed that all the expenses of the public works should be paid by the Government out of the Consolidated Fund. [Mr. SHAW: I was not.] He had, however, seen the name of the right hon. Gentleman in the newspaper. ["Oh, oh!"] Then he was mistaken or deceived; and it only showed that he ought never to trust to the Irish newspapers.
MR. SHAW, in explanation, said, that after the extraordinary statement of the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton), he (Mr. Shaw) must explain, although to those who heard him, it would be hardly necessary, that while he complained of the tone taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), he (Mr. Shaw) had fully acknowledged the generous feeling which had been evinced by the Government and the English public towards Ireland in the present emergency.
LORD CASTLEREAGHmerely rose to express his grateful sense of the great kindness of the House in permitting a night to be devoted to an Irish debate. It could not be desired to throw any impediment in the way of Her Majesty's Ministers; and it would be a great deal better if hon. Gentlemen would reserve speeches and discussions until the intentions of the Government were fully explained. If Gentlemen would peruse with attention the details in those newspapers they were so fond of quoting—if they would only read and reflect on the letter in The Times of that morning, from an officer engaged in Her Majesty's service on the coast of Ireland—if they remembered this was only one of many letters which were received every day, and took into account the difficulties with which the Government had had to contend—every one in that House possessed with feeling and discretion would sink his differences, from whatever part of the United Kingdom he came, and give all his assistance, honestly and impartially, in carrying out the plans and seconding the efforts of the Ministry. He sincerely hoped that, after what had fallen from the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, the batteries levelled by the Members for Bath
292
and Marylebone against the Irish land lords would be silenced. He might take this opportunity of saying what he was unable to state the other night, as he was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, that he deeply regretted he could not support the Motion of his noble Friend the Member for Lynn. He was convinced, however, that if the Government could have done so, they would have been anxious to propose some measure similar to that submitted to the House by the noble Lord; because if, at any future time, Ireland should be visited by such a calamity as was now afflicting that country — if, for instance, the oat crop should fail—the only mode of effectually distributing provisions throughout the country would be by means of a network of railway similar to that which had been established in England. He believed that, if an extensive system of railways had existed in Ireland, much of the present distress might have been avoided; and he hoped this consideration would induce the Government to give their attention to the establishment of railways in that country. He would intreat every hon. Gentleman who wished well to Ireland and to the empire, to allow the Government to get on with their business—to let the people be fed, and then to discuss other measures if they thought fit to do so.
VISCOUNT DUNCANassured the noble Lord who had just sat down, that he would most willingly follow the advice he had given to the House; and he was sure that the tone and manner in which that advice had been given, must have been most gratifying to hon. Members on both sides. He had not intended to take any part in the proceedings of the House that night; he had come down in order to listen to the discussion which he expected would take place on the Bill; and it would have given him much pleasure if the House had gone into Committee long before that time. With regard to the charges which he was represented to have made, he could repeat what he before said, that he had read certain statements from an official book, and had requested to know whether it were possible those statements could be true. He had made no charges; and he had been gratified to hear hon. Members of that House declare that the statements to which he had referred were untrue.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwished to notice an assertion which had been made, that Irish tenants showed no disposition to pay their rents or to labour on the ground. He

293
thought it only just to the Irish tenants to say that, in the part of Ireland with which he was connected, they had evinced the utmost willingness to pay rents, and to bestow their labour on the land. He had been much gratified to hear the announcement of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Irish Poor Law. He wished, however, to inform the noble Lord, that a resolution against the principle of out-door relief had been signed by upwards of seventy Irish Peers and landed proprietors; for he thought it right the noble Lord should know that, if he intended to proceed with his measure, he must be prepared to encounter a strong resistance. For his own part, he (Mr. S. Crawford) was satisfied that nothing could be so beneficial to Ireland as a proper and efficient Poor Law.
House in Committee.

LABOURING POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
On Clause 1 being read,
MR. GOULBURNwished to call the attention of the Committee to a subject which he thought of considerable importance, as involving a constitutional principle, which, as it appeared to him, would be in some measure violated by the Bill now under their consideration. A power had been given to the Government in the last Session to apply an unlimited amount of money from the Consolidated Fund to a specific purpose. It seems that under the necessity of the case, the Government drew the money from the Consolidated Fund, not for the purpose to which Parliament had sanctioned its application, but for promoting a set of works which had never been in the contemplation of Parliament. The Bill now before the House, however, was merely to render valid the acts of the Government; and it was at variance with all former legislation in cases where the law had been transgressed by the Government for the benefit of the community at large. In previous cases it had been the practice not merely to render valid the acts of the Government, but to indemnify the individual officers concerned in doing any acts contrary to the law. He might mention two instances in which this course had been pursued. On one occasion, when in consequence of a violent hurricane in the West Indies, the governors of those colonies, and the Government at home, thought it proper to admit provisions into the colonies in a manner not authorized by law, as soon as Parliament met, an
294
Act was passed not merely to render valid the proceedings of the Government, but specifically to indemnify all those who had advised any act or done any act in violation of the existing law. In 1826, also, when an enormous rise took place in the price of oats, the Government thought it necessary, by an Order in Council, to admit oats contrary to law; and on the meeting of Parliament a measure was adopted, not only legalizing the act of the Government, but indemnifying all the officers who had been engaged in carrying it into effect. He considered, then, that, in the present case, Parliament having confided to the Government an unlimited power of drawing upon the Consolidated Fund, for a specific purpose, and Government having applied the money it drew under that authority to an object which had not been contemplated by Parliament — there was more than ever a necessity for indemnifying all officers who had acted in violation of the law. He, therefore, took this early opportunity of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman opposite the introduction into this first clause of the words necessary to indemnify the individual officers who had acted contrary to the letter of the law, but in obedience to the commands of the Government. He also wished to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the circumstance that, in the Public Works Act of last Session, there was considerable ambiguity in the clause authorizing advances to be made by the Treasury. The first part of the clause provided, that the sums necessary for carrying on the works should be payable out of a fund limited in amount; so that, by this portion of the clause, the discretion of the Treasury was limited as to the amount to be expended. At the end of the clause, however, there were words stating that the Lords of the Treasury might direct the advance of the said several and respective sums out of the Consolidated Fund. The question, therefore, arose, whether the said several and respective sums mentioned in the latter portion of the clause, were the sums described in the preceding part of the clause; or whether the Treasury were to be empowered to draw upon the Consolidated Fund to an unlimited extent. The Government had construed the clause as giving them an unlimited power; but if those who agreed with him in thinking that their power was limited by the former part of the clause to the sum granted annually for

295
public works, were right, it would be necessary to indemnify all the officers who had been engaged in paying out of the Consolidated Fund a larger amount than was sanctioned by law. It might also be a matter for consideration, whether, if it should appear that the Public Works Act of last Session enabled the Government to make unlimited advances, it was expedient to continue to them so extensive a power. It was a power which, he believed, had never been given to any Government before, and which he thought, on constitutional grounds, it was dangerous for Parliament to entrust to any Government. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he made these suggestions in no hostile spirit, or from any desire to interfere with the arrangements they contemplated; but he thought they ought to be cautious that, in a time of great public emergency, they did not consent to acts which, being in violation of the law, might hereafter be drawn into precedents, and involve a departure from all those guards and checks which were imposed upon the issue of public money out of the Treasury.
MR. LABOUCHEREagreed that the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman were of very great importance, and deserved the attentive consideration of the Committee. It was unquestionably of great consequence that, in providing for a period of public exigency, they should not do anything contrary to those constitutional rules and principles which it was of the utmost consequence to preserve inviolate. It was, however, unnecessary for him to enter at length into the questions the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the Committee, for they had already received the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who were in the main entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the course which ought to be taken. It was obvious that proceedings had been taken under the Public Works Act which were not only beyond the law, but against the law, and consequently that the present Bill, which was now merely a Bill to render valid certain proceedings of the Government, ought to be a Bill of Indemnity. With this view a clause had been prepared, which would effect this object, which it was the intention of the Government to propose to add to the Bill, and which, he trusted, would entirely satisfy the scruples of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As to the other point to which the right hon.
296
Gentleman had referred, he apprehended there could not be much doubt that the Bill of last Session gave an unlimited power to the Government of drawing money from the Treasury for the purposes of carrying out the objects of that measure; and he thought it would not be advisable to divest the Government of that power under the continuance Bill. It was impossible to say what sum might be required; the amount indeed could only be limited by the exigency of the case; and the continuance of the measure would be asked for merely until the public works which had been undertaken were completed.
Clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill agreed to.
The House resumed.

FACTORIES BILL.
On the Question, that the Factories Bill be read a Second Time,
MR. LEADERbegged to say, that he thought it most inconvenient that they should that night proceed to read the Bill a second time. The division which took place on the subject was not a fair division; it did not fairly represent the feeling of the House. Wednesday was considered a day for private business, for Railway Bills and similar measures, but not for a Bill of such importance as that to which they were then called upon to give their assent. The hon. Member for Knaresborough might not agree with him in suggesting this postponement, for he was supposed to think the manufacturers the most detestable beings on earth; but he trusted the House would agree with him that they ought not then to read the Bill a second time. Why proceed with it that night—why not appoint next Wednesday for the second reading? He merely mentioned Wednesday, because it unfortunately happened that that was the only day on which the measure had been discussed; and, in fact, he thought that unless the second reading of the Bill was fixed for Monday or Friday, it was utterly impossible that there could be a fair expression of the opinion of the House upon it.
MR. FERRANDsaid, that the hon. Member had said that he had stated in that House that the manufacturers were the most detestable beings on the earth. Now, such words never fell from his lips. If they had, he should have been ashamed of himself; and as attacks of this kind had often been made upon him, he begged to

