Sitting of 9 February 1849

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For Portsmouth, Right Hon. Sir Francis Thornhill Baring, Bt.; for Kingston-upon-Hull, Matthew Talbot Baines, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland). Reported.—Inland Revenue.
A CONFERENCE. Ingrossing and Inrolment of Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Ward, from Teachers of the Schools connected with the Unitarian Chapel in Sheffield, for Referring War Disputes to Arbitration.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
MR. G. R. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he intended to lay his resolution on the subject of the Navigation Laws upon the table of the House, before proposing that the House should go into Committee thereon?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Member would probably recollect that some

497
discussion took place upon this very subject last year, when he stated the reason why he thought it would be inexpedient that the resolution should be laid upon the table of the House before it went into Committee. The obvious consequence would be that a debate would ensue before the Speaker left the chair. Believing, then, that it would be more convenient for the debate to take place in Committee, he must decline, as he did last year, putting the House in possession of the resolution until he had made his explanation in a Committee of the whole House.

RECTORY OF BISHOP WEARMOUTH.
MR. HORSMANrose to put a question to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), of which he had already given notice, and he begged to say that he did so for the purpose only of eliciting information on the subject of the mode in which the patronage of the Lord Bishop of Durham had been exercised in a recent case. It had been generally understood that when the Rectory of Bishop Wearmouth, in the diocese of Durham, should become vacant, some new arrangement was to be effected in the distribution of the revenues of that wealthy rectory. He now begged to ask the noble Lord whether he was able to inform the House what that new arrangement was, more particularly whether any portion of the revenues was to be appropriated to other clergymen and chapelries of the district?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that, on receiving notice of the hon. Member's (Mr. Horsman's) intention, he had written to the Lord Bishop of Durham on the subject, stating at the same time that it was quite optional whether he chose to give any information on the subject or not. The bishop, had, in reply, stated that he did not recognise any right of questioning him on the subject, unless there was some general inquiry instituted; but that he did not object to give such information as was requisite to him (Lord J. Russell). When the vacancy occurred in the rectory of Bishop Wearmouth, by the death of Dr. Wellesley, a correspondence took place, which was succeeded by a deputation from the ancient select vestry of Bishop Wearmouth, accompanied by the mayor of Sunderland, who waited on the bishop. The deputation stated to his lordship their wishes with respect to the new division and distribution of the revenues of the rectory of Bishop Wearmouth. Those revenues consisted of tithes, the rents and
498
profits of glebe lands, surplice fees, rents of staiths and wayleaves, and rents of coals. The deputation proposed that the tithes, the glebe rents, and the surplice fees should go to the rector of Bishop Wearmouth, but that the rents of staiths and wayleaves, and of coals, should be vested in trustees, in order to constitute a fund out of which an increase should be made to the incomes of the four other incumbents of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth. The bishop took the proposal into his consideration, and having consulted with some eminent authorities on the subject, he made an arrangement which corresponded almost with the letter of the terms proposed by the deputation—namely, the tithes, glebe, and surplice fees, were henceforward to go to the rector of Bishop Wearmouth; and the other portions of the revenue, arising from staiths, wayleaves, and coal rents, were to be vested in trustees, to form a fund to be apportioned amongst the four incumbents of St. Thomas, Deptford, Ryhope, and Hylton. It appeared that the whole value of the rectory of Bishop Wearmouth was 3,828 l., out of which the late rector paid 1,605 l., leaving 2,223 l. for himself. Under the new division about 1,200 l. would form the rector's income, and the remainder would be divided between his curates and the four incumbents, which latter would have about 1,600 l. divided amongst them. The correspondence had ended on the part of the deputation by their sending the following letter to the Lord Bishop, signed on their behalf by the chairman, Mr. John Scott:—
"Bishop Wearmouth, Nov. 30.
"My Lord—I had the pleasure of submitting your lordship's letter of the 27th instant to a meeting of the ancient select vestry, held this morning, when it was unanimously resolved, that, as the chairman of that meeting, I should convey to your lordship our warmest thanks for the kind manner in which your lordship has received the suggestions we ventured to make, and for the great anxiety and care your lordship has shown towards the spiritual welfare of this great and populous parish. The appointments and arrangements your lordship has made appear most excellent, and, under the blessing of Providence, we confidently trust will be productive of the greatest good to every class of the inhabitants.—I have the honour to be, &c. "JOHN SCOTT."
MR. HORSMANasked whether the four incumbents were to have the 1,600 l. divided amongst them at once?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that from the 30th of May the staith and wayleave rents and coal rents were to be paid to trustees for their benefit.

SECEDING CLERGYMEN.
MR. GRANGERbeged to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) whether the Government intended to bring any Bill forward this Session to relieve clergymen seceding from the Church of England from the penal consequences incurred by their preaching in other places of worship?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill on the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had given notice of a Motion which would bring the subject under the consideration of the House.

IRISH POOR COMMITTEE.
MR. HENRYwished to know if the number of the Committee on the Irish Poor Law was to be augmented, and whether the name of Mr. Bright was to be added?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to propose an enlargement of the Committee, and he believed it was his intention to add the name of Mr. Bright.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
MR. J. B. SMITHwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps had been taken by the Government to carry out, wholly or in part, the resolution of the House of the 30th of May last, proposed by Dr. Bowring; and whether the gross receipt of revenue, averaging about 7,000,000 l. per annum, which had hitherto been stopped in its progress to the Exchequer, would in future be paid into the Exchequer, and placed under the direct authority and control of Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that steps had been taken by the Government to carry out in part the resolution proposed by Dr. Bowring on the 30th of May last. As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it was difficult to give a general answer. He was not prepared to say that all the sums which were received would be paid into the Exchequer, and placed under the direct control of Parliament.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the real purport of the resolution of his hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring) was to bring the salaries, allowances, and other payments made out of the gross revenue, annually under the notice and sanction of the House.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Bill was then read.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, that he had not heard one single argument advanced which could induce him to agree to the present oppressive measure. It was stated to be necessary for the purpose of putting down political agitation in Ireland. So far from there being any symptoms of agitation in Ireland at the present time, he believed the feeling of the people of that country amounted to an absolute disgust at agitation. But it was constitutional agitation that the Government wanted to suppress; and he warned the House, and English Members in particular, that they were arming Ministers with a power which would come in the end to be turned against themselves, and used to put down freedom of expression in Lancashire and Yorkshire. The present measure was to be accompanied by another for the relief of the distress which existed in some parts of Ireland. He would not oppose that vote. On the contrary, he warmly advocated the proposal to save the poor starving people from death by hunger. But he must express his conviction that votes for the relief of Irish distress were the result of the misgovernment of that country, and as long as the present system of governing her continued, so long would similar votes be required. He had looked for some large measures from the present Ministry for effecting a change in the administration of public affairs in Ireland, and for amending her institutions. He felt disappointed, and he must record his vote against the Bill.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, he did not mean to deny the importance of maintaining the constitution of the country unimpaired; but he maintained that no case whatever had been made out by Her Majesty's Ministers to justify them in appealing to the House at this moment for a further suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. He had felt it to be his duty in 1847 and 1848 to give his support to the proposition then brought forward by the Government, and he had done so under the conviction that tranquillity and the absence of political excitement were essential for the social amelioration and improvement of the country; and he believed that every man acquainted with the condition of certain parts of Ireland admitted at the time the

501
necessity of some such measures as were then proposed. But his belief was, that on no occasion whatever had there been a measure like that now before the House brought forward on such slight grounds as at present. In the document chiefly relied upon by the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville), when introducing this Bill, he (Mr. Sadleir) could find no proof of the necessity of such a power being continued in the hands of the Executive Government. He felt bound, from his acquaintance with the rural population of some of the proclaimed districts in Ireland, to state his conviction that they were attached to the constitution of this country—that they were devoted to the person and Crown of Her Majesty—and that if there were discontent and dissatisfaction amongst them, that discontent and dissatisfaction arose solely from the policy and the conduct pursued by the existing Cabinet. The Lord Lieutenant stated, in his letter, that—
"It is to secure for Ireland this continued repose which is so vitally essential to her prosperity, to protect the country from the renewal of an agitation for objects that cannot be attained, and which for many years has disturbed its tranquillity, scaring away capital, destroying confidence, and rendering impossible the steady application of industry, that I desire strongly to impress on Her Majesty's Government the importance of applying to Parliament for a renewal of those powers which the 11th and 12th Victoria, c. 35, placed at the disposal of the Executive Government in Ireland."
Now, he would beg to remind the House, that it was not a country whore the constitution was suspended—it was not a country where the personal freedom of the subject was allowed to hang on the breath or dictation of an individual, that the enterprising and the speculative would choose as the field of their industry and enterprise. He had heard that if they desired to scare away capital, and to drive the peaceable and industrious portion of the population out of the country, the best course to adopt was to continue this miserable, this wretched make-shift policy which the present Cabinet pursued. It was not where an armed soldiery mixed in the social policy of the country that industry and enterprise were likely to flourish. As to the repeal of the Act of Union, it was not just, or discreet, or fair, to place the continuance of this measure on the ground of a necessity existing for the prevention of agitation for that or any other legitimate object. On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville)
502
had distinctly declared that this Bill was not intended to prevent agitation for a repeal of the Union. It appeared from the letter of the Lord Lieutenant that only 120 persons had been arrested under the Bill of last Session; but the House was not informed what number of these persons were still in custody. If but six persons still remained imprisoned under these extraordinary powers, it would furnish a strong argument against the measure. He had had occasion during the period of greatest excitement in Ireland last year, to propose, at a meeting of the humbler classes, in one of the proclaimed districts, the health of Her Majesty, and he could assure the House that it was received with a degree of enthusiasm that would have done honour to any society in the empire. He then felt anxious to propose a similar compliment to the Nobleman at the head of the administration of affairs in Ireland; but he could not succeed, as he found it impossible to sever the personal conduct of the noble Lord (Earl of Clarendon) from that of the Ministers with whom he was associated. It would be well for the Government to remember, that the Irish people were remarkable among the nations of the world for the tenacity of their political recollections. They could not, therefore, now be expected to forget that the present Ministry, when in opposition, had put forward the grievances of Ireland in the strongest manner. The Government should remember that the Irish people were not a nation of barbarians—that they were not a set of unmitigated boors—that the light of education had been extended to them; and they were not, therefore, likely so soon to forgot the time when the noble Lord at the head of the Government had carried his opposition to the coercion system so far as to spend the greater part of a night in protesting against the payment of 25,000 men who had been employed in enforcing the Queen's authority in Ireland, or when he had so strongly dwelt on the Church Establishment in Ireland as an intolerable grievance. When the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had thus excited hopes, that it was to be admitted were extravagant, he ought at all events to have availed himself of those great exigencies which had occurred since his accession to office, presiding as he did over a House of Commons in which all parties were anxious, and united, and willing to give him a cordial and generous support in the introduction and discussion

503
of any system of policy of a comprehensive character calculated to ameliorate the miseries and to redress the grievances of the people of Ireland. The noble Lord at the head of the Government took occasion during the last Session of Parliament to defend the policy of the Government in the dispensation of the millions of the public funds in Ireland; and he cast the blame of that lavish expenditure upon the gentry and the ratepayers of Ireland, alleging that they had within themselves the power of directing into more productive channels the expenditure of that immense fund. The noble Lord, however, omitted to inform the House that there was no discretion whatever as to the disposal of those funds with the people of Ireland, but that the whole responsibility and control rested with the Government. Could anything be more disheartening to the people of Ireland than the exhibition which three Members of the Government had made during the last week in that House? The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, in the first instance, assured them that the question of the area of taxation in connexion with the poor-law was one of such importance and difficulty that it was impossible to legislate upon it, and that the matter should be referred to a Committee. In the same week, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that that vital question was to form no portion of the investigation of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had occasion to advert to the appalling destitution in certain districts in Ireland, but he had no remedy to propose. [The speech of the hon. Member was here interrupted by a Message from the House of Lords requesting a Conference. The hon. Member resumed.] He was about to refer, he said, to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as illustrative of the undecided and the divided state of the Cabinet, which had created in Ireland so much distrust of the legislative capacity of this House. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, when called upon to state his opinion as to the principles and details of the Irish Poor Law, did not state to the House the opinion which he had formed, and contented himself with assuring the House that he had formed certain opinions which he would lay before the Committee. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had intimated in the most direct manner that he was favourable to a diminution in
504
the area of taxation, while the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House last Session, that he was in favour of an increase in the area of taxation. He could not help saying, that this condition of the Minister forcibly recalled to his recollection a story of the late Chief Baron O'Grady, who being called upon to decide a complex and difficult legal question, on which his two colleagues, Baron M'Lellan and Baron Foster, had given opinions diametrically opposite, his lordship answered, in that brief and laconic manner which so remarkably characterised him—" I am compelled to agree with my learned brother M'Lellan, for the reasons assigned by my learned brother Foster." So he expected to hear the noble Lord state to the Committee, that he was compelled to agree with the right hon. the Home Secretary, for the reasons assigned by his Friend and relative the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was this indication of all want of decision upon important questions, on which rested the development of the industrial resources of Ireland, that was the true cause of dissatisfaction and discontent in Ireland. Nothing had yet emanated from the present Administration but successive promises and successive professions. There was among that Administration either a want of disposition, or a want of legislative capacity, or a want of that political knowledge and acquaintance with the affairs of Ireland, which would enable them to grapple with the difficulties of the country. No steps had been taken to preserve the staple industry and staple manufacture of Ireland, no measure had been introduced for maintaining the selling and setting the value of land, and therefore the people were driven to despondency. And even if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were now to come forward and announce some comprehensive system for the advantage of Ireland, he, for one, would have no faith or confidence in such a declaration, though if those declarations were realised, no one would rejoice more than he should. He distrusted them because he saw among them no humble and unostentatious habits—no industry and application brought to bear upon Irish questions—none of those primary movements made, on which the construction, the preparation, and the introduction of remedial measures, which had nothing to do with political or party questions, ought to rest. They found that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland was obliged to divide his time

505
and his energies between his Parliamentary duties in the House, his official duties in the Irish Office, and his administrative duties as an Irish Poor Law Commissioner. He thought the first arrangement in the way of improvement was the retirement of the right hon. Baronet from one or other of these duties, as it was impossible that he could find time properly to discharge them both; and he had forgotten to say that if they intended to introduce measures of improvement, the sooner they made an arrangement by which one of the Irish law officers should be introduced to this House the better. If they failed in doing that, they would be condemned to the miserable repetition of the wretched bungling of last Session, when measures were introduced by Gentlemen who, however great their acquirements might be, were ignorant of the laws, the habits, or the circumstances of Ireland. He believed that the present proposition, taken in connexion with the other proposition to vote 50,000 l. for Irish distress, was intended for the purpose of enabling the existing Administration to continue in office, and to resist the widespread spirit of disaffection and disappointment which was prevalent in every district in Ireland. It was idle to pretend that the measure was introduced to allay political excitement. The people of Ireland were not in a spirit which would dispose them to receive the poison that might be spread among them by political firebrands, but they were in a disposition to turn their attention to those questions on which the social regeneration of the country depended. They were anxious to consider and to examine any proposition which might be brought forward in that House to improve the relations between landlord and tenant, for the security and protection of industrious, skilful, and enterprising tenants. They were discontented, because of the physical wretchedness of the country—they were discontented, because no means were taken to enable those individuals to maintain themselves by their own industry, who were now forced to become mendicants in the workhouses—they were dissatisfied, because three millions of the people of Ireland were reduced to a condition of utter destitution—they were discontented because no measure had emanated from the Government calculated to relieve their distress, or to bring into operation that capital which he believed was to be found in all needful abundance in Ireland itself. He thought it would be
506
well for the Government to consider whether a measure to allow the Bank of Ireland to invest its surplus capital, by way of mortgage, in the land of Ireland, would not be an agreeable substitute for a Coercion Bill. It would also be well for them to consider whether a Bill to provide for the better management of that mass of landed property which was now under the control of the Court of Chancery, would not be found a great improvement. He would ask, was it wise, was it just, was it statesmanlike to introduce a Bill last year, which would cast into the management of the Court of Chancery still more of Irish property? Yet that was the direct result of the Encumbered Estates Bill. You had not increased the facilities for the sale or transfer of landed property in Ireland, but you had rendered it necessary for every inheritor and creditor to place the property under the control and operation of the Court of Chancery. Had you not continually inveighed against the evil results which ensued from the introduction of landed property into Ireland? Could any one look at the property of which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was at this moment the landlord—at the destitute condition of the people on these estates—without regretting that Government was not guided by sounder principles? And would it not be better for them to substitute for the present Bill one which would entitle and compel the trustees of Trinity College to a better management of their vast territorial possessions in Ireland? Hon. Members had heard much of the pernicious practice of middlemen in Ireland, and yet it was a fact that the collegiate estates were constantly demised, not to the tenant occupiers, but to a middleman, and it was perfectly indifferent to the managers whether he lived one mile or 1,000 miles from the estate. Two remarkable instances of this occurred only last year, where the lauds fell out of lease, and the former lessees declined to renew them, but gave their opinion to the managers, that the tenant occupiers should be the immediate tenants. The tenants themselves were anxious for such an arrangement, and offered a rent amounting to the full value of the land; but the managers, in their wisdom, thought proper to reject the offer, and to demise the land in each instance to middlemen, who were absentees, and who gave rents under those offered by the occupying tenants. Would it not also be wise if the Government would turn their

507
attention to the condition of the lands man-aged by the Ecclesiastical Commission? The pages of the blue books and official reports abounded with information of the destitute condition of individuals who were located on property held by the Ecclesiastical Commission. In one instance it was proved that sixty families on one estate held by that commission were in the receipt of outdoor relief; and there was incontestable evidence to show that if these sixty families were provided for, the destitution on the remaining property of the district would be merely nominal. They were willing to emigrate to any of Her Majesty's colonies; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners refused to bear the expense, and the sixty families were left to weigh down the energy, the industry, and the self-reliance of their neighbours. The Government had ventured to lecture Irishmen on the importance of self-reliance. He fully agreed in the importance of the principle; but he told them that they had already done more to break down that spirit of self-reliance than the legislation of a Session could cure. The object of the Government should be to devise some direct and speedy means to induce the industrious, the skilful, and the solvent cultivators of the soil to continue in the country—to hold out to them some direct and intelligible inducement to show that it would be for their own interest and prosperity to continue in the land of their birth. It would be well if any measures could be adopted to induce capitalists to take courage, and to believe that it would be safe for them to invest their capital, and that it would not be destroyed by the amount of poor-rates and taxation. They ought to bear in mind that the actual population in Ireland could not, for a century to come, execute the requisite labour which was incidental to the improvement of the cultivable land alone. By requisite labour he meant the necessary drainage, the formation of good fencing, and the erection of suitable farm buildings. He felt certain that there was abundance of capital in Ireland itself to improve the country, and to employ the agricultural population. He was not ignorant of the important and appalling fact, that of the thirteen millions of rental in the country, no less than five millions must change hands. No legislation, no event, no harvest, could prevent the inevitable sale and conversion of laud to that effect; and that fact ought to force upon the Government the necessity of directing
508
their attention to all the laws that related to the devising the sale and the transfer of lands in Ireland. These were plain practical subjects for which it would be unnecessary to issue a commission. But he would ask them, was it wise to act as they did last year, when, at the fag end of the Session, they introduced a Bill which, he acknowledged, contained some important improvements—he meant the Bill for abolishing leases by way of covenants of perpetual renewal—a Bill which was first introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland in a shape and form which no man practically acquainted with Ireland could give his assent to; which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) afterwards introduced in a much amended form, but which, at the slightest symptom of opposition, was again withdrawn. He would ask, was it becoming in the right hon. Secretary for Ireland to introduce a Bill which had paralysed the industry of the country, adopting a new principle of elective franchise, and then immediately withdrawing it again? Was that calculated to inspire confidence in the Government? Did it not give just reason to reproach the Government with having abandoned all their old principles, and with having adopted an inverted system? Something had been said about the necessity of preventing clamour in Ireland. He asked, was it not well that there should be clamour in Ireland, so long as grievances, such as no other nation on the face of the globe endured, were allowed to continue unredressed? Was it not natural that clamour should continue so long as the masses were suffering miseries which were unknown in any other civilised portion of the globe? Adopting the idea of Burke, he would say, it was better that the slumbers—that was to say, the apathy of the Treasury bench should be broken by the alarm of the fire-bell, than that they, their families, and their property, should perish in the flames. Thanking the House for the patience with which they had heard him, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
SIR H. W. BARRONopposed the measure of the Government, because it would give pabulum to the dangerous and disaffected in Ireland. It was the most unwise course that, in his opinion, the Government could possibly have adopted in the present state and condition of the country. He regretted to be obliged to speak in such strong terms of disapprobation.

509
But such was his fervent and decided opinion. At the present moment there was no tendency, nor did the Government allege there was, to political excitement in Ireland. This he knew, that many who had opposed him at the last Waterford election in favour of Mr. Meagher, the Young Ireland candidate, now deeply regretted the course they had taken, and were now quite disabused of the delusion then so prevalent. He thought it his duty to warn Her Majesty's Ministers, that in pressing on this measure they were adopting a course which was sure to prove destructive to the peace and well-being of Ireland. According to Government logic, it did not seem to matter whether a country was tranquil or seditious. When the country was, to a small extent, disaffected, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was demanded to tranquillise it; now, when all was peace, the same measure of coercion was asked for, lest disturbances should break out again. Such reasoning might do for Algiers, but surely it would not find acceptance in a British House of Commons. The only plausible argument advanced for this Bill was, that the country was not, although tranquil, generally so well affected as the Government could wish. He was surprised to hear such an argument put forward by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who was the head of the liberal party. Would the noble Lord have attempted to use such an argument in the case of the English Chartists? Would England, would Englishmen, when Chartism had been put down, have supported the noble Lord if he had said, "The Chartists have been put down, all fear of disturbance is at an end; but as they are still discontented, I demand a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?" What he (Sir H. W. Barron) wanted to know was, whether or no the Irish people were living under the British constitution. He could tell the House that until they were—until they had an equal share of British rights and privileges, there would never be peace or tranquillity in Ireland. They had expected something very different from the present measure on the meeting of Parliament. They looked for measures calculated to stimulate the industrial energies of the people, and develop the resources of the country. They expected to have heard some proposition for reclaiming the waste lands, or for giving some additional stimulus to the landed proprietors to till and improve their properties by draining, sub-
510
soiling, or other works that would give employment to the labouring population—these were the things he had looked for on the opening of the Session. A great deal was being constantly said about the laziness of the Celt; all he could say was, that in his neighbourhood the people were only too anxious to be employed, and when employed they gave full value for their wages. The landlords had also come in for their share of censure. In the Times of that very day, there was an article charging the landlords with having caused all the miseries of Ireland, by the minute subdivision of their properties. He could tell the Times, that for the last twenty years the landlords of Ireland had been using their utmost endeavours to diminish the number of small holdings. But they had many difficulties to contend with, of which he could give an instance which had happened within his own experience. He had a small property within seven miles of Waterford, which about thirty years ago was lot on a long lease. On this property, which was only 150 acres, the tenant had squatted forty-two under tenants, each of whom had paid him 5l., 10 l., or 15 l. premium on entering upon their holdings. How was the head landlord to be held accountable for such a state of things as this? He was no more accountable for the misery of those forty-two cottiers than was the writer in the Times himself. It was very unfortunate that men, who knew nothing of what they were talking or writing about, should make such assertions. It was thus that prejudices were raised against the Irish land-lands as a class and body, and thus it was that they were doomed to destruction—Delenda est Carthago was the cry—"Destroy the Irish landlords utterly." It was ignorance and malice combined, which induced those persons, who must give something to feed the vanity and bad passions of their readers to raise such an outcry. He warned the House and the Government against the course they were pursuing. They would find that, by stimulating industry and employment, they would create peace, content, and happiness throughout the country. Let them by remedial measures bring in a good Landlord and Tenant Bill, give the farmer an interest in his land, and they would soon see an improvement in the condition of the Irish people. The English manufacturers had an interest in promoting that welfare, for the Irish were their best customers. They took millions upon millions of the products of

511
Manchester, of Leeds, and of Birmingham; and as they became more prosperous, their consumption would be doubled or trebled. In his opinion, English and Irish interests were identical, and you could not injure one without sensibly impairing the other.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDwished to state briefly his reasons for refusing his assent to the proposition of the Government. If the only consideration to be taken into account in the matter were the personal qualifications of the individual who was to administer the law, the character of the Earl of Clarendon would make him (Mr. S. Crawford) hesitate to refuse to entrust such powers to him. But it would be a bad principle to grant unconstitutional powers on account of the personal character of the administrator. The reasons, therefore, which were put forward by the Earl of Clarendon for demanding the continuance of those powers, should be examined by themselves and upon their own merits; and in his (Mr. S. Crawford's) opinion those reasons were totally insufficient. The first question was, that—
"On the part of those engaged with the late treasonable movement, no indication whatever of sorrow or repentance for their misdeeds had been observed."
He (Mr. S. Crawford) submitted that that should be no element of consideration in the question. The particular opinions of one set of politicians should not be put forward as a consideration on which the acts of that House should be founded. The second reason put forward by Lord Clarendon was—
"That there was no reason to believe that the recent orderly conduct of the people in the districts where disturbances prevailed, or were threatened, proceeded from any improved feeling as regarded either the law or the Executive Government,"
Such a supposition was quite inadmissible as a reason in so serious a case. The third was, that the Executive Government had not the support of the people in suppressing the late insurrection; and the fourth, that the population in the proclaimed districts had not delivered up their arms when called upon. Now, there should not be too much stress laid upon the latter fact. It was a natural feeling that in disturbed times people should be in possession of arms for the protection of their houses, their families, and their persons. And these being all the reasons assigned by the Earl of Clarendon for demanding the great powers which he sought, he (Mr. Crawford)
512
submitted to the House that they were not sufficient. But it was necessary not only to give reasons for putting Ireland out of the pale of the constitution; the objects to be gained by such a course should be stated also. And what were they? The object which the noble Lord (Lord. J. Russell) had chiefly in view was the repression of political agitation. Now, that political agitation which had gone on for many years in Ireland existed no longer; and he asked the House, was it possible for any one to believe that any man existed, or was likely to exist for many years to come, who was or would be capable of carrying on again such an agitation as that which had been carried on by a deceased hon. Gentleman? It was impossible. He wished to cast no reflection upon the opinions of the deceased; but he (Mr. Crawford) was always of opinion that that agitation was delusive in its character, and that it would not answer the purposes for which it was intended. But he thought it would be now impossible to renew that agitation again. There might be, indeed, an honest open agitation for the repeal of the Union. He did not know that there might not be large meetings held for the purpose of obtaining a repeal of the Union; but he denied that there could ever again be such agitation as that which was gone by. He had opposed the Treason and Felony Bill, because it was not accompanied by any remedial measures, and had expressed his conviction that until such measures were proposed and carried, there would never be tranquillity in Ireland. He should oppose the present measure on the same grounds, and because Government had taken no steps to redeem the pledges made in the course of last Session. He opposed it as an Irishman, because it deprived his countrymen of their rights; and as an English Member, because he believed that it might form a precedent for the future coercion of his constituents.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, if the Chartists had ever got the length of necessitating the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, few English Members would have hesitated to consent to a further suspension on the credit of the Government. But there were many English Members now who were anxious to show that, though fully disposed to support the Government in every necessary power, they were also jealous of every suspension of popular rights. More Members than himself were in straits with their constituencies on this