297
say that no man had a higher opinion of the manufacturers as a body than he had. He had many friends among them, and he knew many of them who were a blessing to the neighbourhoods in which they lived.
MR. BICKHAM ESCOTTsaid, his opinion with respect to this Bill, to a certain degree coincided with that of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Leader); but he was bound to say that he felt on deliberation that the House ought to take the vote of Wednesday last as a vote on the second reading. Therefore he should not offer any opposition to the second reading then; but he begged to give notice, that on the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair on going into Committee, he should consider it a fair opportunity for taking the sense of the House; and it would be his humble duty to move that the House go into Committee that day six months.
Bill read a second time.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND)—POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
LORD J. RUSSELLmoved for leave to bring in a Bill for the appointment of a board for the supervision of the administration of the laws for the relief of the poor in Ireland.
CAPTAIN PECHELLwould take that opportunity of saying, that he, in common with many other Members, thought the time was come when the noble Lord ought to give some assurance to the country that the present Poor Law Commissioners for this country should be no longer allowed to preside over the administration of the relief of the poor. It had been proved by a solemn vote of that House, that they were not worthy to retain their positions, and not worthy of the confidence of the country; and he did think the time was come when the noble Lord, in accordance with his announcement at the beginning of the Session, ought to give notice of a similar measure for England, to that which he had just moved for Ireland. There had been reports in the country that it was the intention of the noble Lord to screen these Commissioners; but he could tell him that nothing would so much tend to lessen the confidence of the country in the noble Lord's Government, as his throwing his power and influence into the scale in order to keep these persons still in authority,
LORD J. RUSSELLthought it was quite necessary after what the hon. and
298
gallant Gentleman had said, that he (Lord J. Russell) should explain the course he intended to take. He had stated on a former occasion that he should propose a different mode of administration of the poor law; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be perfectly aware that the House had of late been engaged, and necessarily engaged, with measures for the relief of Ireland, and moreover engaged not only with measures of the Government of that nature, but with the measure brought in by the noble Lord opposite. It would have been, in his opinion, inexpedient and wrong in the Government, if they had said, "We will put aside all these measures for the relief of Ireland, and take the poor law for England instead." He thought it necessary, as the usual time was approaching, that the House should have the estimates of the year before them without any further delay, and that the Mutiny Bill should be passed. He should propose, after that, to proceed with various measures for Ireland, necessarily connected with the Bill he now proposed. In stating, on a former occasion, that he meant to propose a new mode of administering the poor law in England, he had stated at the same time that he did not found the proposed change on the report of the Andover Union Committee; he stated that he founded his proposal on the general experience of the working of the commission, and with regard to matters connected with the duties of the Poor Law Commissioners coming before that House. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think that the proposal was to be founded on the report of the Andover Union Committee. He repeated that he did not wish to shrink in any way from saying that he did not think the present Poor Law Commissioners were at all undeserving the confidence of the Government or Parliament; but he thought that on other grounds the commission ought to be formed in another way; but if any resolution condemning the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners were moved, he should feel it his duty to defend that conduct.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENsuggested that it was very desirable that one of the three Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland should always be a medical man.
MR. ETWALLrose to ask the noble Lord a question. He wished to know whether the noble Lord intended that the Poor Law Commission, constituted as at present, was to remain in force for any

299
time longer; for he thought the people of England would not be satisfied that the poor laws should be administered by a commission in which they had no confidence?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he had already stated that it was not his intention to postpone bringing forward the measures for the relief of the people of Ireland, for the purpose of introducing a measure relating to the poor law England.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — Reported. — Brewing from Sugar; Distilling from Sugar.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, against the Use of Slave-grown Sugar in Breweries and Distilleries, as promoting Slavery.—By the Earl of Mountcashel, from Killarney, for Repeal of the Forty-fourth Section of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, and for the Adoption of such other Provisions as will render Property throughout the Poor Law Unions in Ireland subject to a Uniform Rate of Taxation for the Support of the Destitute Poor resident therein.—From Cork, for Consolidating the Gaols of that City and County.—From Cork, for Amendment of Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, as to the Appointment of Sheriffs and Recorders.—From Presbytery of Caithness, for the Adoption of a System of Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland.—From Kincardine, and other places, against the Proposed Measure for Lowering the
206
Duty on Rum.—From Proprietors of Sugar Estates in the Mauritius, in Favour of the Brewing from Sugar Bill, and Distilling from Sugar Bill.

RAILWAYS IN INDIA.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that in asking the noble Marquess opposite if he were prepared to lay upon the Table copies of the communications which had taken place between the Indian authorities in this country and the speculators in projected railways in India, he might as well state perhaps what were the circumstances which particularly at the present moment induced him to put the question. Her Majesty's Government had lately, he thought with great propriety, resisted the proposition to give the aid of Government to a great extent in constructing Irish railways. They had done that upon various grounds, but more especially upon financial grounds, under the impression that granting aid, to the extent solicited at least, would have a most prejudicial effect on the money market and finances of this country. He was desirous of knowing, then, if Her Majesty's Ministers were acting on the same principle in giving answers to the requisitions which had been addressed to them, or to the Indian Government, on the subject of the railways projected in India. For a long time he was under the impression that the Government had no idea of giving any guarantee whatever for any amount of interest on the money which might be expended on these railways; but certainly the rumours which reached his ears some short time ago were of such a nature as to induce him to entertain very great apprehensions upon the subject. Their Lordships knew that in this country money could be raised by the Government at about 3½ per cent, and that that might be done to a very considerable amount in successive years without producing any very material effect on the money market. But in India at the present moment, he regretted to say, money could only be obtained by the Government at 5 per cent. It was but recently that the Government of India had felt themselves compelled to open a new loan at 5 per cent. Yet it was understood that the guarantee of the Government was to be proffered to speculators in Indian railways, if not permanently, yet for a period of years, to the extent of 4 per cent interest on their stock. Now, the House would at once see, however great might be the desire of the Indian Government to put an end to the 5 per cent loan, and to return to the 4 per cent

207
loan, that that in point of fact was impracticable whilst money could be lent on railway stock at the same amount of interest, with the same security, with the additional advantage which might be derived from any excess of profits beyond the 4 per cent, and with a certain advantage, in some degree, of a share in the patronage, and, he was sorry to say, in the jobbing which would be connected with these speculations. Now, let the House look at this question, and see what a serious matter this would be, not only as affecting the people of India, but the great mass of individuals who vested their money in the securities of the Government of that country. The effect of opening the 5 per cent loan was this: Before it was opened, and when there was only a 4 per cent loan, the 5 per cents were at a very considerable premium, and the 4 per cents were, of course, about par; but the instant the 5 per cent loan was opened, the premium on the 5 per cent stock disappeared, nor would any man then purchase the 4 per cents at par. They fell considerably, and were now from 10 to 12 per cent discount. The combined operation of these two circumstances—the loss of the premium upon the 5 per cent stock, and the depreciation of the 4 per cent—caused in point of fact a loss of 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l. in the value of the funded debt of India to the proprietors. In the month in which he landed in India, a 5 per cent loan had been opened; but so low was the credit of the Government, that only 35,000 l. had been raised on the 5 per cent; while the 4 per cents had fallen to a great discount. Within eleven months he closed the 5 per cent loan: and when he departed, he could have raised any sum of money required, at 4 per cent. He left 10,000,000 l. in the treasury, and had no doubt that, with a little assistance, he could have succeeded in reducing the rate of interest. Matters were soon changed; the 5 per cent loan which he closed was reestablished, and the 4 per cents were at as great a discount as he found them on arriving in India after the Affghan war. For this he attributed no blame to the Indian Government in respect to its expenditure, because they were obliged to extend the army, and move large bodies of men. These were necessary expenses; and he believed that the Gentleman at the head of the financial department of India, who was a man of great ability and honesty, must submit with great reluctance to the necessity of opening this 5 per cent loan.
208
But a recurrence to a 4 per cent loan would be rendered impossible if 4 per cent was to be guaranteed to Indian railway companies. The fault was in this country; and it was not fair to the people of India, when money could be raised here at 3½ per cent, that the credit of the Company in England should never be brought to bear in aid of the credit of the Company in India, but that the people of India should be obliged to give 5 per cent for money to be remitted here in discharge of obligations, thus paying 1½ per cent more for every 100 l. raised for the use of the Indian Government, than need be given in this country.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved that the noble Earl had given notice of his intention to put a question on the subject of railways in India; he would, therefore, proceed now to state how the matter stood, without entering into the consideration of the general policy that ought to be pursued in India. The question put to him was, as to whether there had been any portion of the public finances pledged to the promotion of railways in India. He had no objection to produce any information that could be afforded as to the state of the case. Two months had now elased since the Board of Control had made known to companies desirous of speculating in railways in India, on what terms advances might be made in favour of those undertakings. Two months, he said, had elapsed since that statement had been made, and no answer had been received from those companies. This statement was in itself a good proof that the terms on which the advances were to be made, were not so very favourable, or an answer would have been received much sooner. It would, he thought, be premature, before the correspondence closed by an answer being received from the companies, to lay before the country what were the terms on which those advances were to be made. He was sure that when the correspondence was laid before the public, it would be seen that the utmost degree of caution had been used; and that at no time was it contemplated to make a loan for the purpose of assisting those undertakings. As to the general question, he said that he entirely agreed with the noble Earl in thinking that the same degree of caution ought to be used with regard to the promotion of railways in India, on any insecure foundation, as in any other part of the empire. When the correspondence was completed, he should state fully what had taken place

209
with respect to the establishment of railways in India.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: He hoped there would be no objection to give loans to Irish railways on the same terms as those offered to speculators in Indian railroads. He thought the rejection of the Bill introduced with regard to Irish railways, in another place, most unfortunate; and he hoped Ministers would not afford, by the superior facilities they held out for the formation of railways in India, an additional argument to those who demanded a repeal of the Union.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: We must wait until we see the terms offered to Indian speculators to judge of that.
The EARL of RIPONobserved, that when he was at the Board of Control, in consequence of applications made to him on the subject of Indian railways, which he regarded as advantageous for the purposes of internal communication and national defence, a commission was sent to India to make certain preliminary inquiries. At the time he left office, the preliminary inquiries had not been completed. If any decision had been come to by the commission, it was desirable that it should be made known.