513
point; for Irish Members would be much mistaken if they believed there was not a strong Irish feeling among the constituencies, and a strong disposition in English Members to unite in every way they deemed practicable in promoting the welfare of the less fortunate portion of the empire. He hoped Members with these feelings would have an opportunity of expressing them by voting for a reduction of the period of extension in Committee; and with the understanding that he should not be prevented from doing that, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, it had not been his intention at that stage of the Bill to offer a single observation upon it, but that after the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer who had just sat down, he felt that he could not refrain from expressing his opinion, particularly when he found an hon. Member, possessed of the pure intentions of the gallant Colonel, imposed upon by such a letter as that written by the Earl of Clarendon. Now, when the present measure was first brought before the House, he (Mr. Osborne) gave it a willing support, because he considered then that Ireland was placed in a very perilous position, that the insurrection was not a mock one, and that a single success upon the part of the rebels would have plunged the country in blood. But he must say that there was a different state of things in Ireland now. Without at all depreciating the efforts of Lord Clarendon, he thought there had been a most unnecessary mead of adulation paid that noble Lord, and he could not for the life of him see what his Lordship had done to warrant the general conspiracy of all parties to bow down before his shrine. The Lord Lieutenant had simply done what any other able general officer would do. He had had an army of 30,000 men, commanded by most able officers, besides the patronage of Dublin Castle at his disposal, and with that assistance, he had succeeded in putting down the factious proceedings in Tipperary. He was quite prepared to give credit to the Lord Lieutenant, or to the Government, had they proposed some comprehensive scheme for the future policy of Ireland, and not, what he would call, the policy of kicks and halfpence now proposed—the object of which was to take away the liberty of the subject. Had the overtures lately made by the noble Lord at the head of the Administration to a distinguished individual on the opposite benches (Sir J. Graham) been successful, he (Mr. Osborne)
514
confessed that he should have felt more strong confidence in certain parts of the Government plans, for then he would have felt that, at least one statesman and a man of great administrative ability had joined the Ministry. It was well known that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had left the noble Lord's party on the Irish Church question—that he left them in the year 1834, because of their views on the Appropriation Clause; and yet now, in 1849, the Whig Government were making overtures in their necessity to the right hon. Gentleman, who had years before separated from them on a vital question. He (Mr. Osborne) knew that this Irish subject was a disagreeable one to speak about, because hon. Gentlemen were so intent on glorifying the Earl of Clarendon; but he felt and believed that the Lord Lieutenant's government in Ireland was not founded on public opinion, but on Her Majesty's Army. The Government were now about to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. What position would they be in at the end of six months? Were they to go on perpetually suspending this Act, and calling for grants from the Consolidated Fund? because as yet those were the only two measures for Ireland which Her Majesty's Ministers had propounded. One night they came down to the House and asked for a grant of 50,000 l, and the next they came down and asked for a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Did they call this government? What was the result of the Devon Commission? Why, that after a great expense had been incurred, and many blue books presented, that Commission did nothing more than saddle the Consolidated Fund with the payment of the Irish Constabulary. That Commission concluded its report in 1843, and from that day to this all that was done was to saddle the payment of the Irish Constabulary on the Consolidated Fund. The Government were now coming to the Consolidated Fund again, and when they had pulled that string sufficiently long, they then suspended the Habeas Corpus Act. He dissented from this plan, and also from the letter of the Lord Lieutenant, which he considered disgraceful. The gallant Colonel who had just addressed the House was for suspending the Act for three months; but he (Mr. Osborne) would not consent to its suspension for one day longer, because he did not think it necessary, and he was sure it was not founded upon the principles of justice.

515
He wished to know what had become of all the measures which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had considered necessary some time since to cure the evils of Ireland? What had become of the Irish Church question, and all the other measures and plans which the noble Lord was to bring forward on coming into office? Why had he, as an honest man, turned out the Government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, if he was not prepared with some grand scheme for Ireland? He (Mr. Osborne) contended that the party to which he belonged had been fraudulently imposed upon at the time they turned out the late Government, which he believed in his conscience was an honest Government, merely to put a select family circle in office. He knew that this was the feeling in Ireland, and that the noble Lord had utterly destroyed the remnant of the Whig party in that country, because no man would now come forward on the hustings and gain the votes of an Irish constituency by saying that he was attached to the Whigs. Let the noble Lord tell the House what was the policy he intended to pursue with regard to Ireland if this perpetual system was to go on of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act and granting money. He regretted that the Lord Lieutenant had thought it right to reflect on the men who were now paying the penalty of their crimes in a gaol, and to state that he saw no signs of contrition on the part of the men who had participated in the late disturbances. He had no sympathy with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) in his agitation for the repeal of the Union; but Her Majesty's Ministers were throwing power into that hon. Member's hands, and giving an impetus to the repeal agitation, by proposing such a measure as the present; and he, for one, would cheerfully vote for the Amendment.
MR. REYNOLDSobserved, that last Session, on the second night on which the House sat, they had been called upon to pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland. Soon after, they had been called upon to pass another; and about the termination of the Session, they had been asked to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. Upon these occasions he had felt it to be his duty to vote with the minorities; but notwithstanding this, he felt that there were then some grounds for calling for these coercive measures. It was then said, and truly, that an active and angry agitation was being carried on in Ireland. It was then said,
516
and truly, that in many instances the law was violated, and he confessed that he had found some difficulty in recording his vote against any measure of coercion. But upon the present occasion he felt no difficulty at all. He had read the debates upon the introduction of the present measure, and he could find in them no argument to justify the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act until next September. Ireland was found profoundly tranquil. He feared that that was the tranquillity of poverty. It was almost the tranquillity of the grave. The physical, and almost the mental, energies of the population were so prostrate that the people were not at present in a fighting humour. The last fight ended with the row at Ballingary, which some persons had facetiously called the Waterloo of the revolution. Reference I had been made to the Lord Lieutenant. Now he saw nothing improper in the Lord Lieutenant writing a letter to the Minister of the Crown, giving his opinion as to what course of policy ought to be pursued in Ireland. He thought it a proper thing in a Lord Lieutenant to give advice; but whether the House ought to adopt that advice was quite another question. For his own part he was not inclined, in this instance, to follow the counsels which had been given by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne). It was said that the Lord Lieutenant had done nothing to deserve approbation. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not think so. He thought that he had done much to deserve approbation. He had refused to arm the Orange yeomanry against the Catholic population; he had preserved the peace of the country; and it was because he (Mr. Reynolds) was anxious to support his government, that he was sorry that the letter in question had been written—a letter which, if it should be acted upon, would be productive of deep and lasting injury to Lord Clarendon's administration. He understood that one paragraph of that letter had been misinterpreted. He understood that it was not intended to interfere with agitation carried on by peaceable and legitimate means for the repeal of the Union, but it was intended to interfere with agitation against any other of the grievances under which the people of Ireland laboured. If so, he had no hesitation in saying that the policy of Government would fail. The people of Ireland had other grievances to complain of, of a leading and cardinal nature, exclusive of the repeal question. Did it over

517
enter into the imagination of hon. Gentlemen that the people were dissatisfied and discontented under the temporal oppression of the Irish Church? Could seven millions of people professing the Catholic religion, he content that the Ministers of a Protestant Established Church should receive in round numbers upwards of a million annually? He spoke as an Irishman and a Roman Catholic, and he declared that he would not feel that he was fully emancipated so long as the Protestant Church was established in Ireland. But in wishing to get rid of that Church as an establishment, he did not wish to introduce another. He was opposed to established churches of all denominations, and he held that the people should pay their pastors as they paid their doctors, and that it was utterly hopeless to expect permanent tranquillity in Ireland while the Established Church existed. He believed also that many of the grievances in Ireland were traceable to the Irish landlords; and that if the latter performed their duty as the landlords of England performed theirs, it would be far easier to govern the country than it was at present. In conclusion, he had only to repeat that he would oppose the measure before the House, and to express his surprise that no hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who would vote for the Bill, had favoured the House with his reasons for doing so. He believed that most of the votes would be upon the one side, and all the argument upon the other.
MR. TRELAWNYintended to support the Bill, thinking that Government deserved great credit for the promptitude and energy with which they had acted, and for the success with which they laboured to preserve the public peace. As regarded the future prospects of Ireland, he could not see any hope for that country so long as the people indulged their progenitive tendencies without having means at hand for the support of a rapidly increasing population. He blamed the conduct of the Irish Members in opposing the Bill. They were too apt to delay and thwart all Irish measures which did not include a grant from the Treasury in behalf of their constituents.
VISCOUNT BERNARDwas anxious to have an opportunity of thanking the Government, and especially the Earl of Clarendon, whose conduct had been beyond all praise, for the manly way in which they had come forward to suppress rebellion in Ireland.
518
He denied the assertion that there had been no danger. He had been on the spot at the time, presiding over the deliberations of the grand jury of the largest and most important county of Ireland, at the time when they thought it necessary to memorialise the Lord Lieutenant to send war steamers to the coast. He was, therefore, a witness who could speak to the greatness and imminency of the danger. At that period the county of Cork had been proclaimed; but had the arms possessed by the people been given up? This was a deeply important question. There had been a large importation of arms into Ireland, and no one could tell now where those arms were. It was not such outbreaks as that of Ballingarry which they had to fear. It was cowardly and skulking traitors who possessed these arms, and who would use them, he feared, in pursuance of a system of secret conspiracy and assassination. He believed that the present Bill was necessary, not only to preserve the peace of the country, but to promote its future welfare; and agreeing, as he did, with the Lord Lieutenant, that agitation was the bane of Ireland, he would now cheerfully support the proposition of Government.
MR. E. B. ROCHEobserved, that one of the most remarkable features of the present debate was the studied silence of the Members of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. He had heard but two reasons for the measure alleged during the evening. The one was that of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), touching the alleged progenitive tendencies of the Irish, and the other was the reason of the noble Lord (Viscount Bernard), who had just spoken, and who wished the constitution to be suspended because the grand jury of Cork were in a great fright. He could not help thinking that the great body of English Members were about to pursue a very extraordinary course upon this Bill. He had often acted with these hon. Members, particularly with reference to the free-trade question, at the risk of his own seat; and he saw with great pain the course upon which they were now bent in reference to the suspension of the constitution in Ireland. It was quite clear that the Earl of Clarendon's letter meant that the constitution ought to be suspended, in order to put down agitation for the repeal of the Union. Now, all he wished to say upon this point was, that a very large party in Ireland thought

519
that the repeal of the Union was a very desirable measure; and he begged to ask the free-trade Members how they could reconcile it with their principles and their practice, to come down and vote for the suspension of the constitution in Ireland, in order to prevent a large body of the Irish people agitating peaceably and constitutionally for the repeal of the Union? The result of the measure would be that they could not have in Ireland what they had in Manchester. He wished, therefore, to inquire of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), whether they were prepared to support this measure—suspending the constitution in Ireland—in order that a large body of the Irish people might be prevented expressing their opinion with regard to the legislative union of the two countries? In Manchester there existed an organised association for financial reform. If this measure were passed, that which was lawful in Manchester would not be tolerated in Dublin. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), had come up to Parliament after attending a great meeting at Manchester; but when the Irish Members made an appeal to them, to support them in obtaining the same constitutional rights which England enjoyed, these hon. Gentlemen took up their hats and walked out of the House. If anything could make him regret his free-trade votes, it was the conduct of the free-trade Members on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Colonel Thompson) might be taken as a fair representative of the Radical party in general. Now, all that he (Mr. Roche) could gather from his speech was, that he intended to support the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told them that he had often been in great straits with his constituency upon Irish questions. Now, all that he (Mr. Roche) would say was this, that he sincerely hoped the vote of the hon. and gallant Colonel to-night would place him in a greater strait than ever. He trusted that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, and state what policy they proposed to pursue towards Ireland after they had got a suspension of this Act for six months, and after they had, consequently, kept the people of that country under their feet, trampled upon their liberties,
520
and degraded them in the eyes of Europe? Were they to expect another suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act after the expiration of that term? He thought it was the duty of the people of Ireland, who were in distress, and still more of the people of England, who were about to administer relief to that distress, to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government the manner in which they proposed to govern that country for the future. He should like to know whether, in case another Chartist outbreak in England should occur, and tranquillity should be restored, any Minister would call for a suspension of the liberties of the people? He denounced the present proceedings of Her Majesty's Government as an insult to the Irish people. The Government might disclaim such an intention; but he gave them little credit for it. What Ireland wanted was good and statesmanlike laws; and the peace of the country required preserving, not by force and violence, but by a line of policy which should rally round the Government the good opinions of the people, and which should be based on justice and a spirit of fair dealing. Depend upon it, that so long as a system of coercion was maintained in Ireland, she would be a blot upon this country, and that she would in time drag England down to her own level of misery and degradation.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that he should not trespass upon their attention with more than a very few remarks. His hon. Friend (Mr. Roche), who had just sat down, had paid himself a very bad compliment, which he (Sir W. Somerville) certainly should not have ventured to have uttered. His hon. Friend, in addressing himself to this measure—a measure of great importance, involving the interests, not only of Ireland, but of the empire—had endeavoured to establish what he (Sir W. Somerville) might be permitted to call a quid pro quo system. The hon. Gentleman said to those on his (Sir W. Somerville's) side of the House, who had taken into consideration the events which had occurred in Ireland during the last few months, and who no doubt had arrived with pain at the conviction that it was their duty to support the measure of Her Majesty's Government—he said to those hon. Gentlemen—" How can you think of doing such a thing as that? I voted for your free-trade measure, and I now expect you will come forward and assist me in resisting the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act."

521
That was a line of argument which he should not presume to address to the hon. Gentleman, for he had that opinion of him that he was persuaded that when the hon. Member voted in favour of the principle of free trade, he thought he was doing what was right, and what he was hound to do; and in like manner he was prepared to believe that the same spirit animated those Gentlemen who now felt it their painful duty to vote in favour of the present measure. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: They will not vote at all.] Where "they?" He did not know who "they" were. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: The Manchester School.] He did not refer to the "Manchester School," but to the two hundred and odd Members of the House who had voted with Her Majesty's Government on a recent occasion, because they had thought it to be their duty to do so, as they had equally thought it their duty to vote for free-trade measures. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Sadleir), who was not then in the House, had addressed to him (Sir W. Somerville) a number of remarks personally, to which he should have offered some reply had he been present; but as that hon. Gentleman was not in the House, he should not follow his example by going generally into the question of Ireland, and making reference to the question of landlord and tenant, the franchise, and other topics to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. But he should beg to address a few remarks upon the proposition immediately engaging the attention of the House, namely, the proposal to suspend, for a limited time, the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), in the remarks he had addressed to the House, had laid a stress upon certain expressions in the letter of the Earl of Clarendon; and he argued that those expressions had led him to believe that, should the Lord Lieutenant be entrusted with the powers asked for, he would use them for the purpose of putting a stop to any agitation for a repeal of the Union. Now, did any man suppose that, in the present state of public opinion, any Lord Lieutenant—any individual entrusted with the Executive power in Ireland, even if he had the inclination, which the present holder of that office certainly had not—would presume to use those powers to stop an agitation for so peaceful and legitimate an object. Certainly not. What was intended to be conveyed by the expression which his Excellency had used, was, that if any agitation should be carried on in a
522
treasonable manner, and in a way inciting to insurrection, such powers should be trusted to the Executive in Ireland. The expression did not therefore apply to such a system of agitation as that adopted by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), because that agitation had been carried on for a number of years without interference on the part of the Executive Government, but it did apply to agitation carried on for treasonable purposes. Having said thus much, he confessed that, in addressing to the House any remarks in favour of the measure before thorn, he found himself in a different position to that in which he should have been had he addressed the House on the subject in the course of the last Session. A Motion to continue an Act of this description—an Act which had been found necessary only six months ago—was quite a different proposition, and rested on altogether different grounds to those on which the original proposition had been based, and did not require the production of that absolute proof for the measure which it absolutely required on its first introduction. The vote of to-night, he admitted, was, to a certain extent, a vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, judging from the best information at his command, and conceiving that there was a lull, as far as any insurrectionary movement was concerned, at the present moment in Ireland, had come forward and had stated on his own responsibility to Her Majesty's Government—and on that statement Her Majesty's Government had proceeded—that he did not think it was safe at the present moment to deprive the Executive Government of the powers with which they had been entrusted during the last Session. It was easy to talk about this measure being an insult to the people of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House seemed to think they had a monopoly of love for Irish freedom and Irish interests. But he (Sir. W. Somerville), too, felt that love towards his country, and he thought he had shown it all his life through. He not believe there was any party of men in Ireland who would look upon it as an insult to their country. For his own part, he believed it to be not only an act of necessity, but still more an act of humanity. Suffering, as the Irish people were at the present moment from an unheard-of amount of destitution, it

523
was right that they should be defended against those who would prey upon their wants and destitution, for ulterior purposes of their own. Whatever the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) might say to the contrary, he (Sir W. Somerville) believed that no man more completely enjoyed the confidence of all parties than the Earl of Clarendon. It had been felt that if the outbreak in Ireland could not have been put down without bloodshed, the precautions of the Lord Lieutenant would have been successful in checking it, and that he would act successfully against any future attempts at insurrection, or at disturbing the peace of the country. He (Sir W. Somerville) would not trouble the House with any further remarks. Every man who loved the liberties of his country must feel pain at being obliged to vote for a measure of this description; but he believed that such a vote was at this moment necessary, and was called for under the present circumstances of Ireland; and, for his own part, he should not shrink from any responsibility which might attach to a vote at which he had arrived in accordance with his conscientious conviction.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONagreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) who had last spoken, that no person could feel satisfaction in any vote which he might be called to give on this question. As the representative of a large Irish constituency, he (Lord C. Hamilton) must say that he thought it but just that such an Act as that which they were now discussing—an Act which went to deprive so large a portion of their fellow-subjects of their liberties, on the score, as it was said, of humanity—should not he allowed to pass without the Government, which had brought it forward, coming and showing how it happened that so large a portion of Her Majesty's dominions had been brought into such a state of social disorganisation as to require the imposition of such a measure. He (Lord C. Hamilton) must ask the House to remember what party it had been in that House which had uniformly advocated the measures which had mainly contributed to the present state of things. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had stated that this measure was to be regarded somewhat as a vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government and the Earl of Clarendon. He would vote for it irrespective of all party considerations, for he should be ashamed of himself if he did not
524
come forward to give expression to his admiration of the Earl of Clarendon, to whose unceasing mental and physical exertions it was owing that Government were enabled to state the insurrection in Ireland had been suppressed. He rejoiced, then, that the vote would be taken as a vote of confidence in that noble Lord. But he regarded the proposition of Her Majesty's Government very much in the light of an indictment against eight millions of the Irish people—a right was about to be withheld from them, which, properly, they should enjoy so long as they lived under the British constitution; and, considering the magnitude of the issue at stake, he thought that Her Majesty's Ministers should have given a more distinct and accurate account of the causes which had led to the present state of things. He held in his hand the communication from the Earl of Clarendon to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which was put forward as the foundation for the continuance of this measure. He found in that letter a reference made to past Parliamentary history, in which he (Lord C. Hamilton) had taken a humble part; he found a reference to the difficulties of getting in the arms by proclamation, to a system of agitation which had long prevailed, and to the difficulties which must attend any attempts to wean the people from their past courses. Those statements led him to reflect upon the reasons which should induce him to give his vote on the present occasion. He could not forget that on Irish questions he had frequently found himself in opposition to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). On the question of the Arms Bill, he had found himself night after night voting for adjournments. He could well remember how the Opposition spoke against what they then called governing by force, and lauded a policy which was based upon public opinion; nor could be forget the prolonged cheering with which the right hon. Gentleman, the late Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was greeted, when in rounded periods he charged the then Prime Minister of this country with governing the people by means of armed men and entrenched camps. He well remembered also the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) moving for a return of the number of troops then in Ireland, and declaiming against the attempt of the Government, to which he

525
was then opposed, for their attempt by force to overawe the wishes of the people. He (Lord C. Hamilton) would ask how Ministers would like it, were he to move for a return of the troops, artillery, pensioners, and police in Ireland during the month of August last—were he to compare the number of troops employed under a Minister who had come into office by the rejection of the mild measures proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, with the number employed when the noble Lord at the head of the Government made a distinct attack upon the late Administration, that they governed by force and not by opinion? With respect to the present measure, he (Lord C. Hamilton) felt that it was not right to punish a people until it had been shown who had led them into error—until it had been shown who had drilled them in that system of agitation for which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was now asked as a remedy. In the space of two short years Her Majesty's Ministers had come down to the House to ask for measures which totally threw into the shade the milder measures of the Government which preceded them—measures which had then been denounced with all that eloquence about popular rights which seemed to animate hon. and right hon. Gentlemen when they happened to sit on his side of the House. He did not know whether it was any particular current of air, or peculiarity in the atmosphere of the House or not, but it always happened that speeches about popular rights, made for the purpose of catching votes, always proceeded from his side of the House. [Laughter.] Of course he meant the speeches of hon. Members who now sat on the Ministerial side. Could the Government wonder that we should have to deplore the existence of the present state of things in Ireland, when they reflected upon the system of demoralisation which had been pursued in that country for years past? He thought that the Government were responsible for much of the misery which now afflicted Ireland, and he trusted that they would express some little contrition for having in past years abetted a system of agitation which was now deplored by all parties in the State. The hon. Member for Armagh (Colonel Verner) had been deprived of the commission of the peace for doing that for which the hon. Member for Limerick had been praised, and had patronage put in his power. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!]
526
The noble Lord and his Colleagues ought to look back with remorse on their former conduct, and acknowledge that they had been instrumental in leading the poor unfortunate Irish into the agitation which the Earl of Clarendon now denounced. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) said the other day, of the vote for the relief of Irish distress, that he hoped it would be "the last of the series." He (Lord C. Hamilton) hoped that the Bill now before the House would, in like manner, be the last of the series; that Ireland would cease to be driven, like a shuttlecock, from conciliation at one time to coercion at another; and that its interests would be regarded rather than the expediency of securing sixty or seventy votes for the purposes of a party. The first great vote which was taken after he entered the House was for the appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church. It put the party in power which now held the Government; they retained office for six years, but never thought more of the Appropriation Clause. It was a stepping-stone to office. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had again succeeded in driving the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) from office, and again upon an Irish question; but sixteen months had not passed away when Ministers found it necessary to introduce measures of a more stringent character than those on which they had defeated their predecessors. He hoped this would be the last time he should have to give a vote in favour of a Bill which was so exceptionable and liable to abuse.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he had to beg pardon of the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) who last addressed the House, for having interrupted him in the course of his speech. The noble Lord had stated an inaccuracy with reference to a deceased Gentleman, whose character was very important to him (Mr. J. O'Connell); he alluded to the late Mr. D. O'Connell, who had never induced nor countenanced the people's taking up arms, as the noble Lord had represented. [Lord C. HAMILTON: I did not mean to convey any impression of that kind.] He was perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, and he had only interrupted him to correct what he (Mr. J. O'Connell) had understood him to assert, but which he had now disclaimed. The speech delivered by one hon. Gentleman that night (Mr. Trelawny), he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would scarcely con-

527
descend to allude to—it was couched in the language of a bully of the stews, and he would pass it by with sovereign contempt. To come to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville). That speech, much pleasure as it must give him (Mr. J. O'Connell) and his friends, was not sufficient to remove their objections to this Bill, because it was a very grave matter to suspend the constitution of the country in any part whatever of Her Majesty's dominions; and leaving out of the question the agitation which the right hon. Baronet had distinctly and expressly excepted and excluded from the operation of this Act, the right hon. Baronet had entirely failed to make out any case for its necessity at all. He (Mr. John O'Connell) held in his hand long extracts which went to prove the perfectly legal and constitutional character of the agitation against which he had understood, until the right hon. Baronet had spoken, this Bill to be directed; but as the right hon. Baronet had specially, and in terms, excluded that particular agitation from the operation of this measure, it was, of course, perfectly unnecessary now for him (Mr. J. O'Connell) to read these extracts in detail to the House. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had had great pleasure in noting down the right hon. Baronet's words. He (Sir W. Somerville) had declared that they (the repeal Members) were under a total mistake as regarded the meaning of the Lord Lieutenant's letter, and also, of course, as regarded the commentary which the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir George Grey) had made to the House respecting the statements contained in his Excellency's letter; and, therefore, those remarks which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would have thought it his duty to continue that night upon that letter, and those comments, he did not feel it necessary now to pursue, inasmuch as he had just been told that this Bill had no application to the peaceful and constitutional agitation with which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was connected. The right hon. Baronet's (Sir W. Somerville's) words were—" Of course the Lord Lieutenant will not presume to meddle with any peaceful, legal, and constitutional agitation; "and did him (Mr. J. O'Connell) the honour of referring to him, as a humble member of the repeal body, in order to mark more distinctly the application of his exceptional illustration, because he (Sir W. Somerville)
528
knew that he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was, though but a powerless instrument, yet still an individual strongly identified with the repeal agitation—one who was connected with every move and intention of that body—one of the committee of the Association, who frequently took part in its proceedings, and one of those who were now preparing the way to renew its peculiar career of usefulness by peaceful, legal, and constitutional agitation. The right hon. Baronet had referred to him that night, and saved the character of the Ministry to which he (Sir W. Somerville) belonged. He had so far weakened the charge of consistency against them, inasmuch as that he had told the House that the Government did not intend to carry the outrage upon the liberties of the country as such a Bill as this inflicted, to the extreme lengths of proscribing the expression of public opinion, or to the most unconstitutional and tyrannous length of preventing a discussion of the propriety of repealing an Act of Parliament. He had asserted that if this Bill were to pass into a law, the Lord Lieutenant would not presume to interfere with any legal and constitutional agitation, such as that in which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was engaged. He had said also that the species of agitation which this Bill was directed against, was agitation of a treasonable kind, for treasonable objects, and conducted in a treasonable manner. Now, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) did not know if in any excitement that had occurred in this House on any previous night, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) and his Friends (the repeal Members) had been regarded as being mixed with any of the disturbances that had broken out in Ireland last year, and with regard to which the right hon. Baronet had distinctly denied that night that they (the repeal Members) were at all in any way implicated; but if any one attributed to him (Mr. J. O'Connell) any conduct of a treasonable character, he would reply to him by the use of the shortest and most direct word in the English language. But even admitting, for a moment, that the slightest imputation of treasonable practices could fairly be applied to their (the repeal Members') agitation, then who, he would ask, would be to blame for it? Who would be the guilty parties? Why, not only the Ministry here (pointing to the Misisterial benches), who tolerated that agitation, but the ex-Ministry on the other side of this House, who never attempted to put it

529
down either. And why not? Because they could not—because those who conducted that agitation had kept within the constitution, and could, therefore, defy any interference from the Government. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had intended to give a determined and vexatious opposition to this measure to the utmost of his power, because he considered such a course perfectly justifiable where an act of tyranny was attempted to be perpetrated; but now that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had disavowed any intention to direct the measure against the repeal agitation with which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was connected, he would not pursue a course altogether so hostile as, under other circumstances, he would have felt compelled to adopt. He had placed on the books a notice of Motion for a Committee of the whole House upon the necessity for this measure; and he wished the Committee to receive an instruction; for he did not believe the new Orders interfered with the case of an instruction. His Motion on the books was—
"That it be an instruction to the Committee to introduce such provisions into the Bill as shall guard and save intact the right of the subject to hold meetings, to petition for the enactment, repeal, or alteration of Acts of Parliament, or for redress of grievances, or other constitutional object, without other or further restriction of that right than existed under the operation of the Common and Statute Law of the Land, previous to the passing of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of last July."
This right of the subject, which it was his object to conserve unimpaired, was a right without which this House itself would have no existence; and surely the right to appeal or petition against any grievance, and especially against those worst of all grievances, grievances perpetuated by Act of Parliament, ought not to be taken away upon such weak and miserable grounds as those alleged in the present instance. [The hon. Member then briefly glanced at the various documents which he had intended to quote to the House, with the view of proving that all the movements and proceedings of the Repeal Association, from its original foundation up to the present time, had been strictly peaceful and constitutional, and always determinedly hostile to anything approaching to violent or unlawful measures of agitation. Among these documents was the report of the committee of the Association, dated July, 1846, respecting the secession of the Young Ireland party from Conciliation Hall; also an address to the people, issued on the 8th of March last, denouncing everything tending
530
in the remotest degree to evince disrespect for the law, or lead to a broach of public order. Another address was likewise published by the Association, cautioning the people against the wild doctrines then abroad, and against the mad, rash, and criminal attempts to imitate the disastrous movements then taking place in many countries on the Continent, and holding out to them legal and constitutional agitation as the only sure and safe course to pursue for the achievement of their liberties.] He said, he would also have read another document, in which the Association protested against joining the Irish League, even although it had been formed with the laudable view of endeavouring to effect, if possible, a reconciliation between the Young Irelanders and their former associates, and to induce the former party to abandon physical-force principles, and combine with those with whom they had formerly co-operated in a cause of agitation strictly and exclusively moral, peaceful, and constitutional. It was totally unnecessary, as he had before said, for him to go into these details now, because he had no longer to combat an attack upon the conduct of the Repeal Association, since the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had declared that that Association belonged to the category of legal and constitutional movements, with which the Lord Lieutenant would not presume to interfere. Dismissing from his mind all the bitterness which he might have evinced in the warmth of debate on the previous evening, he would earnestly appeal to the Government not to throw away their reputation as constitutional Ministers and statesmen by urging this Bill any longer, when they had not made out a case even for the necessity of such a measure to suppress any agitations not—like that of the Repeal Association—admitted to be excepted from the operation of this Bill. Above all, he begged of them not to suffer any ambiguity to exist regarding the right of public discussion. He (Mr. J. O'Connell), so far as he was individually concerned, was perfectly content to let the matter rest with the personal explanation made in that House by a Minister of such high honour and integrity as he was satisfied the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) was, to the effect that such legal and constitutional agitations as the Repeal Association, with which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was connected, would remain perfectly untouched by these powers proposed to be continued in the hands of