RAILWAYS—THE CURRENCY.
LORD ASHBURTONmoved for the following returns:—
"Account of the Capital or Stock authorized to be raised by any Railway Companies by any Acts passed during the Two last Sessions of Parliament, of the Amount of Money actually so raised, and of the Amount remaining to be paid: Also,
"Account of the Sums authorized to be borrowed by all Railway Companies under the Powers given them by any Acts of the Two last Sessions of Parliament: Also,
"Account of all Sums borrowed by all the several Railway Companies from the Period of their Commencement to the present Time; distinguishing each Year, and stating the Amount of such Debt still outstanding; stating also the Rate of Interest at which such Sums were borrowed, and the several Periods when the Money so borrowed is promised to be repaid: Also,
"Account of the Amount which each of the several Railway Companies have still Power to borrow by their several Acts of Parliament: Also,
"Account of the proposed Amount of Capital, and of the proposed Power of borrowing, of all Railways of which Notice has been given to the Railway Commissioners, of Bills intended to be presented to Parliament during the present Session: Also,
"Account of the value of all Gold and Silver Coin and Bullion in the Bank of England, and of the Bank Notes in Circulation, exclusive of the Notes held in reserve in the Banking Department, at the several Periods when the Returns are
210
made public, from the 1st January 1846 down to the latest Period: Also,
"A Monthly Return of Public Securities held by the Bank of England, during the same Period: Also,
"Return of the Amount of discounted Bills by the Bank of England, during the same Period: And also,
"Return of all Investments by the Bank of England in the Bonds, Debentures, or other Engagements for borrowing Money of any Railway Company; stating the Periods of such Investments, the Rate of Interest at which they were made, the Periods of promised Repayment, and the Sums still remaining due to the Bank."
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid, that with respect to the first set of returns relating to railways, there was no objection to the noble Lord's Motion; nor in reference to the second set was there any objection to the return of the value of the gold and silver coin in the Bank, &c., for that was information which was already made public. With respect, however, to the three other returns relating to the Bank of England, he hoped the noble Lord would not press for them. He was not there making any objection on the part of the Bank; but his noble Friend must see tha it would be prejudicial even to such an establishment as the Bank of England to publish such information. His noble Friend's experience and knowledge in banking affairs, must point out to him the injustice of compelling the Bank of England to publish an account of their proceedings in private transactions, and to lay themselves bare to the rivalry of joint-stock and other banks from which the same information was not required. It was notorious that this sort of information had been refused by the directors to the proprietors. During the discussion of the Bank Charter Act, ample care was taken to secure the publication of all the information which was thought necessary; but Parliament did not require the nature of the securities to be made known, because that might affect other parties as well as the Bank — those parties, for instance, whether merchants or manufacturers, to whom, being in distress, the Bank might have lent money. His noble Friend had not brought forward any charge against the Bank of England for mismanagement; and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would not assent to what would amount to a departure from the Act of Parliament regulating the Bank of England.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, it was impossible to observe the effects produced on

211
the currency, without being, at least, anxious to ascertain the latent causes; and if the information he asked for could be given without any injury to the Bank of England, it would be bad grace in that establishment to withhold it. He would not press for the production of any papers which his noble Friend opposite might object to lay before their Lordships; but he presumed that, instead of the monthly returns of Exchequer-bills, there would be no objection to a monthly return of the public securities in the Bank of England.
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved, that his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) would not be justified in drawing any inference injurious to the directors of the Bank of England from the refusal to produce all the papers for which he had moved. Certain periodical returns were obligatory upon the Bank; but he (Lord Monteagle) thought it would be at least imprudent to call for any other returns from the Bank, to which there might be objection, unless the necessity of the case was overwhelming; and he must confess that he did not think such necessity now existed.
LORD BROUGHAMhad no doubt the Bank would not object to the production of the returns for which his noble Friend had moved. If any inference did arise from the non-production of these returns, it was possible that the Bank might graciously come forward and volunteer to produce them; and if that were the case, he dared say his noble Friend would be quite satisfied. The withdrawal of the present Motion would not prevent the Bank from volunteering these returns; and if they were not afforded, he (Lord Brougham) would have a lurking suspicion that the directors agreed with the noble President of the Board of Trade, and that there was some reason for objecting to their production.
LORD ASHBURTONhoped it would not be supposed that he had cast any reflection whatever on the directors of the Bank of England, who were most honourable in their transactions, and for whom it was impossible for any one to entertain greater respect than he did. His object in asking for this information was merely to ascertain to what extent the agency of the Bank had been carried in the operations to which he had on a former occasion referred.
The two first sets of returns were then agreed to; the last withdrawn.

BREWING FROM SUGAR BILL—DISTILLING FROM SUGAR BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Brewing from Sugar Bill.
The EARL of CLARENDON: My Lords, before I proceed to move that you go into Committee on the Bills now on your Lordships' Table, I will take leave to say a few words with respect to what fell from my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) the other evening, and also with respect to what fell from my noble Friend to-night, with reference to the permanent character of the measures for permitting the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries. My noble Friend thought that these measures ought to be of the same temporary character, and for the same reason, as the Bill which was introduced in Parliament for permitting, till the 1st of September next, the free importation of foreign corn. My noble Friend stated the other night, that these measures were all mentioned together in the Queen's Speech from the Throne, as intended for the relief of existing distress. A limited duration was, however, confined to the Bills for the suspension of the Navigation and the Corn Laws; and my noble Friend opposite, on the first night of the Session, remarked on the different character of the present Bills, and, assuming that they might be permanent, commented on the danger which might threaten the agricultural interest from their adoption. Now, my Lords, although these Bills may serve to prevent a rise in the price of barley, and to mitigate the present distress, yet I am bound to say, that even if Ireland had not been afflicted by famine, the Bill for permitting the use of sugar in breweries would have been introduced, in redemption of a pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the close of the last Session of Parliament, and as an act of justice to our fellow-subjects in the colonies. The West India interests were distinctly promised that their claims, which were put forward, I must say, on irresistible grounds, to have their productions placed on fair and equal terms of consumption with all other productions, should be considered at the earliest period of the present Session. They claimed that consideration of us not only as an act of justice, but as their right; and they referred to those arguments which were used with so much force and eloquence by my noble Friend opposite, when he brought forward his measure for the admission of Canadian

213
corn into this country, insisting that Canada should be treated as an integral part of the British empire, and asking a British House of Commons whether it was wise, or just, or generous, that fiscal regulations should be allowed to stand in the way of such an object. My Lords, the West India interests had some cause of complaint that their reasonable claims were not taken into consideration earlier; and it was nothing but the late period of the Session at which the Government measures were introduced, and the pressing nature of the business which devolved upon Ministers, owing to all measures having been postponed by the length of the corn law debates, as well as the necessity for making elaborate calculations before any step was taken, that prevented earlier legislation on the subject. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government were bound to be prepared with a measure of a fair and liberal character, as well as permanent in its operation; and that obligation was all the more pressing because we had reason to expect that it might afford some temporary relief to the existing distress at home. To make this measure a temporary one, so far from being an act of justice towards the West Indies, would be an act of injustice, and they would prefer to be without it. It would give rise to agitation for the renewal of the measure, and lead to much gambling and speculation, and to much disappointment and annoyance, if this measure were only to last till the 1st of September next. No man would venture to embark his capital in the trade while such a state of things existed; it would neither afford security to the colonies, nor to the brewers and distillers at home. These, my Lords, were the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to bring forward this measure as a permanent one. And I think that, even as regards our own interests, reasons equally cogent may be given for investing the measure with a permanent character. If we bear in mind the course which legislation has taken for some time past, I think it may be concluded that restrictions of any kind whatever cannot be maintained upon articles of food. I think that when Parliament has subjected the producer of malt to competition with foreign barley growers, we cannot exclude them from competition with the productions of our own colonies. I think that we can no longer allow a penalty of 200 l. to be levied on our brewers for having the productions of our colonies in their brewhouses. And,
214
my Lords, it must not be kept out of sight that this proposed change in the law will affect only public brewers, and not private brewers. The private brewer, brewing for the consumption of a large establishment of workmen or servants, may use as much sugar as he pleases; though I am bound to say that I never heard of sugar being used to any extent. At the same time I must say, my Lords, that we are bound to show some good reasons, founded upon public utility, before we impose any restriction on the use of sugar in breweries. Now, with respect to revenue, it is a matter of indifference whether malt or sugar be used in the making of beer. The duty on a quarter of malt is 21 s. 8d. a quarter, and 22 s. 6d. is the duty on 180 lbs of sugar, which is considered to be equal to a quarter of malt, at the very lowest calculation. My Lords, I believe this calculation is too low; it is taken at 200 lbs. in the Bill, and I believe that the latter calculation is very nearly correct. I believe that formerly 180 lbs. would have been a correct calculation; but owing to various circumstances, particularly in consequence of the greater skill attained in brewing, I believe 180 lbs. of sugar is no longer equal to a quarter of malt: 200 lbs. is as nearly correct as may be, though I have heard within the last few days the calculation made at 210 lbs. I will, however, take the calculation at 180 lbs., because that is the point at which the agriculturists consider that this measure is likely to affect their interests. If, therefore, 180 lbs. of sugar, paying 22 s. 6d. duty, displaces a quarter of malt, paying 21 s. 8d. duty, the revenue certainly would be a gainer. But sugar never can be used as a substitute for malt, except when the price of sugar is extremely low, or that of malt is extravagantly high. An admixture of a certain portion of sugar, however, in breweries, is very advantageous; it facilitates fermentation, and expedites the whole process of brewing; and if the beer be improved by the effect of this measure, the demand for it would be improved also, and the agricultural interest will be in that sense a gainer. Now, for some time past barley has risen in value, and for some time it has maintained a price quite unparalleled. The quarter of malt has been as high as 87 s., 88 s., and 89 s., and the price of beer has been raised 1d. a pot; and let me tell your Lordships that an addition of 20 per cent on the price of his beer, is no trifling consideration to a poor man. This price of malt was so extrava-