531
the Lord Lieutenant. At the same time, for the sake of the interests of the public and the country in general, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) must ask to have the necessary words inserted in the Act, restricting the exercise of the Lord Lieutenant's powers under that Bill, in accordance with the explanation given that night by the right hon. Baronet; because the sacred right of the subject in question was of far too vital importance to be left on any future occasion—should it be called in question out of that House—to be jeopardised by depending upon the more oral explanations of a Minister, made in connexion with the measure when it was under debate. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) would now turn to English Members of that House of liberal politics. He could not but contrast the readiness and alacrity with which they seemed, in contradiction of all their distinctive principles, disposed, in mere compliment to one man (the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), to pass a Bill voting away the constitutional rights and privileges of their fellow-subjects—he could not, he said, help noticing the marked contrast between their hurry and haste to do this, and their determined repugnance to voting a paltry grant of 50,000 l. for the relief of the poor unfortunate starving people of the west of Ireland, and regarding which grant more than one distinguished Member of that House had declared, that to refuse it to these miserable and perishing wretches would be equivalent to passing a sentence of death upon them. Then hon. Gentlemen had declared, too, that it was not the amount of the grant to which they objected—they must, forsooth, withhold it upon principle. One of these hon. Gentlemen had said, the grant was altogether an un-philosophical and unstatesmanlike expedient. But where was the principle—where anything philosophical or statesmanlike, in the support these friends of popular rights and popular liberties were about to give to this unconstitutional and tyrannical measure, to continue the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? Some of them, too, afraid of having openly to falsify and betray all their former principles and professions by their votes upon this Bill, absented themselves from the House, in order that they might preserve their reputation for consistency in the eyes of their constituency. This was most ungenerous conduct towards Ireland, and it would take a long time to forget such treatment. It was a cowardly proceeding; but, however,
532
it all tended more strongly than ever to impress upon the Irish people the lesson that they must not look to England for help, but must rely solely upon their own independent exertions, by peaceful agitation, to redress their own wrongs and ameliorate their own condition. The most obnoxious part of this measure, he admitted, had been removed, after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet; still, as it was, it would inflict a flagrant outrage upon the constitution; and no case had been made out to prove its necessity. Ireland was admitted on all hands to be now tranquil; and the unfortunate leaders of the late violent proceedings in that country were now either in prison, and under the power of the law, or were miserable refugees in a foreign land; and were persons now more entitled to their pity than their enmity. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) must, therefore, still oppose the measure before the House, and he believed that England was as much interested in its rejection as Ireland herself was; because, if the House adopted it, they might strike a deadly blow at the constitution, and lay down a most fatal and pernicious precedent. Under the present peaceful state of affairs in Ireland, ought they not at least to postpone the application for such a measure; and he was sure, if a recurrence of ominous circumstances at all calculated to justify such a measure took place again in Ireland, that the Government would find the House perfectly ready to arm them with the needful powers of repression.
MR. HUMEsaid, if he was anxious to address the House after the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche), he was still more so after that of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), who had indulged in an attack on the free-trade Members on his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House, accusing them with cowardice and everything discreditable; because, as he (Mr. J. O'Connell) alleged, they had deserted their principles. But the hon. Gentleman seemed entirely to forget the charges to which his own conduct that very night laid him open to—the very charges which he had been so liberally dealing out against others. Where was his own consistency in saying what he had just said (for really this was what his speech after all amounted to)—" I thank the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville), for leaving our Repeal Association alone—provided you do not interfere with my agitation, I

533
shall be perfectly satisfied?" [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!] Where was the hon. Gentleman's regard for the general liberties of his country, if such a paltry sop as this was to be enough for him? So long as he and his coadjutors were let alone themselves, and escaped the lash, they did not appear to care who else came in for it. For his own part, he (Mr. Hume) objected to measures of this kind, though he had voted for a similar Bill last Session; but if the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Connell) had attended to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Sadleir), he would have learned the reasons which had influenced him (Mr. Hume), as they had that hon. Member, to support that measure; it was because the country was in a state of disorder, and that no remedial measures could be introduced until it was restored to a state of tranquillity; and he believed, as he had said before, that the Lord Lieutenant had exercised the extraordinary powers with which he had been intrusted with great discretion and judgment. And now that the country had been reduced to a state of tranquillity and order; and after the former declarations of the present Ministry, about the necessity for large remedial measures for the permanent good of Ireland, he (Mr. Hume) could not think the Government would hold their seats without intending, after they had had these extraordinary powers continued in their hands for a few months longer, to address themselves energetically to the task of boldly grappling with the social and political evils of Ireland, and carrying out large and comprehensive plans for laying the foundation of its future well-being and prosperity. It was upon this understanding, and upon this understanding alone, that he (Mr. Hume), who would yield to no man in his respect for the liberties of his fellow-subjects, had been reconciled to vote for the continuance of the suspension of the constitution on the present occasion. These he (Mr. Hume) believed also influenced his free-trade friends in their votes upon this question. He did not believe that any of them shrunk from candidly expressing their opinions. They were not a whit behind the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) in their attachment for the liberties of the people: and they all regarded the Government as pledged to apply its best attention to bringing forward measures to avert the lamentable state of things now going on in Ireland, and which must be expected to grow
534
still worse and worse every day, so long as they went on suspending the constitution in this manner, and shrank from undertaking any other kind of legislation for Ireland but measures of coercion and force. He (Mr. Hume) would like to ask the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), and those other Irish Members who did little else but complain and find fault in that House—he would like to ask them, seeing they must be supposed to have more experience of their own country, and its social evils and sufferings than anybody else—what they would have the Legislature do to improve the social condition of the Irish people? Let them boldly and fairly propound what measures they wished for. He (Mr. Hume) and his friends were anxious that Ireland should be brought within the pale of the constitution, and receive the benefit of the same laws and liberties, and the same protection to life and property, as any other part of the empire. He thought it necessary, then, for him now to state he would give the measure his support, under the impression and in the confident belief that Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to bring before the House measures of a comprehensive class. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intimated to the House his conviction that the measure was necessary for the peace of Ireland. England demanded that peace should be restored to that country; and he well knew that peace must first be restored, and prosperity, together with the full enjoyment of political rights, would follow. It was in that hope that he accepted the present Bill; it was in that view that he interpreted the present position of the Ministers with regard to Ireland, whom he begged to remind of their wish, oft repeated, to do justice to that country; he said he voted for that measure as the means of creating an opportunity for the Government bringing in those great and comprehensive measures which were necessary for Ireland. If, however, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), and those who were with him in the Repeal Association, were again, in spite of the Government, to commence their old course, he asked him when they might expect to see the end of disturbances in Ireland? He thought that men who wished to promote the improvement of Ireland, ought first to wish her peace. Peace was necessary to her prosperity; on that ground, and on that ground only, he would vote for that measure. He had already

535
asked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connell) to define the measures he would propose. Let him point out what he would do at this moment if he were in the position of Her Majesty's Ministers? That instant, repeal would be the cry. Would he embody it in a measure? and if he did, what would be the consequences? [Mr. J. O'CONELL: Try it.] Try it? It had been already long tried; these trials had been the occasion of the evils which were now deplored; they had too long made trial of these delusions. For such a reason as that, and on the grounds he had now stated, he would now give his support to so unconstitutional a measure.
MR. J. O'CONNELLexplained, that while he had expressed satisfaction with the course taken by the Ministers, that satisfaction only went so far. For he had likewise said that the Bill now before the House was outrageous, fatal, and dangerous, as applied to freemen.
MR. GRATTANsaid, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), in his speech in favour of the Bill before the House, had animadverted on certain inconsistencies which he professed to have seen in the conduct of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connell). But he (Mr. Grattan) was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, had cleared his conduct just as little as did that of the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir W. Somerville). Now, among the reasons urged by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for voting in favour of this measure, he had set forward the character of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Earl of Clarendon was said to be a man of ability, of great industry, great personal exertion, and great caution; and in all that he (Mr. Grattan) perfectly agreed. But then that could not be offered as a reason for justifying or proving the necessity of the measure. The Earl of Clarendon, it ought to be recollected, was an executive magistrate; they were legislators—he acted as the case required; they advised as the case demanded, and they were bound, as legislators, to advise in accordance with the principles of the constitution; but the Earl of Clarendon asked them to do away with the constitution itself. There were two classes of principles that guided legislation, and induced men to submit to government, The one was derived from property, the other from liberty. Property was vanishing in Ireland, and they were now called on to vote away her constitution.
536
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny) had taunted Ireland and Irish Members with mendicancy and menaces. He wondered, after what had occurred in their own country, that Englishmen could throw out such imputations upon the Irish. He (Mr. Grattan) asked, had menaces been used by Irish Members, or where had the opportunity been offered them? The fact was, that instead of using menaces they had been duped. The words of Flood about "the generous credulity of Irish Members" might be repeated again in the House with perfect truth—they had been deceived by the Minister with words—they had been led into a compact which went far to sacrifice the interests of their country, and in return for this they were repaid with the most renegade conduct on the part of Gentlemen who walked out of the House, and left others to support the liberties of their country. What had Ministers done for Ireland? All their measures had failed—their Crown and Government Security Bill had failed—the Felony Bill had failed—and other Bills had all failed. What did they look for from their prosecutions—what from their indictments, which had been so numerous? They also had failed. Conviction had followed conviction, packed jury after packed jury; men were detained in gaol for months; and five indictments were drawn up against a single individual still in confinement; but yet they were not satisfied, and another Bill suspending the liberties of Irishmen was before the House. It suited some hon. Gentlemen, and especially the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), to speak of "menaces," but it might not suit them to say openly that their object was to suppress the expression of opinion in Ireland. It suited them better to misrepresent that country. And what country was so liable to be so misrepresented for the independent expression of opinion? In the year 1779, when Irishmen wished to have what was now so popular, even with the Government, under the name of free trade, the Secretary immediately charged it as the opinion of faction. In 1782 they had a liberal Lord Lieutenant; but the Secretary—that adder who poured his poison into the Lord Lieutenant's ear—represented Irishmen as factious, and deserving to be impeached; and if that young Member (Mr. Trelawny), had studied the country and its history, he would have known that their chief leaders

537
would have been indicted, but that 100,000 volunteers were at their back to support them in their patriotic efforts; yet it was not till the volunteers came forth, and their artillery had been brought to bear, that the virtue of Ireland rose to defend the independence and liberties of the country. Tell him of "mendicancy" and "menaces!" He would rather that they would take hack their money, than listen to such taunts. There would be less of the mendicancy with which they were reproached, if the landlords of Ireland lived on the estates from which they derived their fortunes. Let the Earl of Portsmouth, Viscount Palmerston, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Anglesea, Egmont, Hertford, and a host of others, go back and reside in the country; then Ministers would have to deal with men who were acquainted with the state of the country. England was a commercial nation, and her people were, commercial men, and in a commercial spirit they dealt with it—money was their object, and to get money their endeavour, whether it came from the wilds of California or from the wilds of Connemara, no matter, so that it was money they got. They took money from Ireland; but now, when money was to be voted for that country, all were up in arms. The present cry for peace to Ireland was the old story that worked so miraculously in 1829; then it was, "Don't disturb the Church—don't attempt to coerce the Government." That policy was pursued by one of the ablest men in the kingdom, one of the greatest generals in modern times. In 1828, appeared the celebrated letter of the Duke of Wellington, addressed to Dr. Curtis, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, and his words to that prelate were, "Let this question rest for some time." He recommended—repose!—the repose of the sepulchre; but the Divine Spirit that lay within rolled back the stone from the entrance and appeared in triumphant and everlasting glory. He had not heard a single argument advanced in favour of the Government bringing forward this measure. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had failed to show that there was any necessity for it. What extent of power would satisfy the Government? Had they not everything they asked for—the law, the military, and the police—30,000 soldiers and 10,000 police—were they not all on their side? But suppose the Bill were to pass, it was only to be in force for six months; what,
538
then, were they to do at the end of that time, when the Bill expired? They had proposed nothing—not a single measure to be carried in the meantime for the benefit of the country, which, at the end of six months, was to be thrown loose from this new control, and they who lived in the country with their families and their tenants were to be exposed to the presumed danger. The only measure spoken of was the old Bill alluded to by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), respecting the franchise. So they were now coming to register the population when the population was gone: just as they came to alter the municipal corporations, when these corporations had sunk in corruption. There was no statesmanship in that. He held a document in his hand, giving the statistics of the population of a place in the south of Ireland, containing, at one time, 30,000 inhabitants. This document exhibited the number of births which had occurred in that place annually since the year 1843. For three months of the year 1843, the number of births were 332; for 1844, 300; 1845, 314; 1846, 285; 1847, 227; 1848, 33. He had never contemplated such a case as that where the births from 332 had decreased to 33. The Government, if they would be influenced by no other motive, ought to consider how much they were concerned in this state of the population for the supply of the Army and Navy. There were 42,000 in the Army who were Irishmen, and 20,000 in Her Majesty's Navy; what would Government do when the best of the people of Ireland had left the country? The great farmers and the wealthy tenants were going; and the lower classes would speedily follow them into another country. Could any one believe they would remain in a country stript of its nobility, its gentry, its manufactures, its wealth, and its liberty—in truth, they were not discussing the Habeas Corpus but whether there would be any corpus there at all. He said he looked upon all this as a retribution on the British Government, for the conduct which had long been pursued towards his country. Before he sat down he would read two letters which he had received, applying for his aid in behalf of persons who were suffering deeply under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He read a letter from Mrs. Meyler, who complained that her husband was at present confined in gaol; that on the 1st day of July last he had