215
gantly high, that while it kept up to this point, some of the first houses in London actually suspended their malting operations. Now, if the use of sugar had been allowed at that time, the price of beer would not have been raised. It is, therefore, I say, that in times like these this measure will not be of that absolutely nugatory character which my noble Friend seemed to suppose it would be. Taking malt at 84 s. the quarter, which it is worth now, and deducting therefrom 2s. 6d., as an allowance to the trade, the quarter of malt would stand at the price of 81 s. 6d. to the purchaser; and again, taking sugar at 47 s. per cwt., 180 lbs. would be worth 75 s. 6d. There is, therefore, at present the difference between 81 s. 6d., and 75 s. 6d. in favour of the use of sugar above that of malt—a difference which I think may safely be afforded at such a moment as this. To whatever extent this may act upon the price of grain, your Lordships would find in the present circumstances of the country, in the failure of the potato crop, and the apprehension of still greater distress before the summer was over, sufficient reason to leave nothing undone that may have the effect of reducing the prices of grain. At the present time, therefore, this measure would serve to mitigate in some degree the existing distress; but in ordinary times, when malt is at 60 s. the quarter, sugar at 75 s. 6d. will be too high for the purposes of brewing. And, my Lords, even if it were not too high, we have the evidence of Mr. Whitbread, and other eminent brewers, given before a Committee of the House of Commons, which shows that, under no circumstances, could a proportion of more than one-fourth or one-third of sugar be used in breweries, without greatly deteriorating the quality of the beer. Upon the whole, the tendency of this measure, I confidently believe, will be to benefit the brewer as well as the grower of barley. It is contended by the West India interest that the use of molasses should also be permitted; but we do not think it expedient to agree to this proposition. The duty on molasses at this moment is 5s. 9d.; and if 250 lbs. of molasses are equivalent to a quarter of malt, the duty on molasses must be raised to 9s., in order to make the duty on sugar and molasses equal. But further, molasses vary very much in saccharine strength; and though some persons consider 250 lbs. may be equal to a quarter of malt, others consider 260 lbs. a fair equivalent. This
216
would lead to the necessity of having an excise duty imposed equal to the difference between these rates of duty. Now the excise duty would occasion as much inconvenience to the brewer in the prosecution of his business, as if the beer duty were to be reimposed. I must say that I believe that the admission of sugar on those terms would not benefit the West Indies, because the more the cultivation of sugar is attended to in the colonies, the less there will be of molasses sent over to this country. I now come to the introduction of sugar into distilleries. I must remind your Lordships that at present sugar is not permitted to be used in distilleries. A revenue of 5,200,000 l. is raised from British spirits, the duty being imposed on the principle of getting the greatest possible amount that can be raised. Many attempts have been made to raise the revenue by increasing the duty on spirits. I need hardly remind your Lordships that those attempts have always failed, and that it was found necessary to reduce them in order to prevent fraud on the revenue. It is not thought right to mix the duty on grain and sugar, and it is therefore proposed to admit the use of sugar duty free in distilleries, only calling upon the distiller to pay an amount of duty equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the corresponding quantity of malt. Spirits produced from grain are composed of two parts of oats, two parts of malt, and eighteen parts of barley, and the result of this distillation is charged with a duty of 7s. 10 d. per gallon, plus the duty already paid on the two quarters of malt. It is proposed that the spirit produced from sugar shall pay the same duty as spirit produced from grain, plus a sum equal to that which has been paid on the malt. It is proposed also that the distiller shall be permitted to take the sugar out of the bonding warehouse, paying the duty on it, and when he comes to pay the spirit duty, he shall have an allowance made him equal to the difference between the duty he had paid on the sugar, and that which he would have to pay on the malt. That difference was calculated at 14 d. per gallon, consequently an allowance of 12 s. 10 d. on the quantity of spirit which would be produced from 1 cwt. of sugar would be received, back leaving it charged (as we understood) with the duty paid on the malt. The question, therefore, is what is the amount of spirit which can be produced from sugar. From 1799 to 1812, the temporary use of sugar in distilleries

217
was at various times allowed. Calculations were then made that 11½ gallons of spirit were produced from 112 lbs. of sugar. In 1812, when the Bill was passed permitting the general use of sugar in distilleries, and again in 1831, when the question was investigated before a Committee of the House of Commons, it appeared that 11½ gallons of spirit were produced from 112 lbs. of sugar. The Board of Excise have also made experiments through the agency of most experienced officers, and they have no hesitation in stating that 11½ gallons of spirit at proof is the result of distilling from that quantity of sugar. Even since that time fresh experiments have been made by one of the most eminent chemists in London, the results of which show the exactness of former experiments. Now, in times like the present, when distilling barley is about 54 s. the quarter, sugar, which is 47 s. per cwt., is just on an equality with barley. But in ordinary times, when barley for distillation is at 30 s. the quarter, which I think the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) will admit is a good price for ordinary times, sugar must be at 17 s. to compete with barley—a price at which it never has been, and never is likely to be. The competition, therefore, between the two articles must depend on their relative prices, and therefore, though these Bills are permanent in their nature, they must always be temporary in their operation. I do not think that the agriculturists will regret this, for I am sure that I can do the agricultural body no greater injustice than to suppose that they wish to turn to their own individual profit the distress of their fellow-countrymen. I have now, my Lords, endeavoured to state, without the least exaggeration on either side, the reasons which have induced the Government to bring forward these measures, and I have endeavoured as briefly as I could to make the subject clear to your Lordships. I can assure my noble Friend, that if I thought any light could be thrown upon the question, or if any fresh data could be obtained, I should not object to his Motion for referring the Brewing from Sugar Bill to a Select Committee. But convinced as I am that the calculations on which they are founded are quite correct, and that no further information can be required or obtained, and thinking that some good may be produced by passing the measure without further delay, I trust that your Lordships will allow the Bill to be con-
218
sidered in a Committee of the whole House.
[Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."]
LORD STANLEY: I hope, before I proceed to offer any comment upon the observations which have been just made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon), that it will not be considered disrespectful in me, if, in reference to the noble Earl's commencing observations, I once again call your Lordships' attention to the Speech which was delivered by Her Majesty from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. In that Speech, as I stated the other night, we were informed it would be the duty of Parliament—
"To consider what further measures are required to alleviate the existing distress. I recommend to you to take into your serious consideration whether, by increasing, for a limited period, the facilities for importing corn from foreign countries, and by the admission of sugar more freely into breweries and distilleries, the supply of food may be beneficially augmented."
I think it cannot be denied that when Parliament met, the natural and necessary inference which was to be drawn from that passage of the Speech from the Throne was, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to advise Parliament to adopt such measures as were best calculated to alleviate the existing distress—measures which, in the first place, would permit the freer admission of corn into this country, as well as the freer admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries. I cannot however, but repeat the expression of my regret that what I consider the wise and judicious recommendations of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Ashburton), namely, to keep quite distinct and separate those measures which were introduced for the amelioration of the existing distress, from those which were founded on a more general and permanent character, have not been followed by Her Majesty's Ministers. I am quite certain, at all events, that Her Majesty's Government will do this House and the other House of Parliament the justice to say, with respect to those measures that have been laid before them for the purpose of the alleviation of the existing distress, that they have not been embarrassed by any factious opposition—nay, more, that they have not even been subjected to those questions which, under ordinary circumstances (and as they confessed themselves), they would be liable. I think Her Majesty's Government must also admit that

219
there has not been the slightest disposition manifested to interrupt, not even for a single moment, the passing of those measures which were introduced with the expectation of mitigating or alleviating the existing distress. Although it has not been contended that these measures as a whole are not temporary, but rather permanent measures, yet I do say if the Government had been prepared to produce them as temporary measures, there would be no occasion for any discussion whatever respecting them, nor would it be necessary to raise the question of referring them to a Committee. I am satisfied as respects them, and all the other measures which had for their object the alleviation of the existing distress, there would not have been a dissentient voice raised against them in either House of Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that I did not intend the other night to give any offence when I used the expression "under cover;" still my opinion is, while those measures are introduced to alleviate the general distress, they will rather effect a complete alteration in every portion of your commercial policy. I think, therefore, that I do not go too far in saying that that slight examination which your Lordships would have felt justified in giving to a measure which was intended to be temporary only, will not be sufficient to justify you in passing it without a sufficient, nay, the very fullest, examination and information, when it is brought forward as a measure which, it is admitted, will have an immediate effect on the sugar growers in our colonies and in foreign countries, and on the barley growers also, both here and in other countries. On former occasions there has not been any difficulty experienced in passing temporary measures of a similar kind. In 1797, in 1803, as well as upon several subsequent occasions, with a view to this very case, measures were introduced for the purpose of sanctioning the temporary use of sugar in breweries and distilleries; and if, for the alleviation of the present distress, the noble Earl had said, "We think it expedient, for the next six months, to allow the admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries, for, as the stock of barley is small, it will be important to economise the stock of grain (though I doubt that they would under such circumstances have been able to effect their object)—even were the noble Lord to propose a still stronger step, and to prohibit the use of grain in distilleries until the next harvest, which
220
would be infinitely a more effectual means to promote their purposes than the present; if, I say, such a course had been adopted, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of Parliament to it. The noble Lord talked about a pledge that had been made to the West India colonies last year. What is that pledge? For what purpose was it made? And by whom? How was the Parliament made a party to that pledge? We were told it was made at the close of the last Session of Parliament; but are we, at the commencement of this Session of Parliament, to be debarred from the full and close discussion of measures which will affect the permanent and commercial policy of this country by the anwer that Her Majesty's Government had made a certain promise at the close of the last Session of Parliament? If Her Majesty's Government did enter into any such pledge, it was impossible that they could do anything more than to say to the West Indian colonists that their claims would be taken into consideration. That is all the Government could do. I do not object to the fulfilment of that pledge. I also say let those claims be taken into consideration; but let us not accept these measures on the mere declaration of Her Majesty's Government. Let us inquire whether that which we are told was asked as a boon, be a boon; let us inquire whether the tendency, in point of fact, might not be, as the noble Earl has, in my opinion, proved—that the supposed boon will be nugatory and ineffectual as regards our interest; let it be ascertained by inquiry whether what will be considered as a boon to the West Indian colonists, will not be rather a boon to foreign producers; for it is my strong impression, that whereas the West Indies will really gain very little at once by these measures; on the other hand, as the diminishing weight of the duty reduced the pressure of that duty on the foreign producer, so, more and more, will these measures prove advantageous to the foreign producer, by enabling him to enter into competition with the West Indian colonists; while, at the same time, they will operate mischievously to the barley-grower in this country. The noble Earl has cited the instance of the Canadian Corn Bill, and quoted a speech which I am supposed to have made in support of that measure, in which I remonstrated against the injustice of placing the colonists on a different footing from the British grower. Upon

221
that occasion I stated that I had given, on the part of the Government, a pledge to the Canadians; and that I did so in the face of Parliament, and that Parliament did assent to the arrangement. On the specific declaration so given, the Motion then before the House to raise Canadian wheat to the same footing as British wheat, was withdrawn, on the understanding that that measure should be adopted; but it was only to be adopted, provided certain measures should also be carried out by the Canadian Parliament, which was afterwards done. But when and how was this pledge given to the West India interest?
The EARL of CLARENDON: In the House of Commons.
LORD STANLEY: In the House of Commons; and sometime, I suppose, towards the conclusion of the month of August last?
The EARL of CLARENDON: When the Sugar Bill was before that House.
LORD STANLEY: I must remind the noble Earl that there is a wide difference between the principle of a measure like the Canadian Corn Bill, and a measure which, by introducing the produce of foreign countries in rivalry with the produce of our own colonies, by so much tends permanently to exclude the produce of those colonies. But I desire to protest against that most dangerous line of argument which Her Majesty's Government appear to have adopted on this question—against that dangerous chain of argument, of one step following upon another step, though the one might not be contemplated when the other was allowed—a mode of proceeding which it becomes your Lordships to watch. First, a measure was introduced to destroy protection to British agriculture and to home-grown corn. To procure support to that measure, some of the producers of this country, and the agriculturists amongst them, were told that they should have sugar cheap in return. Then, when the Sugar Bill was brought forward, a negotiation came on with the West India proprietors, and then the Government came down with a pledge, and asked from them a promise not to resist these measures, because they were told that if carried, they, the West India interest, would have their sugar introduced into the British market to an extent they had never had before. I have watched this measure with increased jealousy from what has occurred within the last few weeks. At the commencement of the Session, we were told
222
that certain measures of a mere temporary nature would be brought before us, intended solely for the purpose of facilitating the introduction of corn into this country; and to effect that, we were also told it would be expedient to relax the navigation laws. Not a dissentient voice was raised against those temporary measures. But within one week of that time what followed? A Motion was made in the other House, in which it was urged that all other restrictions having been taken off, the shipowners had no claim to protection on their part—that the foreign producer had a right to send, and the British consumer had a right to receive, on equal terms, in the ships of any nation they pleased, what they required. It was then affirmed that restrictions on trade could not be permanently maintained. That it followed as a necessary consequence from the admission of the principle of free trade, that the restrictions which so long protected the British Navy by the navigation laws, must be swept away from our Statute-book as the lumber of former times. And what did the Government do? Did they consider it to be a question which ought to be delegated to a Committee of the House of Commons? Was the maintenance of the navigation laws one on which the Government had or had not made up their minds? Did they require information; or had they it not in their power to say, "We intend to resist the repeal of the navigation laws; we will not therefore consent to put in the small end of the wedge by giving the sanction of our authority to an inquiry professedly instituted for the destruction of those navigation laws?" But when that inquiry was moved for with these avowed objects, Her Majesty's Government not only gave their assent, but they gave their prompt assent, to the proposition for an inquiry having that result. Sometimes, I know, it may be convenient and proper to promote inquiry: when questions are brought forward by Motions for Committees of Inquiry, when the real object is to sift a measure, and to have an examination of the facts and figures on which it is founded, a very different course may be properly pursued by the Government. The experience of to-night shows, that in such a case as this it is convenient to the Government to refuse inquiry; although, in other cases, they can grant it, where the objects to be gained by the assent to an inquiry were open and notorious, and where, in-

223
deed, it was for the Government to decide whether they had not arrived at a point where they ought to stop; or whether, on the other hand, they should not follow what some might consider their legitimate course, that of carrying out the doctrines of free trade. But, with all the leaning of Her Majesty's Government in favour of free-trade doctrines, it seemed that they could get rid of them even in these Bills, when the revenue was concerned. Although the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) has announced to us that it is impossible that restrictions on trade should continue; that you could not exclude the produce of your own colonies, and much more that of other countries; yet, I find, notwithstanding this doctrine of free trade, a prohibitory clause in this Bill. I find in the third clause of the first of these Bills a provision—
"That if after the passing of this Act, any brewer shall make use of molasses, sugar, honey, syrup, or extract of sugar, except sugar on which the duty has been paid as aforesaid, and made use of in the manner hereinbefore allowed; or if any such person receives or takes into his custody or possession any quantity of molasses, honey, syrup, composition, or extract of sugar, every such brewer shall forfeit and lose for every such offence the sum of 200 l."
I do not say but that this may be a very proper restriction for the purpose of revenue; but bear in mind that we must conclude from that clause, as well as from its introduction by the Government, that those free-trade principles are to be taken up, or to be unceremoniously thrown down, if there be any fear that either to adopt them or to maintain them would at all interfere with the revenue. The doctrines of free trade, no matter how destructive to private interests, to those who may have embarked their capital in commercial enterprise, must be maintained; but if the principles of free trade interfere with the revenue, free trade must yield. If the principles of free trade be sacred, more sacred is the revenue. I beg it may be understood, that if the doctrine of free trade can be so unceremoniously laid aside from the fear of injury to the revenue, is it not the duty of Government also to sanction and to encourage those interests which increase the capital of the country, and, as a necessary consequence, augment its revenues? The noble Earl, when he entered on this question, went into the discussion of the probable results of the measure he proposed; respecting which, the facts and figures have gone a great way to convince me—so far,
224
at least, as the agricultural interests of this country are concerned—that the whole affair is neither more nor less than waste paper. So far as the West India colonies are concerned, the boon is a mere nullity; and as to the present state of distress, if the noble Earl's facts and figures be correct, the introduction of sugar is barely possible (if it be possible at all) even at the present price of malt and barley.
The EARL of CLARENDON: You do not refer to breweries?
LORD STANLEY: I am not only arguing against the proposition of the noble Earl, but I also argue that, before your Lordships adopt this principle of general policy, you ought to satisfy yourselves by instituting that inquiry which was granted on many former occasions, whether the facts and figures adduced are correct, and whether they are the sole basis on which the noble Earl has proceeded. I almost despair on so intricate a subject of making myself intelligible to your Lordships, in detailing the calculations upon which the measure was founded. But, from what I have to show you, there is hardly a point on which there is an agreement as to the proportion between sugar and malt, or between sugar and barley, with the view to the production of spirits or beer; so that there was no real agreement about that upon which the whole of the measure depends. The noble Earl assumes that 112lbs. of sugar will produce 11½ gallons of spirits; but he goes on to say, that, to find an equivalent in barley or malt, you must examine into the quantity of spirits that barley or malt will produce: now, upon the fact of what quantity of spirits a certain quantity of barley or malt will produce, depends the correctness of the calculations of the noble Earl. The noble Earl says, that it is undecided whether a quarter of malt will be equal to 180lbs. or 200lbs. of sugar; and with that great difference, amounting to two gallons out of twenty gallons, one-tenth of the whole, he yet says you will be able to come to a close computation between these different articles. Moreover, the noble Earl added, that he assumed in the Bill 200lbs. — but he argued upon 180lbs. If the noble Earl will look back to the evidence which was taken before the Committee in 1831, he will find the most contradictory statements made on this subject. One gentleman stated, that 180lbs. was equal to a quarter of malt, and that it ought to produce 18 gallons of spirit, or the same proportion of 11½

225
gallons to 112lbs. Upon that inquiry, many questions arose as to the quantity of spirits which a quarter of malt would yield. One gentleman said, that 18 gallons might be produced from a bare quarter of the best malt—that he had been engaged in the trade to a large extent, and that the highest amount he succeeded in obtaining, was 18 gallons from a quarter, and that the lowest amount was 14 gallons from a quarter—the average being 16 gallons from the quarter—exhibiting a difference of one-fifth of the whole amount of the price of the article. Next, a gentleman stated, that he believed 18 gallons of spirits might be produced from superior barley. Again, it was stated by another, that he produced 18 gallons of spirits from a quarter of malt, but it was superior malt—it contained 80lbs. of pure saccharine matter; and, finally, it was stated by another, that he believed the whole amount of spirits which was produced from a quarter of malt, was not 18 nor 16, but 15·84 gallons, or nearly 16 gallons. The result is, that instead of comparing with 200lbs., you will have to compare with 160lbs.; and then there is a difference of 40lbs. weight in the computation upon which this question is to be decided. I have endeavoured to make this statement as intelligible as possible, and I hope I have succeeded. I have not taken upon credit any statement that has been made on one side or the other of the House; but I have carefully examined into the facts that were alleged by the noble Earl, and I ask if they were borne out by the evidence? Here, then, is a positive difficulty—a difference sufficient to justify me in calling on your Lordships not to take on credit any statement made on the other side, but to examine into the facts; and I am convinced that, when they come to be sifted into, and examined, it will be found that the matter will be of little consequence to the colonists or the agriculturists here, but that they will find themselves much affected by the stimulus which this measure will afford to the increased importation of foreign sugar. I find, also, that when the Government experiments were made which served as the foundation for these measures, the price of Havannah sugar was 49 s. Suppose, then, that which the noble Lord did suppose to be the fact, and which he believed to be the fact, that a quarter of malt is equal to 200lbs. of sugar, look at the result. The calculation which excise officers will give, is, that
226
sugar at 50 s. 4d., which is only 1s. 4d. below the present price, is equivalent to the price of malt at 90 s. the quarter; it is evident that until malt reach the price of 90 s. a quarter, sugar cannot be brought into competition with malt. If that be true, it completely disposes of the remedy now proposed to alleviate the present distress, because at the present exorbitant price, sugar cannot be brought into consumption at the present price to compete with barley and malt. But, my Lords, the noble Lord appears strenuously to contend, that at some time or other the introduction of sugar for the use of breweries and distilleries, must be attended with advantage. That doctrine, whether true or false, is an admission of the principle of the sliding-scale—it is an application of the sliding-scale to sugar—it is saying that the quantity of sugar introduced into this country did bear a certain proportion to the rise or fall in corn. This from the opponents of the sliding-scale, or those who have heretofore been the opponents of the sliding-scale, is a novelty—their doctrine now appears to be, that the course which they recommended with respect to colonial sugar must be adopted, in order to prevent uncertainty in the price of colonial produce. I will not enter into the noble Lord's calculations, because they are not proper matter for discussion in this House, but in a Committee, where they can be examined, tested, and sifted; and this forms the strongest possible ground for the appointment of such a Committee. If before such a Committee it should be found that Her Majesty's Government are correct in their statements, I am quite sure there will be no disposition on the part of those who advocate the principles of protection to oppose the measure. They will then adopt the proposal without the least fear as to the result; but with a diminished doubt as to the benefits the colonists are likely to derive from it. I should wish to call attention to the manner in which the noble Lord thinks the colonists are to be benefited by this measure. The greatest benefit which it could confer upon the colonists, would be a considerable rise in the price of sugar; but if a rise takes place, according to the hypothesis in the argument of the noble Earl, it is impossible that colonial produce can come into consumption at all. The noble Earl said, that a very large increase in the consumption of sugar in this country, must materially benefit the West Indian interest.