539
been taken while dining with his family by seven or eight detectives; that he was conveyed immediately, without the opportunity of bidding his family adieu, to Newgate; and after lying in the gaol at Belfast for some time, that he was removed to Kilmainham gaol, where he was locked up for sixteen hours a day, in a cold damp cell, without light or fire. The letter added, he wished for a trial, and that up to the present time he did not know any reason for his being arrested. It might be supposed that the person so treated was of the lower class; but he was of a family moving, before the calamity overtook them, in a very respectable circle—the father of five children—money to the amount of 100,000 l. passed through his hands—he was realising a fortune of 800 l. a year—he was a Member of the Royal Society, Dublin, and of the Chamber of Commerce. He therefore bogged that Ministers would take these cases into their consideration, for the facts disclosed appealed to their humanity—not to say justice. He finally called upon the Ministers to bring in measures such as were demanded by the momentous nature of the present crisis. The Bill proposed was to prevent insurrection. But at this very time a revolution was actually in progress in the country; a revolution such as had not existed since 1688; it was a revolution of property, a revolution of people, a revolution which, if it progressed, would soon leave the country waste, without wealth and without liberty. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his determination to offer his utmost opposition to the further progress of the measure.
MR. DISRAELI said: Sir, it was my intention to have given a silent vote in favour of the measure of Her Majesty's Government. When this measure was introduced to our notice last Session, I felt it a duty to express the reasons why I supported it, and I did so without reserve. But after the speech of the Chief Secretary (Sir W. Somerville), I feel that I might be under misapprehension of the motives which induce me to support the Government, if I remained silent on this occasion. Sir, the reason why I support the measure of the Government is, that I think it is demanded by the exigency of the case. The circumstances since it was proposed to our consideration may have in some degree varied; there may have been some features of an alarming character then very evident, which no longer are visible;
540
but I believe the general aspect of affairs is not so changed, that I for one can incur the responsibility of refusing to support the Government on the present occasion in a similar proposition. But when I am told by the Chief Secretary that the Government require our support for their measure, not on account of the exigency of the case, but on account of our confidence in Her Majesty's Government, I feel it my duty not to pass such an application without some comment. It is rather too much for Her Majesty's Government to claim the support of this House, on the principle of confidence in themselves. In my opinion they have obtained sufficient support here, without being too curious as to the cause. I certainly am not inclined to go out of my way to express any want of confidence in the Administration which exists; but when the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) challenge a declaration of confidence in their policy, I may be allowed, I hope, without offence, to express my protest. Certainly I cannot think that with regard to Irish policy the conduct of the Whig party during the time I have had any experience of public life, will afford an emblazoned page in the history of Whiggism. Sir, I have not forgotten the circumstances under which the Administration of 1835 was subverted; I have not forgotten, and I should think there are few persons in this country who have forgotten, the celebrated "Appropriation Clause." I have not forgotten the means by which the Whig party then acceded to power, the tenure by which they held that power, and the unfulfilled ends for which they continued in power, when they were no longer in a position to realise their public compact. I have not forgotten the events subsequent to that memorable political transaction, till they terminated in the renewed expulsion from office of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) may tell me, that I and my friends joined in the vote which expelled the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth from power on that occasion. We did so, but we did it with a frank expression of the opinions which we entertained. We looked upon that Government as a pernicious Government; we disapproved of their policy; we seized the first occasion on which we could hurl them from office; but was that the position of noble Lords and

541
right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Were they impugners of his policy? Were they critics of the courses he pursued? On the contrary, they had been found in every division in favour of his policy; they were the ready adherents of the right hon. Gentleman; and when they did seize the occasion to turn him out of office, they did it in opposition to a policy which they themselves are now obliged to pursue in an aggravated spirit. Well, then, Sir, I think I am justified in saying that I am supporting this measure, not on account of my confidence in the general Irish policy of the Whig party. But then I am told by the Chief Secretary (Sir W. Somerville) that I am to support this measure on account of the confidence of the House in the Lord Lieutenant. I have heard tonight the noble person who occupies the office of Viceroy of Ireland spoken of in terms not only of respect but admiration; indeed, one Gentleman who addressed you, Sir, even compared his influence to that of Providence. But I cannot forget that only very recently many of those Gentlemen who are to-night so loud in praise of this distinguished functionary, voted in favour of a Motion for doing away with the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and upon that occasion I can well recollect that feeble was the opposition and scanty the arguments which were offered against the Motion then brought under our notice. I hope we shall at least draw one inference from what is occurring—that the Lord-Lieutenancy is an office not of such light importance as it has been the fashion of economists and liberal critics to impress upon this House. But if I have little confidence, as far as their Irish policy is concerned, in Her Majesty's Government—if I must hesitate, after all I have heard in this House, before I believe that a Lord Lieutenant—even if that Lord Lieutenant be an Earl of Clarendon—is an efficient security for the good government of Ireland, I have less confidence, I confess, in another party who to-night have expressed their loyalty, and in whose future conduct we have been assured we are to find the best security for the good government and prosperity of that country; I mean those Gentlemen whom I believe I may call, without offence, the professional patriots of Ireland. These Gentlemen have favoured us to-night with a minute and curious exposition of their political feelings. They have instructed us how they are prepared with a sort of tariff—a sliding-scale—of opposition to extend to public
542
affairs; how they are furnished, according to circumstances, with a vexatious opposition on the one hand, on the other a determined opposition; a vexatious opposition being, I suppose, an opposition that dies upon the floor of the House; a determined opposition, that milder, though firm, opposition which is not unwilling, under peculiar circumstances, to devote its services to its country. But when we have these unsatisfactory elements before us, how alarming is the speech of the Chief Secretary! He comes forward to-night in the midst of a violent opposition to appease the waters; and he succeeds. Because he tells his opponents "this vote does not apply to you; there is a difference," says the Chief Secretary, "between treason and agitation; this Bill is only directed against treason, not agitation; don't be uneasy." I believe there is a difference between agitation and treason: about the same difference as there is between adultery and rape. This is a Bill, says the Chief Secretary, against treasonable practices carried on in a treasonable manner—not against treasonable practices that are not carried on in a treasonable manner; whereupon an hon. Member (Mr. J. O'Connell) tells the House that his speech will only be half as long as he intended, because he finds he has only to defend treason, and not to vindicate agitation. This is the position in which the question has been put most unexpectedly to me, by the chief Member of the Government who has addressed us. A measure is brought forward—in my mind a wise, a politic, a necessary measure; it is opposed by those whose policy, in my opinion, has, whether intentionally or not, occasioned the evils which it is devised to control. No sooner is it opposed by them, than a Member of Her Majesty's Government rises and assures them that in no circumstances will they be affected by the measure. It was not an unnecessary assurance; they are not only honourable, but learned Gentlemen; they have read and studied the Bill, and they find a law-proposed which was to put down their pernicious system of agitation. The instant they discover that—the instant they appeal to the Government, and oppose the Government on that plea—the Government immediately rises and tells them they are to be saved harmless. Sir, the measure, which I doubt not, will pass; the measure will put down, I hope, not only treason, but agitation. It will secure, I trust, calm and tranquillity in Ireland. The Bill will, I

543
trust, give the Members of Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to bring forward those comprehensive measures which England feels to be necessary for Ireland, and for which we mainly support this Bill, that the Government of the country may have an opportunity to bring forward those measures. This is not the only measure under our consideration which will make every Gentleman in this House feel that the Government can no longer delay bringing forward those measures. The very question we expected to be discussed tonight, but which has not been brought forward, has already produced an intimation from one of the most distinguished Members of the House to Her Majesty's Ministers that these comprehensive measures can no longer be delayed. In dealing with this Bill, I vote for a measure that by securing tranquillity in Ireland will give the Government an opportunity of there introducing those remedial measures that are necessary. For my own part, I have confidence in the future tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, not only from those measures, but because I have confidence in that portion of the population of Ireland, whom still, it seems, we must not allude to except in a whisper. But I believe the time has now arrived when their religion will no longer be considered a reproach, nor their loyalty a crime.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, the House appears to have so far made up their mind as to the necessity and policy of this measure, that I thought it would not be necessary for me to address the House to-night; and I should not do so, were there not certain misconstructions of the measure to be set right, in consequence of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, and certain allusions to my past conduct, that I cannot pass over, though I regret I am obliged to take up a portion of the time of the House in doing so. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who has just sat down said, I think excusably enough, after the speech of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell), that parties would be allowed to carry on a system of agitation, free from any interference from this measure. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche) says that this Bill will have the effect of putting an end to all discussion in Ireland, no matter upon what subject, however constitutional—that petitions could not be proposed, nor grievances complained of, if this measure were
544
to pass. But the House will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland distinctly stated that the object of the Bill is not to put a stop to discussions upon constitutional subjects, and that it would not have that effect. He (Sir W. Somerville) stated, that it would aim at agitation connected with treasonable practices, and discussions which tended to the promotion of any such practices; but that any discussions, calmly and constitutionally conducted, upon any question with the view of asking Parliament for redress, are not intended to be prohibited by the Bill, and cannot be interfered with under the terms of the measure. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) adroitly indeed, but not with a very fair inference, says, that the Association with which he is connected in Ireland meets solely for the purposes of legitimate agitation, and he complains that their fair discussion of political matters will be put a stop to by this Bill. Now, Sir, I must say very plainly, that the Bill itself contemplates treasonable designs and treasonable practices; but the power of imprisoning persons suspected of treasonable designs and treasonable practices is to be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. Sir, I have had much conversation with the Lord Lieutenant since the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, in reference to agitation in Ireland; and my noble Friend told me that agitation must be carefully watched. That species of agitation which tends to the getting up of a petition to Parliament upon constitutional grounds, the Lord Lieutenant has not, and ought not, to have the power to prevent; but that the meetings of an association, which is likely to fall very rapidly into a club or a conspiracy, and tend, therefore, immediately to treasonable practices, ought to be carefully watched, is not only the opinion of my noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government, but the opinion also of myself. And should any treasonable practices be carried on, it will be the bounden duty of ray noble Friend to secure the peace of the country by the application of the powers of this Act.
MR. J. O'CONNELL: Does the noble Lord mean to say that I have been guilty of treasonable practices?
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Member has asked mc a question, and I will answer him. My opinion is, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman would wish to carry on what he may think a wholesome, but which I

545
think is a pernicious system of agitation, without any intention of committing treason or of being guilty of treasonable practices; but seeing what I have seen with regard to the proceedings of the Association of which the hon. Member was the leader last year, and, although the loader, left in a very small minority upon a great question, inasmuch as the majority were of opinion that moral force was altogether a delusion—[Mr. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!]—and that they concurred with some confederation over the way, of which physical force was the doctrine intended to be practised—seeing, and knowing, and remembering all this, I must say that I could have no confidence in any association which the hon. Gentleman might set up in Dublin. I, however, acquit the hon. and learned Member for Limerick personally, I acquit him fully and sincerely, of any treasonable design or any treasonable practices; but I am not prepared to say that those whom he might assemble together in the form of an association would be equally innocent of treasonable designs or practices; and I do believe that any political association with which he may be connected in Ireland is not unlikely to be liable to penalties under this Bill. Now, Sir, I have at least answered the hon. Gentleman fairly, and he may take what course he likes with respect to this Bill. He may, if he pleases, make the second part of the speech he intended to deliver to-night; but I will not deny, nor will I conceal from the hon. Member or the House, what will be the effect of this measure. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who spoke last, following the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claude Hamilton) has referred to some matters over which he glided rapidly and skilfully, but with regard to which the noble Lord entered into greater detail, but with remarkable inaccuracy. The noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) said, that in 1835 I brought forward a resolution with respect to the Appropriation Clause, solely and entirely with the view of displacing from power the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel); and that having carried that resolution I allowed the question to slumber, and never mentioned it again. The history of the Appropriation Clause is well known, and can easily be referred to in the annals of Parliament. It is a history which cannot tell of a successful issue, but nevertheless it cannot sully the object I had in view. Concurring with Earl Grey,
546
I was a party to a Coercion Act in 1833—a measure of very severe repression, and I did think, in the following year, that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to prepare itself with a measure by which part of the revenues of the Irish Protestant Church, not needed, in my opinion, for the members of that Church, should be made useful to other religious communities, such as Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. Sir, I urged that opinion upon the Cabinet, and the discussion of the question ended in retirement from office of four of the most distinguished Members of the Cabinet. The Cabinet then proceeded according to the course which I thought the wisest, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of religious communions in Ireland, and a measure was ultimately proposed with the view of carrying out my original proposition. It pleased His Majesty William IV. then to dismiss from His Councils Earl Grey, and Viscount Melbourne came into office; and upon the occasion of the death of my lamented Friend, Earl Spencer, His Majesty declared that there was no further occasion for Lord Melbourne's services. The right hon. Member for Tamworth again came into power. Sir, I never relinquished my views with respect to the Irish Protestant Church, and I continued to press them upon the attention of my Colleagues. I was not obliged to forego them because the right hon. Member for Tamworth was in office; neither was I compelled to sink them because they were not carried out by the Government with which I was connected. I, therefore, Sir, as an independent Member of this House, brought forward the resolution, which is contained in Parliamentary history, with respect to the property of the Irish Church. When the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) retired from office, a measure was prepared upon the subject according to the views of the then Government. It was submitted to the House of Commons once, twice, thrice, or perhaps, four times, and was carried, in every instance, by small majorities; but upon each occasion it was rejected by the other House of Parliament. So untrue is it, Sir, that I invented this scheme for ousting the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and it is equally far from the truth that I allowed the question to slumber after I had taken it in hand. The measure was rejected in the House of Lords, whilst English opinion was in its favour. and the opinions of the Irish amounted to

547
indifference. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Hear!"] That, Sir, was my view of the case, and entertaining that opinion, I certainly proceeded to take measures for the settlement of the tithe question, without insisting on the appropriation principle. I may have mistaken public opinion—I may have made an error in considering the subject; but this I must claim for myself, that such a measure would have been of great utility in Ireland, could it have been carried; and it was, Sir, with that view I proposed it. There were, Sir, other measures in contemplation for the benefit of Ireland at the same time. One of these was with respect to the establishment of municipal corporations, and putting them upon a proper basis. That measure year after year was rejected by the House of Lords; but it ultimately passed into a law. The noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) said, that Lord Melbourne's Government committed all their power and patronage in Ireland to the hands of the late Mr. O'Connell—that they were absolutely subservient to his will. Sir, I totally deny that charge. Lord Melbourne advised his Sovereign to place the Marquess of Normanby at the head of the Irish Government. My belief is that the conduct of the noble Marquess in that capacity was conciliatory and wise, and that he procured a period of tranquillity to Ireland that was adapted to the wants of the period, and also that he retained the authority vested in him, notwithstanding the great and powerful influence upon public opinion of Mr. O'Connell; and great as was his influence over public opinion, the authority of the Marquess of Normanby as representative of the King, was paramount in that part of the united kingdom. Sir, I therefore feel no remorse with respect to my share of the Government of 1835. The noble Lord the Member for Tyrone also spoke of the opposition to the Bill of 1846 for the protection of life and property in Ireland. Sir, upon that occasion I declared that I would not oppose the Bill on the ground of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, but thought it was a Bill ill adapted to the circumstances of that time—that shutting up persons at night who had committed no offence was a vexatious proceeding; and, therefore, holding these opinions, I voted against the proposition made by the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), the then Secretary for Ireland. Sir, it is a popular topic to say, that we turned out a
548
Government upon a question of coercion, and that we are now resorting to coercion ourselves. It is quite true what has been stated upon that point, but there is a difference in the circumstances of the cases. My belief is, that the various measures we have brought forward have been adapted to the condition of Ireland; but it is entirely a matter of opinion that the Bill of 1846 would have at that time proved a useful measure. I can only say that, whether in or out of office, I shall propose or oppose those measures according to the dictates of my own judgment, which I think best suited, or otherwise, to the circumstances of the country. Sir, I am sorry to detain the House with matters which I felt necessary to allude to in my own defence; but the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) has thought fit to make such personal and bitter attacks upon me, I could not well have avoided repelling them. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), in alluding to this measure, and his support to it, adverted to other measures of a comprehensive nature which he thought it would be the duty of the Government to bring forward. Certainly the Government intends, if possible, to pass a series of comprehensive measures for the benefit of Ireland, of some of which notice has been given. Others will hereafter be proposed. But, Sir, I think that I should not be acting fairly to the House if I did not say that any measure which we do bring forward will, in my opinion, prove totally inoperative without those two qualities which I mentioned in 1846, namely, a spirit of self-reliance, and a spirit of co-operation. Other Irish measures would now have been under consideration had the debate on this question not lasted so long. It is intended to propose a Bill for extending the right of voting in Ireland—a right which I believe ought to be extended. But I must at the same time confess that, in my opinion, the same use is not made of those constitutional privileges in Ireland as in England. The Acts which passed after the Revolution of 1688 were sufficient for a century afterwards to enable the people of this country to exert themselves in extending their trade, manufactures, and agriculture—were sufficient to enable them to convert barren soils into fertile fields, and to raise flourishing towns throughout the country. But observe, those laws by virtue of which they did these things, were not laws for creating industry, commerce, and comforts. They were laws which enabled men to

549
exert their faculties for the purpose of obtaining distinction; and, in proposing such measures for Ireland, we shall do the utmost which, in our opinion, it is proper for us to do. Measures for local improvement will also be brought forward; but with respect to these, there is much difficulty to contend with. There is, for example, a danger of sending the industry in a wrong direction, and thereby creating a feeling that we had done that which we ought not to have done. However, Sir, Parliament will duly deliberate upon all questions of that nature. My opinion is, that the ultimate result of the privileges which were twenty years ago granted to all sectarians and parties, will enable the people of Ireland to take that place in society which they ought to hold in right of their great natural talents, their great power of physical exertion, and their industrial habits. I am not sanguine enough to think that any great changes in the social and moral condition of the mass of the Irish people will occur, or that all treasonable correspondence will be suppressed in the course of the next six months, for which term we ask for the continuance of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. All I can say is, that it is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to improve the condition of Ireland. It will be for Parliament to judge whether the measures they propose are calculated to effect that object; and if they do not succeed, it will be for others to bring forward measures which will prove more advantageous.
LORD C. HAMILTONexplained, that in what he had said he had no wish to raise a personal question. What he said was, that the first important vote on Irish subjects at the time to which he referred was with reference to the Appropriation Clause, and that on a division on that question, Gentlemen opposite obtained the Government; while, for a period of six years, when they were in office, the question had never been carried out. He did also venture to say, that the course taken by those hon. Gentlemen did somewhat encourage agitation.
SIR R. PEEL: Sir, it is my intention to support the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, and to give my vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill. I do so with the reluctance which every friend of constitutional liberty must feel in giving a vote for restraining that liberty; but my firm belief is that there is public danger in now permitting that
550
Act to expire—that if you do permit it to expire, you must look forward to a renewal of those attempts by which the public tranquillity was disturbed in Ireland during the last year. I acknowledge that some obligation is due to those who organised that disturbance of the public peace, inasmuch as they have contrived to cover Irish treason with ridicule. They have thus done more to discourage rebellion than all the laws we can pass, or than all the advice that the temperate or the sagacious could give. But notwithstanding the ridicule that has been thrown upon Irish disaffection, still there does prevail among them an animus not yet repressed. They still profess their mischievous intentions, and I will pay them the compliment of believing them to be sincere. I shall not give my vote on this measure from any personal confidence in those by whom the law is to be administered—that is, I would not consent, from my confidence in any set of men, to restrict constitutional liberty, if I did not believe the restriction to be absolutely necessary. I have a great respect personally for the Earl of Clarendon, but my respect for the Earl of Clarendon does not influence in the slightest degree my resolution to support this proposition. Unless I were satisfied that the measure was called for by a pressing necessity, no respect for the person of Lord Clarendon, no belief that the powers conferred by it would not be wantonly abused, would induce me to give my support to such a Bill. There is great evil in the precedent of imposing a restriction on the liberty of the subject, no matter to whose hands the power may be entrusted, no matter how high may be the personal character of those by whom it is to be exercised. You cannot set the precedent of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, without doing great public injury, even if the extraordinary power which suspension confers, be never called into action. With respect to the question of confidence, I have heard much for the last twenty or thirty years about powers being refused to Government from a want of confidence in them. Now, I believe that no Government ever asked for such extraordinary powers as the suspending of the Habeas Corpus Act, unless they believed them to be necessary for the public safety. There is no pleasure in the conflict for unnecessary powers. Neither Lord Heytesbury nor Earl De Grey would have abused these powers any more than the Earl of Clarendon; and it is

551
childish to justify a vote for placing such powers in the hands of any man on the ground of having confidence in his personal character. I agree to this Bill because I believe it to be necessary, and on that ground alone would I consent to its enactment.
Nothing can be more painful to me than to refer to the history of past contests on questions of Irish policy. So much evil has arisen from the practice of making Ireland the arena of our party contests, that I, for one, have resolved never to set the example. There is ample ground for our mature and dispassionate consideration of the measures that are necessary for the improvement of that unfortunate country, without reverting to past conflicts, or making Ireland the stage upon which to determine our present party strifes. But the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has undertaken to give us what he calls a history of the events of 1846; and it is very difficult for me to listen to him, and to remain absolutely silent, without being supposed to acquiesce in the truth of that history. The chief measure alluded to, the Appropriation Clause, has been now defunct for thirteen years, and if the noble Lord had said that he was about to pronounce a funeral oration, to favour us with a panegyric on a faithful and departed friend, I should not have objected to some allowable exaggeration of his merits. But the noble Lord appears in the character of an historian, and professes to put on record the true account of the Appropriation Clause. Now, my memory differs in some important points from that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord states truly, that in 1835, soon after I succeeded Lord Melbourne in the Administration, I brought forward a measure for the adjustment of the question of Irish tithe. The noble Lord says, "In bringing forward the Appropriation Clause, in connection with that measure, I acted in my individual capacity. Could anybody expect that I should abstain from putting upon record my own personal opinions?" I had always thought that the Motion which led to the extinction of that Government had more of the character of a party Motion than the noble Lord is willing to admit; that it was not a mere individual Motion on the part of the noble Lord; but that the noble Lord and the whole of his party determined to obstruct the proposal with respect to tithe unless the Appropriation Clause formed a part of it. The noble Lord was
552
not content with moving an Amendment during the progress of the Bill; but, if I recollect right, he called upon the House to put upon record this proposition—that no adjustment of Irish tithe ever can be satisfactory, unless a portion of the revenues of the Irish Church be appropriated to educational purposes. I remonstrated against that proceeding. I said, "Pass this Bill, the object of which you approve; or if there must be a condition attached to it, take the opportunity of moving amendments in the Bill during its progress." I also said to the noble Lord, "Beware of fettering your future course by any abstract resolution, declaring that at no time to come shall there be any adjustment of Irish tithe, unless there be an alienation of ecclesiastical property." I was giving friendly advice to the noble Lord at that time. I could have had no other motive, according to the noble Lord's own account, for he says, that during the three months I remained in power, I never had the good fortune to be in a majority. I must have known, therefore, that my doom was sealed. But the noble Lord was not merely content with passing the abstract resolution. Nothing could satisfy him but that the whole House should wait on King William, and inform His Majesty that no adjustment of Irish tithe could over take place, unless there was an alienation of Church property. The noble Lord, however, notwithstanding all this, thinks that the Motion he then brought forward, did not at all partake of the character of a party Motion. This shows how apt contemporaries are to be deceived. It certainly was the impression, the erroneous impression, at the time, that there was a determination on the part of the noble Lord and of his Whig supporters, and of the Irish Members generally, that to settle Irish tithes without alienation was not to be tolerated—that the attempt was an iniquity not to be borne. It occurred to some—(but of course that was quite a subordinate consideration)—that there was an opportunity for a good party Motion, which would be the best way of turning out Sir Robert Peel. And so it proved. The noble Lord returned to power, and what account does he give of his Irish allies? He says, "I came into power—I found the House of Lords against the Appropriation Clause—the English public were not very well disposed towards it, but my Irish friends relieved me from any difficulty about it, and I found among the people of Ireland complete indifference on

553
the subject." This is the account we have of the great Irish party, who for five or six years before were so clamouring against the abomination of the Irish Church—who declared that there never would be peace while that Church remained in possession of her revenues—who insisted upon it that the Government which was formed in November, 1834, could not be permitted to exist, guilty as it was of attempting to remedy some of the evils accompanying the tithe system, without consenting to an alienation of Church property. What a picture the noble Lord draws of his Irish allies when he says, that the moment the personnel of the Government was changed, their clamour on this subject abated!
LORD J. RUSSELL: No; it was three years afterwards.
SIR R. PEEL: Well, it took the noble Lord three years to make them cool. I appeal to any man whether it would have been decent for them to lose their heat at an earlier period. They were gradually exposed to the mild influence of office; it is no imputation upon them whatever to say that under a Whig Government they got their fair share of official patronage; and about two or three years afterwards their hostility to the Established Church abated, and they fairly told the noble Lord they could give him no cordial support in an attempt to divert its revenues. I trust that if they should again press the noble Lord upon any particular measure he will ask them to pause—that he will remind them of the Irish Church—that he will tell them to wait two or three years, and he will then possibly find that, in the interval, their zeal will be less ardent. There can be no doubt that in deciding on the merits of Irish questions, it docs make a very material difference who are the persons who occupy that [pointing to the Treasury] bench. The noble Lord has received from the Irish representatives a much more cordial support than would have been accorded to me, if I had proposed precisely the same measures, under precisely the same circumstances. To conclude the history of 1835, the noble Lord's resolution was resisted by the House of Lords. I said to the noble Lord, "You shall hear no reproach—no taunt from me; but you had better settle the tithe question without the Appropriation Clause." He took my advice, and there let the matter remain. Now, with regard to what occurred in 1846. I am sure I entertain no ill-will to the noble Lord—I entertain no ill-will towards
554
anybody, for the course that was taken in 1846. I, and those who concurred with me in 1846, as to the necessity of repealing the corn laws, felt the alienation of the party with which we had acted to be inevitable. The loss of their confidence was the certain consequence of the course we considered it was our duty to take. In what manner that loss of confidence was manifested, is a matter of subordinate concern. But the noble Lord will give me leave to remind him that he is not quite accurate in the account he has given of the events of 1846. Several shocking murders were committed in Ireland, and we proposed a measure for the purpose of giving security to life and property in that country. Perhaps the noble Lord remembers the way in which that measure was encountered. The application for leave to introduce the Bill was opposed, and on, I believe, the second reading we were defeated. I made an appeal to the noble Lord to allow us to put the Bill into Committee. I said, "Do not reject this measure, intended for the protection of life, and the prevention of assassination, on the second reading. You object to the curfew clause; strike it out in Committee; but do not give agitators and assassins a triumph by refusing to give a second reading to a measure which has such objects in view." The noble Lord now says that he thought particular clauses were not calculated to attain the professed objects of the Bill; but why not have proposed to omit such clauses in Committee? Why not permit a fair deliberation on the details of the measure? "But," says the noble Lord, "you intended to commit the enormity of confining people to their houses at night." It is a bard necessity that compels public men to propose measures of coercion. The noble Lord himself is now proposing a measure which will enable him to confine people without trial both by night and day. This is all I have to observe with reference to the history of 1835 and 1846. I certainly shall not attach to my support of this Bill even that condition which the noble Lord suggested when opposing the Bill of 1846—that comprehensive measures of a healing nature ought to precede measures of coercion. I know the extreme difficulty of proposing measures of a healing nature. I believe we are all deeply convinced that the one great evil of this united kingdom is the condition of Ireland. I believe there is an universal desire to administer remedies; but

555
I know perfectly well that no Government can propose any measure which could have any immediate tendency to improve the social condition of Ireland. It is rather by the slow and healing process that we are to hope to overcome these difficulties—not by great measures, which everybody calls for, but which few choose to shadow out. What are the great measures which are to restore peace? I believe one of the greatest evils in Ireland at present is connected with the administration of the poor-law. That subject you are about to consider in the Committee which has been appointed; and most gratified I shall be if from that Committee there comes forth any plan calculated to improve the condition of the poor, and to remedy the defects in the administration of the poor-law. I shall give my support to this measure for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, because I believe it to be called for by regard for public peace. I believe that the Government has—and I believe that other Governments have also had—a sincere desire to improve the condition of Ireland; and I will not weaken or qualify my support of this measure of coercion by insisting, as a stipulation, that before I assent to it I will know what remedial measures are contemplated. I give an entire and cordial support to a Bill which I believe to be necessary for the vindication of the law, and for upholding the authority of the Crown.
LORD J. RUSSELLexplained: In respect to the Motion of 1835, I do not believe I said—at least, I did not mean to say—that it was not a party Motion; what I said was this—that having consented to separate from my own friends in the Cabinet upon that question, I was not to refrain from bringing it forward because the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was in power, inasmuch as I had advocated the same views while in office.
MR. MOOREread an extract from a former speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, to the effect that measures to suppress crime in Ireland should not be introduced unaccompanied by such other measures as might enable the peasantry of that country to obtain subsistence. He (Mr. Moore) refused his assent to the present Bill on similar grounds, and he entreated the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to suspend its progress until he had had time to introduce such remedial measures as the state of the country required.
House divided on Question, "That the
556
word 'now' stand part of the Question:"—Ayes 275; Noes 33: Majority 242.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Dod, J. W.