227
I very much doubt that fact. I much doubt whether any increase in the consumption of sugar here, will benefit the West Indian interest in the present state of your law, and the duty on your produce remaining fixed, while the duty on foreign slave-grown sugar has been diminished. On the contrary, any increase in the consumption must be an increase in the consumption of slave-grown and not of colonial produce. In the course of the year 1844, the consumption of sugar in this country was 206,000 tons. In 1845, the consumption was 240,000 tons of British, and 3,867 tons of foreign sugar; making altogether, in round numbers, 244,000 tons as the consumption of 1845. Now, supposing the consumption of the last month of 1846 to be on an average with the remainder of the year, the total consumption of sugar in 1846 would be from 244,000 to 260,000 tons. Was that increase for the advantage of the colonial grower? Certainly not. In the first year—1845—of a consumption amounting to 244,000 tons, 240,000 were British; in the second year, of the 260,000 tons consumed, the British produce was less by 2,000 tons than that of the previous year; while the foreign and slave-grown sugar had increased from 3,867 to 8,192. Now, my Lords, unless I am misinformed, the same thing is going on in the present year. There has been an increase of about 1,500 tons of British sugar as compared with the corresponding period of last year, while there has been an increase of 7,072 tons of foreign slave-grown sugar. It appears, then, that any increase in the consumption under the proposed arrangement, will be an increase of slave-grown and not of colonial sugar. In four years' hence the whole of the benefit of increased consumption will be conferred on the producers of slave-grown sugar. In four years time estates will be improved, cultivation extended, slaves imported, and production immensely increased; and what then? Why, those increased productions will not come in on the same footing, in competition with the colonial grower in the colonies and the agricultural grower here, but with the additional advantage of 7s. a quarter in favour of the foreigner, and against your own colonists. Now, can it be doubted that if the increased consumption of sugar here, be it for beer or anything else, have any effect, it must be for the benefit of slave-grown sugar, and not of colonial? The noble Earl referred to the question of the distil-
228
leries, and told my noble Friend that malt at 60 s. requires sugar to be at 36 s., in order to render it possible to bring the latter into competition. Now, I think that position depends altogether upon the question, not only of the quality of the spirits which are to be derived from sugar—a circumstance which appears to have been altogether omitted from the consideration of Her Majesty's Government—but of the amount of spirits which can be extracted from a quarter of malt. This should have been one of the great elements in the calculation, and yet it is one upon which we are left entirely in the dark. But when the noble Lord speaks of sugar being sold in the market at 36 s. he should recollect that it will be introduced into the distilleries of this country, not at that price merely, but at that price with the immense drawback of 12 s. 10 d. While the malt is taxed to a heavy extent, the sugar is to be introduced, and the whole, or nearly the whole, of the duty paid, received back in the shape of a drawback. All this complexity of detail only proves the necessity for investigation of the whole subject by a Select Committee. The noble Earl has stated that sugar was never so low as 35 s. or 36 s.; but he has forgotten to state that never till now was the duty so low as it is now, and that that duty is to be still lower. But when he states that sugar never was so low as 35 s., I beg to remind him that in 1830 Jamaica sugar was brought into the market of this country and sold for 40 s., paying a duty of 24 s. In 1835, Jamaica sugar was, not at 35 s., but at 19 s.; and a short time ago Havannah sugar, 3 per cent better than the ordinary run of brown sugar, was sold, minus the duty, at the rate of 21 s. per cwt. Now, sugar, selling at 35 s., and admitted to the distillery on the terms proposed, would be only 22 s. 2d. to the distiller—that is, after deducting 12 s. 10 d. for the drawback. I hope your Lordships will not infer, from the remarks which I have felt it my duty to make, that I desire to see the Bill rejected; on the contrary, I wish it to undergo a fair and impartial investigation by a Committee. If the measure were merely proposed as a tempory arrangement, with any prospect of relief to the suffering portion of our fellow-subjects, I would say, "Adopt it at once;" but if it is to be taken as a portion of a free-trade policy, it may, and it must, lead to still further changes affecting the trade, and influencing the most important interests, of this country.

229
If, after careful investigation, Parliament shall think it best, on the whole, to pursue that course which the Government recommends, let them do so; but let it not be followed blindfold. Let not the whole matter be taken upon the mere declaration of the President of the Board of Trade. Parliament, in a case like that, is bound to call before them competent witnesses, and, by examination and cross-examination, get at the real merits of the case. The facts with which they ought to make themselves acquainted, are not to be elicited during a short discussion in this House, but by the active and continued labours of a Select Committee; and let not a permanent measure be brought forward upon grounds which ought only to be rendered available for purposes of temporary legislation. The agriculturist, the West India colonist, and the slave-owner of Cuba, are the parties principally interested; let all these, and all other parties concerned, be fairly heard, and then your Lordships can proceed to legislate with your eyes open—then you can satisfy yourselves as to the probable effect of that which you are about to do. Examine not only the officers of excise, who are honourable people undoubtedly, but make inquiries of other independent parties, and satisfy yourselves that, in passing this measure, you will not be doing mischief—that you will not be injuring the agriculturists or the colonists, under the plea of relieving temporary distress in one part of the kingdom, and under the plea of conceding as a boon to the colonists, that, which, in my opinion, will be no boon at all. But even if adopted, I fear that the measure would effect neither the one object nor the other. I can assure your Lordships that I have made these observations without any intention of opposition or hostility towards Her Majesty's Government. I invite your Lordships to refer the subject, not to a Committee of the whole House, but a Select Committee, where all the facts may be fairly and carefully investigated, and where a probable judgment may be formed of the effects of the intended plan. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment moved—"To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' for the Purpose of inserting the Words, 'the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.'"
EARL GREYsaid, it was clear, from the beginning to the end of his noble Friend's speech, that the noble Lord felt that he
230
had a very bad case, because his noble Friend had carefully avoided, throughout the whole of his speech, coming to the actual question at issue; but had resorted to the most ingenious and acute arguments upon points that had nothing whatever to do with the measure. In the beginning of his address, his noble Friend read a passage from the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session, for the purpose of showing that this measure was announced as merely a temporary one, for the purpose of relieving a temporary distress. He (Earl Grey) had only to say, that, whatever construction the words of Her Majesty's Speech were capable of bearing, the intentions of the Government upon the subject were perfectly certain; because some explanation upon the subject was asked upon the first night of the Session; and it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that his noble Friend the President of the Council had stated that this measure for the admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries was intended to be permanent, although others of the measures were not. His noble Friend opposite had, at that time, made a comment at some length, taking objections to such a course. He admitted that the noble Lord's criticism then was perfectly correct; and even if he admitted that the noble Lord was equally correct in the conclusion he drew from the words he referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, it would only come to this after all—that the Government, in writing Her Majesty's Speech, had not shown themselves very skilful in composition. This fact would, therefore, only tend to show the truth of an observation made by the late Mr. Cobbett—namely, that the King's Speeches were not good models of the King's English, and that he would take all his examples of bad grammar from that department of literature. After his noble Friend had disposed of this portion of his argument, he observed that this measure was a link in the dangerous chain of their proceedings which he called upon their Lordships to oppose, because the doctrines of free trade could not fail to be deeply injurious to the interests of the country; and the noble Lord referred to some pledge which had been given by the Government, by which they had felt bound to bring those measures before Parliament; and the noble Lord then adverted to the course pursued by the Government of which he was a Member, in respect to the Canadian Corn Bill. The pledge given by the pre-

231
sent Government was given openly before Parliament, precisely in the same way as that given by the late Government upon the question referred to, in the course of their discussions last year upon the introduction of the Bill for an alteration in the sugar duties in the other House. It was then stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his noble Friend at the head of the Government, that, although it was impossible at that late period of the Session, to enter fully into a consideration of the whole question, no time should be lost in the endeavour of the Government to put sugar upon an equality with malt and corn used in breweries and distilleries. The noble Lord said that this pledge, however, did not bind Parliament—who said it did? Parliament consented last year to subject British colonial sugar to unrestricted competition with that of foreign nations. When that subject was under consideration, it was argued that the measure was undoubtedly right and just in itself, but that the colonies should have a right to corresponding advantages. This argument was used, and contributed, with others, to induce them to pass the Bill that was then before them. Then, to a certain extent, the pledge was implied of removing every restriction that could prevent the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries. This, however, his noble Friend said, formed a part of a dangerous chain of their proceedings—that the Government were taking these insidious steps, first by repealing the corn laws, and then by telling the agriculturists, that, inasmuch as they obtained none of the advantages of monopoly, they ought to help the Government to get cheap sugar for the people. Now, the noble Lord might call this measure dangerous if he pleased; but at all events there had been no disguise whatever about it on the part of the Government. They began when they sat upon the other side of the House to call attention to the subject. They had never concealed their conviction that the principle of legislation they recommended for adoption was, to impose duties for the sake of the revenue, and not for the sake of protection. The principle of legislation they recommended, was not such as was calculated to divert capital from its natural channels, but simply to raise such an amount of revenue as would meet the wants of the public service. In pursuance of that pledge, even when they were on the other side of the House, they had sup-
232
ported the late Ministers in altering the corn laws. In pursuance of the same pledge, when they were called to the councils of their Sovereign, they asked Parliament to consent to the passing of a measure by which, in a few years, their colonial sugar would be exposed to unlimited competition with foreign sugar; and last year they had passed an Act by which the colonies would be enabled to relieve themselves from the payment of differential duties upon the importation of British produce imported into their colonies; and they had considered what ought to be done in respect to the restrictions that were imposed upon the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries. So much then for this dangerous chain, and their insidious proceedings. They had openly and boldly avowed what their plan was to be. He believed that they were pursuing but a sound system of legislation, by honestly following that system out to its legitimate consequences. His noble Friend had thought it expedient, before the question came properly under their consideration, to refer to the navigation laws, and said that they were getting the fine edge of the wedge into that sacred palladium of the country, for the purpose of ultimately destroying it. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord and his Friends had a worse opinion of the navigation laws than the Government had, inasmuch as his noble Friend thought that an impartial inquiry would decide against these laws. The noble Lord thought that the appointment of a Committee to inquire into those navigation laws would only be making a mine to blow up that ancient system, Now, if a Committee, reported these laws to be bad, he hoped that they would be destroyed; but upon that point he wished to reserve his opinion until they had obtained the report of the Committee. He, for one, would never consent to support the navigation laws upon commercial grounds. As to their operating with advantage upon their Navy, he thought that, after what had passed upon that subject, such an assumption was out of the question. But it was argued that the navigation laws were to be viewed in a different light from other cases of protection—that they were merely the means of maintaining the defences of the country safe. If that point were made out—if they were proved to be really essential for the maintenance of their commercial marine—if they were shown to be necessary for their maritime naval force—if that case was made out, he admitted that

233
the principle of free trade did not apply to them, and that it would not be necessary to make any alteration in respect to them to ensure such. But, until the Committee had made its report, he would not venture to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. His conviction was that their navigation laws did not ensure the ends that were intended by them. The noble Lord said, in effect, that the navigation laws were so utterly bad it was impossible that a Committee could support them, the arguments against them would be so strong.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that what he did say was, that he thought the Government, upon great national grounds, should have expressed a decided opinion themselves upon the subject, and that they were not a question for inquiry before a Committee.
EARL GREYwould admit that the noble Lord had stated that the Government should have made up their minds upon the subject, and have given a decided opinion respecting these laws. He (Earl Grey) did not think the Government were called upon to do any such thing. The operation of the navigation laws depended upon matters of fact, which were hitherto very imperfectly ascertained. The practical operation of these laws, particularly in their colonies, was little understood by their Lordships or the public. There were facts connected with the operation of these laws in their colonies which, until lately, when they were brought under his notice, he was unacquainted with; and he firmly believed that a Committee appointed for an inquiry into them, before whom their merchants, and all other persons who were capable of forming an opinion upon the matter, could be examined, would be able to throw the most important light upon the subject. He understood his noble Friend to say that the appointment of the Committee was the introduction of the fine end of the wedge. He inferred from that that the noble Lord's meaning was, that it was to aid in destroying the navigation laws, and that he had heard something of the intent of a Committee appointed with a hostile intention, and might anticipate the result. His (Earl Grey's) noble Friend near him had at the same whispered to him that they might therefore judge what would be the result of a Select Committee, appointed to consider the Bills now actually before the House. Now, what were the grounds that were urged for the inquiry? The principle of the Bills, as he understood, was simply
234
this, that they considered that the sugar of their own colonies ought to come into consumption for any purpose for which it was capable of being used, subject to no restriction except that which was necessarily imposed for revenue. That if it were capable of being used in breweries or distilleries, they ought, as to their revenue laws, so to manage matters as to produce no bias on the mind of the distiller or brewer, but that he should be left to use sugar or not, precisely as he would do if they were in the fortunate circumstances of not being compelled to lay on any tax at all. They did not want to go into a Select Committee to inquire whether that principle was good or not—it was a principle for that House to decide upon. But their Lordships must have observed, that his noble Friend mentioned several points for inquiry upon which his noble Friend was not very clear; for he could not help remarking, that his noble Friend had made a curious confusion between malt and raw grain, and between sugar and molasses; and at last, although he had listened most attentively, his noble Friend had got completely beyond his depth, and he was unable to follow his noble Friend's argument—in fact, there was some little confusion in the mind of his noble Friend himself. He (Earl Grey) said, that the question whether the price of sugar should suit the brewer to use sugar or not, had nothing whatever to do with this Bill: that was for the brewers or distillers themselves to determine. All that Parliament had to do was so to frame the revenue laws as not to prevent those whose business it was to manufacture, to manufacture in any manner most profitable to themselves, and most advantageous to the public. Now these measures would be of very considerable importance, not only in relation to the present scarcity, but to any future scarcity whenever it might come, by sparing the consumption of corn in breweries and distilleries, and also in periods of a very great abundance of sugar, to prevent the price falling to a ruinous sum. The tendency of these measures, as of all measures of commercial freedom, was towards an equalization of price. He believed that, as far as practical purposes were concerned, the quantity of sugar equal to a quarter of malt not less than 180 lb. And how was the question as to taxation? A quarter of malt paid a duty of 1l. 1s. 8d.; whilst the duty on the 180 lb. of sugar was 1l. 2s. 6d. So that, according to the most moderate calculation, the use of sugar would not

235
give the smallest advantage in point of taxation. But he believed that the quantity of sugar which was more nearly equal to a quarter of malt, was 200 lb., and the duty upon that was 25 s. That question, therefore, was so clear that it was not necessary to refer it to a Select Committee. With respect to spirits, he did not think that it had been maintained by any man, that the proposed drawback on sugar was more than was necessary in order to put the distiller from sugar on an equality with the distiller from grain; and he believed there was no reason whatever to doubt that the duties had been fairly calculated. He thought the effects of the measure would be to put sugar and grain, as fairly as it could be managed, upon an equality. Now he did not think his noble Friend had followed the usual precedent in the course he had adopted. If they appealed from any measure proposed by the Executive, the appeal should be to one of the Houses of the Legislature, and not to a Select Committee. There would be very serious inconvenience in referring the details of a measure like that before their Lordships to a Select Committee; they were much better left to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The ordinary practice of Parliament was, he contended, infinitely better and fairer than the proposition of the noble Lord. The Government submitted what they believed to be upon the whole best for the interests of the public, and by that proposition they would stand. If they were to be overruled, it was not to be by a Select Committee, but by the decision of a branch of the Legislature. If his noble Friend thought the conduct of the Government wrong, or the Bill improperly drawn, let him propose one of his own, as an amendment, and they would be prepared to discuss it fairly. He had no hesitation in avowing that he was firmly persuaded the calculations of the Government were right. Their Lordships ought to bear in mind that his noble Friend wanted to go into something like a fishing committee, as to some calculations which did not appear to be quite clear to his noble Friend. The noble Lord told the Government that they were wrong, but he did not tell them what was right. He trusted their Lordships would not consent to a proposition so unusual and inconvenient. There was one observation of the noble Lord that had occasioned him so much surprise that he must be pardoned for adverting to it before he sat down. His noble Friend
236
said—"These are supposed to be measures for the benefit of the West Indies and our colonies generally. I entirely repudiate that supposition. I will show you that it will do nothing for the colonies—that it will be no advantage to them. I will show you, on the contrary, that the measure will be altogether for the benefit of the slave sugar grower." His noble Friend had told them that the duty on foreign sugar was in the course of a progressive reduction, and that at the end of five years it would be totally extinguished and equalised. Then he said it was clear that the increased consumption which the measure of the Government would produce, would go to the benefit of that particular sugar. But he (Earl Grey) was surprised it had not struck his noble Friend, that if the present Bill had not been proposed at all, foreign sugar would be yearly reduced in duty; and there was no doubt the effect of the increased consumption of sugar would be advantageous to the colonial grower, who availed himself of the present high rate of differential duty to command the market. He believed, therefore, his noble Friend was very much in error in supposing that the great increase in the consumption of sugar would be for the benefit of the foreign slave-grower. He believed exactly the reverse would be the case. He believed the foreign slave-grower could not further reduce the price of his sugar; while he confidently believed that the British colonist could reduce it, and was at that moment adopting measures which would unquestionably reduce it. He could not help expressing his satisfaction at witnessing what had been done during the last few months in the Mauritius and the West Indies for the purpose, and the tendency on the part of the planters to exert themselves vigorously to introduce better modes of cultivation and improved machinery, with other resources, from which the slave-grower as a slave-owner was excluded, and which would inevitably increase the amount of the produce. He believed the crop now about to be forwarded from their colonies was much greater than that of the slave-growing countries, and that the increase for the last two years was most gratifying and convincing as to the result of the exertions of the colonists. In the year before last, the produce of the Mauritius was estimated at 45,000 tons; the last year it had amounted to 50,000; and the crop which was at present in the course of being saved, and the greater part

237
of which was already safe, had been estimated both by the Governor and the colonial planters at 60,000 tons. With these facts before them, what right had their Lordships to assume that the benefit of the measure would be to the slave-grower instead of their own colonies? He repeated again, that it was his conviction that the very reverse of his noble Friend's assertion would be the case, and that the colonial planter alone would be benefited by the measure. For these reasons he confidently appealed to their Lordships to reject the Amendment of his noble Friend.
LORD ASHBURTONfelt that he could not occupy a seat in their Lordships' House if he did not express his unqualified dissent to the entire course of the Legislature with respect to these subjects. His noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) had said, upon introducing the measure, that it was done in order to redeem a promise made, or a pledge given, to the West Indian planters. He did not recommend the adoption of any deceptive course with respect to those interests; but he did think that the subject was one into which Parliament ought to make full and deliberate inquiry. If the promise to which his noble Friend opposite had made allusion, were a promise made by Parliament, and not that of an individual Member of it, he did not think it was one which they were bound to redeem. But since allusion had been made to promises, he would ask whether no promises had been made to the barley growers of this country? Had they not been promised three or four Bills from which they were told they would derive considerable relief; and what had been heard of them? Why, with the exception of two or three, the tendency of which was rather to injure the agricultural interests than to serve them, the promised Bills had not been heard of. In point of fact, nothing had been done for the landed interests. His noble Friend had said that the real merit of the measure was, that it was a part or an extension of those free-trade measures which were lately introduced to the country; and that, moreover, it would be the means of affording relief, to a certain extent, in the present period of scarcity. Nothing could be fnrther from his desire than to oppose any measures that might be brought forward on the part of the Government to mitigate the distress which prevailed in another portion of the kingdom; but surely, if the object were indeed to effect so desirable an end, the mea-
238
sure might be made of a temporary and not of a permanent character. His noble Friend said also of the navigation laws, that he was ready to listen to any proof of their advantage to our mercantile marine; but that, so far as they embraced the principle of protection, they must be given up. Now, if those laws were abandoned, we should see the Swedish and other sailors of the north, who were accustomed to a hard fare, engrossing all the coasting trade of this country, and retaining it till our own sailors could manage to live on the same low diet; and, as the consumers would benefit very little, he would ask whether for a mere difference of half, or one, or even one and a half per cent to them, the country was to carry out in trade, in shipping, and in manufactures this new rule, and whether this small advantage was to be weighed against the injury done to the large masses of the people of this country? He held the principle of free trade to be an entire misconception, and that the Legislature, while seeking to introduce it, were studying only the interest of the consumer, while they were totally regardless of the hundreds of thousands who would lose their employment, and on whom heavy injuries would be inflicted by reduction of prices. He was most anxious to have the calculations and deductions involved in the measure now under discussion, submitted to the consideration of a Committee; for if there ever was a subject fit for such consideration, or on which their Lordships might wish for information, it was precisely the present, the merits of which depended so much upon evidence and minute calculation. They ought not upon any account to hesitate sanctioning the measure as one of temporary relief; but when they were called upon to approve of measures of a permanent character, the question assumed altogether another aspect. They ought also to bear in mind the consequences of letting in an unwholesome beverage; and he believed the measure was nothing more nor less than a contrivance to give the public a spurious article made upon a different principle to that which they had been accustomed to use. It must be remembered also that the proportions between sugar and malt were taken at a time when the duty on foreign sugar was 21 s. a cwt.; and that at the end of four years it would be only 14 s.; so that the proportion which suited the present purpose would not hereafter be sufficient; this ought to be in-

239
quired into and settled. But there was another consideration which he hoped would not be lost sight of. If they passed this measure, they would be taking their sugar, not only from countries in which the slave trade existed, but from countries where the slave trade was carried on in its most atrocious character. This ought to be no slight consideration with their Lordships in passing a measure which would give increased impetus to the odious traffic in flesh and blood. And what advantage were the colonies, which were kept up at such an enormous expense to the mother country, if it were not to provide her with markets for her own commodities, and at the same time ensure her a supply of other commodities in exchange? There was, in his opinion, an irresistible mania in favour of free trade; but many years would not pass away before the country would awaken to a sense of its error, and acknowledge that that pernicious principle was fraught with the most injurious consequences. For his part, he could not refrain from entering his protest against the entire of that absurd and useless change from the old and approved principles of commercial legislation.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that if he viewed the Bill as part of the chain of the measures of free trade, he would have been induced to give it more support than he was now inclined to do; but he wished to explain the vote which he was about to give, as other measures were about to be introduced, and he would be sorry that it should be misconceived. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley) had not argued the question of the temporary or permanent nature of the measure as a subject for a Committee, but had put it upon other grounds, which, if made out, would have afforded perfect justification for his Amendment. He (Lord Monteagle) held that if a case had been made out by noble Lords opposite, it was a legitimate subject for a Committee. Upon former occasions, when it appeared to their House that a fitting case was made out, Committees were appointed; for instance, the malt tax and the question of the drawback on malt had been made the subject of such inquiry. He would not argue the case as being an improper subject for parliamentary interference, but what he would submit to the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment was, whether it had not been demonstrated by the arguments on both sides, that he matter was scarcely worthy of inquiry? He believed the effect
240
either upon the colonies or upon the barley-growers at home, would be infinitesimal. If it were intended as a measure of relief, it was a very small one; and in any case he did not think the subject worthy of the time it took in discussing. It reminded him strongly of a parliamentary representation of "Much Ado about Nothing." When they came to discuss the question of reducing the duty on rum, he would support any Motion that might be made for an inquiry into the subject; but he would be sorry, in giving his vote to-night in favour of the measure at present submitted for their consideration, to be precluded from voting for an inquiry into the other question; inasmuch as he considered the Irish and Scotch distilleries had made out a very good case against the Bill.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, it had not been his intention, in rising upon the previous occasion, to trouble their Lordships with any lengthened observations; but he was now glad he had given way to the noble Lord who had just down. His noble Friend had said the matter was one of very little importance — indeed not worthy of an inquiry; but if such were really the case, and that the measure would have no possible effect one way or the other, he thought that circumstance was an additional reason for inquiry; for he considered nothing could be more dangerous, or more likely to lead to mischief, than the passing of measures which the very projectors of them admitted could not be of any service to any one. But he contended that the present case was a subject for a Committee, inasmuch as there existed a great diffence of opinion with respect to the figures stated by his noble Friend. His noble Friend near him (Lord Ashburton) had urged the necessity which existed for a Committee, upon the ground that there was a Bill about to be brought into their Lordships' House involving questions of figures, and that he was anxious for an inquiry into the subject, because he knew the figures were wrong. Now, did not the two Bills come from the same shop? and had they not a right, as they came from the same place, to suppose that the noble Lord near him was right, and that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade was wrong? It was the bounden duty of those of their Lordships who were unfortunately beaten last year, upon the question of those free-trade measures, which he hoped were fast disappear-

241
ing from among the reflective class of the community, to cause an inquiry to be made into the tendency of the proposed measure now under consideration. They last year suffered a defeat from circumstances of which he would not then remind them; but, since they had now the open and manly declaration of his noble Friends at present in the Government—and he owned he preferred much a manly and candid opponent to an insidious and deceitful enemy—it was a duty they owed to the agricultural interests not to allow any Bill to pass through their House, without inquiring into the details, and, if possible, preventing those agricultural interests from being again deceived. He did not mean to convey that he thought his hon. Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) had wilfully made an error; but he could not help saying he thought he was deceived. There was, however, one judicious part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he entirely agreed. He agreed with the noble Lord it was highly important that the people should have a cheap and wholesome beverage; and he would tell the noble Lord that to get good and cheap beer, the way to do it would be to get rid of the malt tax. It was no prejudice in the labourers of the country that they liked to have their beer made of good malt and hops. But what was the stuff they were going to give them, even according to the evidence of one of their own friends, a partner in the house of Whitbread and Co., the brewers? He would read an extract from the evidence of that gentleman, taken in Committee:—
"You have some experience of sugar as applicable to brewing purposes?—I have.
"What kind of beer was undertaken at your brewery?—We thought it right to separate all the strong sugar, and we made a very fair trial. Our object was to buy the strongest sugar, but we found it so indifferent that it was an experiment and no experiment.
"You did brew some?—Yes.
"Was it good?—No, very bad, though we brewed in the best seasons, and took all necessary precautions to make the article good. This was in 1807, when malt was enormously dear."
The Government would then go to the hustings and say, "We proposed to give you cheap bread, but you have not yet got it—and now we promise to give you cheap beer." And some unfortunate fellow would taste the bad beer, and find himself half poisoned, and that the Government had again deceived him. The truth was, that Parliament passed these measures without sufficient inquiry; and then could they
242
expect in another year the country would pay the slightest respect to the decisions of Parliament? He certainly did not oppose this measure, and he should not vote for a Select Committee with a view of defeating it. He was sure the noble Lord (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would do the Opposition the credit to believe them when they said their real object was not to get rid of the Bill; and if his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), on the appointment of a Select Committee, should not prove the case he had stated that night, he (the Duke of Richmond), for one, certainly would not vote against the Bill. He should, however, like to know that by voting for it he was not poisoning half the population of the country. Every speaker who had addressed the House in behalf of the Bill, had agreed that it would do little or no good at all, as far as relieving the present distress was concerned; and as it was probable that some of the other remedial measures would be put off until the 6th of March, surely there could be no great harm if this, the least beneficial of these measures, were delayed for two or three days or a week. He had always been an advocate for inquiry, when it did not unsettle for a length of time any great branch of trade, manufactures, or agriculture; it satisfied the public mind, and was in every way advantageous. The advocates of this Select Committee did not say, as the mover and seconder of the Committee of Inquiry into the Navigation Laws in the other House did, that they were hostile to it. They were not hostile to this Bill, yet the Government refused them an inquiry, and at the same time granted an inquiry to a set of free-traders, who wished to destroy the navigation laws of this country, and thereby render England a secondary power amongst the maritime nations of the world. He warmly concurred in the Amendment of his noble Friend.
LORD BEAUMONTagreed with most of the Peers who had addressed the House, that the Bill could not produce much good, and he believed, at the same time, that it could do no harm whatever. Every argument that had been adduced, had gone to show that it would injure no interest whatever; and the most conclusive speech against the necessity of an inquiry had been that of the noble Lord who had asked for a Select Committee. He believed that the introduction of sugar into breweries, would cause the consumption of inferior sorts of barley, which now could not find

243
a market for malting purposes, and thus it would benefit the barley grower. The evidence taken before the Committee which sat on the burdens of land, showed that only the finest qualities could be sold for malting, and, therefore, the using of the inferior sorts by the admixture of sugar was an undoubted benefit to agriculture. This Bill was a consequence of the recent free-trade measures; and he always had maintained that when Parliament made so great a step in that direction by repealing the corn laws, it would be an injustice to stop short the course of free trade. If they adopted a principle, they were bound to carry it out; and he felt certain it must be carried out to the fullest extent with respect to manufactures as well as agricultural produce. He was certain that as soon as the state of the revenue would permit, the Government must take into consideration the malt duties. Those duties were a great burden on land; it would be a great injustice not to revise them now that Parliament had destroyed that protection which was a sort of compensation for those burdens.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYremarked that although the Committee for inquiring into the burdens on land had made some inquiries as to the effect of the malt duties, its existence was cut short before those inquiries were completed. He had not observed that the noble Marquess, the President of the Board of Trade, or any of the speakers in favour of the Bill, had touched upon the important question of the introduction of sugar in reference to the malt tax. He had no doubt malt could be produced at a much cheaper rate if it were not subject to the excise regulations. There was evidently a vast difference of opinion as to matters of fact, and he thought a sufficient case had been made out for a Select Committee.
LORD REDESDALEhad heard this called a measure of free trade; but he held that the principles involved in the Bill were contradictory to the principle of free trade, and brought to bear against the home producer in a manner as injurious as well could be devised. In certain circumstances the Bill, instead of promoting free trade, would operate as a prohibition against the British producer of barley. The duty on sugar was to be remitted, in order to enable it to come into competition with barley; but since the duty on malt was to remain, it would amount to a prohibition of that British produce when it raised the
244
price of that article to a certain amount as compared with sugar.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHwould vote against the Amendment, because he could not offer any discouragement to the Government under the difficult circumstances in which they were placed.
On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion, House divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 27: Majority 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE

VISCOUNTS.

Norfolk

Falkland

Massareene

MARQUESSES.

LORDS.

Lansdowne

Campbell

Sligo

Strafford

Westmeath

Cottenham

Clanricarde

Montfort

EARLS.

Beaumont

Clarendon

Foley

Auckland

Byron

Radnor

De Mauley

Fitzwilliam

Audley

Waldegrave

Camoys

Minto

Beauvale

Grey

Crewe

Uxbridge

Lilford

Spencer

Vivian

Fortescue

BISHOPS.

Granville

Hereford

Shaftesbury

St. Asaph

List of the NON-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Stradbroke

Richmond

Mountcashel

Buckingham

VISCOUNTS.

Montrose

Canterbury

MARQUESS.

Strangford

Salisbury

Gage

EARLS.

LORDS.

Hardwicke

Stanley

Ranfurley

Boston

Warwick

Redesdale

Eglintoun

Wynford

Somers

Colchester

Nelson

Feversham

Cardigan

Tenterden

Orkney

Grantley

Charleville

Monteagle

Paired off.

CONTENT.

NOT-CONTENT.

Portman

Brougham

Norwich

Tankerville

Colborne

Walsingham

Resolved in the Affirmative.
House in Committee accordingly. Bill reported without Amendment.
The House then went into Committee on the Distilling from Sugar Bill, which was reported without Amendment.
House adjourned.