Adair, H. E.

Dodd, G.

Adair, R. A. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Alcock, T.

Douro, Marq. of

Anson, hon. Col.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Drummond, H.

Arkwright, G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Duff, G. S.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Duke, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Bagshaw, J.

Duncuft, J.

Baines, M. T.

Dundas, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Dundas, Sir D.

Baring, T.

Dundas, G.

Barrington, Visct.

Ebrington, Visct.

Bateson, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Bellew, R. M.

Ellis, J.

Bennet, P.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Beresford, W.

Enfield, Visc.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Farrer, J.

Bernal, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bernard, Visct.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Floyer, J.

Blackall, S. W.

Foley, J. H. H.

Blakemore, R.

Forster, M.

Boldero, H. G.

Frewen, C. H.

Bourke, R. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Gaskell, J. M.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Bremridge, R.

Glynn, G. C.

Broadwood, H.

Godson, R.

Brockman, E. D.

Gooch, E. S.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, Adm.

Brown, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Brown, W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Granby, Marq. of

Burke, Sir T. J.

Granger, T. C.

Burroughs, H. N.

Greenall, G.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Grenfell, C. P.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Grenfell, C. W.

Cardwell, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Carew, W. H. P.

Grey, R. W.

Carter, J. B.

Grogan, E.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Gwyn, H.

Chaplin, W. J.

Haggitt, F. R.

Charteris, hon. F.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Childers, J. W.

Halsey, T. P.

Christopher, R. A.

Hamilton, J. H.

Clay, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Harris, R.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hastie, A.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Hawes, B.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Hay, Lord J.

Cooks, T. S.

Hayter, W. G.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Headlam, T. E.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Heald, J.

Coles, H. B.

Henley, J. W.

Copeland, Ald.

Henry, A.

Craig, W. G.

Herbert, H. A.

Crowder, R. B.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Cubitt, W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Heyworth, L.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Deedes, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Dick, Q.

Hodges, T. T.

Disraeli, B.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Divett, E.

Hood, Sir A.

557

Hornby, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Howard, Lord E.

Powlett, Lord W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Raphael, A.

Howard, Sir R.

Renton, J. C.

Hume, J.

Ricardo, O.

Humphery, Ald.

Rich, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Richards, R.

Jackson, W.

Romilly, Sir J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Russell, F. C. H.

Ker, R.

St. George, C.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Sandars, G.

Knox, Col.

Sandars, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Seymer, H. K.

Law, hon. C. E.

Seymour, Lord

Legh, G. C.

Shafto, R. D.

Leslie, C. P.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Shelburne, Earl of

Lewis, G. C.

Sheridan, R. B.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sidney, Ald.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Simeon, J.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Slaney, R. A.

Locke, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lockhart, A. E.

Smith, J. A.

Lockhart, W.

Smyth, J. G.

Lowther, H.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Spearman, H. J.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Spooner, R.

Macnamara, Maj.

Stafford, A.

M'Gregor, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Mahon, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Maitland, T.

Stuart, Lord D.

Mandeville, Visct.

Stuart, H.

Mangles, R. D.

Talfourd, Serj.

Marshall, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Martin, S.

Taylor, T. E.

Masterman, J.

Thompson, Col.

Matheson, A.

Thompson, Ald.

Matheson, Col.

Thornely, T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Towneley, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Townshend, Capt.

Milner, W. M. E.

Trelawny, J. S.

Milton, Visct.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Trollope, Sir J.

Monsell, W.

Turner, G. J.

Moody, C. A.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Morgan, O.

Vane, Lord H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Verner, Sir W.

Mullings, J. R.

Verney, Sir H.

Napier, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Neeld, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Neeld, J.

Walpole, S. H.

Newport, Visct.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Walter, J.

Ward, H. G.

Norreys, Lord

Watkins, Col. L.

Nugent, Lord

Wellesley, Lord C.

Pakington, Sir J.

Williams, H.

Palmer, R.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Palmer, R.

Wilson, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wilson, M.

Parker, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Patten, J. W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wyvill, M.

Peel, Col.

Young, Sir J.

Perfect, R.

Pigot, Sir R.

TELLERS.

Pigott, F.

Tufnell, H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Hill, Lord M.

558

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Muntz, G. F.

Barron, Sir H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

O'Connor, F.

Bright, J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Callaghan, D.

Osborne, R.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Pilkington, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Power, N.

Devereux, J. T.

Reynolds, J.

Dunne, F. P.

Roche, E. B.

Fagan, W.

Scholefield, W.

Fox, R. M.

Scully, F.

Grattan, H.

Sullivan, M.

Greene, J.

Tenison, E. K.

Kershaw, J.

Thompson, G.

Lushington, C.

Williams, J.

Meagher, T.

TELLERS.

Moore, G. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Mowatt, F.

Sadleir, J.

Main Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT—EXPLANATION.
MR. J. O'CONNELLasked whether the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland adhered to his own words as uttered in the course of the debate on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or whether he adopted the entire contradiction of them by the noble Lord at the head of the Government?
SIR W. SOMERVILLEreplied that there had not been any contradiction of them given by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and that nothing more surprised him than the extraordinary misconstruction of his (Sir W. Somerville's) words by the hon. Member for Limerick.

INLAND REVENUE.
The House then went into Committee on the Inland Revenue Bill.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYwished to know how it was proposed to pay the Commissioners provided for in this Bill, as there was no allusion to that matter in any of the clauses? He wished to know what amount of salary these gentlemen were to receive, and whether the sum would be brought annually before Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, their salaries would be the same as was now received by the Commissioners of Excise. They would, of course, be voted by Parliament, but he thought it better to postpone that question till the Bill was before them which provided for the amalgamation of the Excise and Customs Board.
MR. HUMEasked how many Commissioners there would be under the new arrangement?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There were now twelve—they would be reduced to seven.
MR. HUME: And what will be the reduction in the expenditure?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the immediate reduction would be 16,000 l., and when the arrangements were completed it would amount to between 80,000 l or 90,000 l.
MR. HUME: What is 80,000 l or 90,000 l in an expenditure of 700,000 l.?
COLONEL SIBTHORPhoped this reduction would not fall, as it was usually made to do, upon the clerks.
MR. HENLEYhoped it was clearly understood that the Commissioners would take office subject to such recommendations as Parliament might make, for at present the House were going on rather in the dark.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no new appointment would take place under the consolidation proposed. All the Commissioners to be retained under the present Bill were now in office and were receiving salaries, and he did not suppose hon. Gentlemen would put them in a worse situation under the Consolidation Bill than they now occupied.
MR. HENLEYthought it important that the House should guard against the Commissioners being put in a better position than they were at present, and that it should not be supposed that Parliament shut the door against future alterations.
MR. HUMEthought that money and time would alike be saved if the arrangements under the Bill were placed in the hands of one able individual.
The several clauses of the Bill then passed through Committee.

SUPPLY.
The House having resumed, went again into Committee, and passed the ordinary vote of 17,786,700 l. to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills charged on the aids of 1849 unprovided for.
In reply to Mr. HUME,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the amount was less than last year.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
A CONFERENCE. Ingrossing and Inrolling of Bills,
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Limerick, and the Gort Union, for an Alteration and Inquiry into the present Poor Law (Ireland).

EMIGRATION TAX IN THE BRITISH COLONIES.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he had on the preceding evening given notice of his intention to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies on a subject of very great interest, and to which he trusted the inquiries of the noble Lord had been directed. The question he had to put to the noble Earl was with reference to a subject on which he had
458
made some inquiries during the last Session, namely, the exorbitant and enormous rate of taxation imposed by the British Colonial Legislatures, and especially in Canada, upon persons emigrating from this country. That tax he believed the noble Earl would agree with him in thinking was far greater than was necessary. Now, whilst he (Lord Stanley) was quite ready to admit the right of the Colonial Legislatures to protect themselves against an indiscriminate pauper emigration, still he believed the noble Earl must be of opinion that what had been done was far beyond the necessity of the case. As emigration from Ireland was likely to be carried at the present season to a very great extent, as the period was fast approaching when the emigration would be commenced, he trusted that the noble Earl would be able to inform the House and the country that the Colonial Legislatures were likely to reduce the heavy taxation previously imposed by them. The question which he now put to the noble Lord was one in which he was personally interested, for be was quite sure that a considerable number of his own tenants were likely to become emigrants during the present year, and that they would come to him to know his advice as to whore they ought to go; and his assistance too, if they had not the means to carry themselves out; and in such cases he must say that the answer given by him would, ill no inconsiderable degree, be influenced by the answer which he now received from the noble Earl. It would depend upon that answer whether he should tell them to transfer their labour to the British Colonies, or, if driven from it by a heavy rate of taxation, to seek a refuge on the more hospitable shores of the United States of America.
EARL GREYsaid, that after the noble Lord had referred to this subject last Session, he addressed a despatch to the Earl of Elgin, Governor General of Canada, in relation to it. By the last mail, which arrived only a few days ago, he had received a communication from the Governor General, stating that he had been in deliberation with his Council upon the subject of the tax, and informing him that it was the intention of the Executive Council of Canada to propose to the Legislature some modifications in the law which was passed last year. At the same time, the Governor General distinctly stated that though the tax was very considerable, it was not,

459
in point of fact, more than sufficient to meet the expenses incurred by the province on account of the emigrants. When the noble Lord talked of emigrants being attracted from Canada to a more hospitable quarter, namely, New York, let him turn his attention to the fact, that in Canada emigrants received a much greater amount of assistance than in New York. In New York no assistance whatever was rendered to them except in cases of sickness, when they were sent to an hospital; but, in Canada, besides hospital accommodation, those who were unable to pay for it themselves were provided with gratuitous conveyances, at the cost of the province, to the most remote districts, and to those parts where they were fully certain of finding employment. This constituted a very material difference, and, even after reckoning the Canadian tax, he believed that on the whole, the route to the regions of the west by Canada was at this moment considerably cheaper for emigrants than the route by New York. At the same time, Lord Elgin and his Council were desirous of reducing the tax, believing that it was objectionable in principle; but, upon the other hand, the circumstances of Quebec and Montreal were very different from those of New York. In the large commercial city of New York, employment was almost always to be found for emigrants upon their arrival; but in the much smaller population, having much fewer resources, of the two cities he had named, it was at times quite impossible, when a fleet of emigrant ships arrived, to provide all the emigrants with employment. The consequence was, that unless some means of conveyance into the interior were provided, an intolerable burden was thrown upon those cities, whilst, if those means were not provided, the emigrants would have to sustain greater inconvenience than the tax now complained of. It was, however, the disposition of the Executive Council, and, he believed, of the Legislature also, to deal with this question in the most liberal way towards the emigrants. They felt it to be their interest to do so. They knew that the freight of produce by the St. Lawrence was reduced if the vessels carrying it could earn something by taking emigrants outward. At the same time, they were bound to consider the whole interests of the province. The calamities that followed from the extensive
460
emigration of 1847, were of a description so frightful that it was impossible they should not establish what they considered adequate precautions against a repetition of those evils. He might also observe, that even with the restrictions that had been imposed, the emigration to Canada, last year, fully equalled the means which the province had of disposing of the emigrants that arrived. The completion of the great public works upon the St. Lawrence caused a great diminution in the means of employment. It appeared by a report from Mr. Cannon, one of the engineers engaged upon those works, that a very large proportion of the emigrants were unskilled labourers. For farm-servants, he said there was no difficulty in finding employment in the far west; but when no public works were in progress, the difficulty in finding employment for unskilled labourers was very great indeed. Even last year, when the class of emigrants was much better than in the year before, a large proportion consisted of labourers of this description. Before he sat down, it would be proper for him to add, as the noble Lord had intimated that the question was now under consideration, whether intending emigrants were to be directed to our own colonies or to foreign countries, that the Governor General of Canada, the Executive Council, and the emigration agents, all concurred in stating that there was no prospect of a great deal of employment there in the present year; and they strongly advised that a very large proportion of emigrants should not he recommended to proceed thither instead of the United States. This was a subject, however, upon which it appeared to him desirable that the most accurate information should be placed before their Lordships and the country as speedily as possible. The despatches therefore which he had received should be printed immediatedly for the use of the two Houses of Parliament, and in a few days he hoped also to lay upon the table the correspondence that had already taken place.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas glad that this conversation had occurred, although he much regretted to hoar the last observation made by the noble Earl, and which was directly in opposition to information he had himself received from Canada. He had not been led to think that the arrival of strong and healthy emigrants would be

461
other than a benefit to the colony. That there should have boon difficulty in providing for the emigrants to Canada in 1847 could be easily understood; but what had then been objected to in Canada was not the number of emigrants, but the disease that accompanied them. As to the statement made by the noble Earl that the colonial emigrant tax had not been productive, no one could be surprised at it. It had impeded emigration by its amount, it was a bad financial measure from its excess, and therefore it had failed. In proportion as the tax on emigrants had been increased, that emigration had been diverted to foreign countries. In the early part of last Session, his noble Friend had introduced an amended Passenger Act, which was intended to protect the colonies from the pressure of disease. That Act he (Lord Monteagle) and other friends of emigration reluctantly supported. But contemporaneously, and without being aware of what was in progress hero, the colonies increased their tax on emigrants. The result of those double burdens imposed in Europe and in America, had been that the whole tide of British emigration was diverted to a foreign country. The noble Secretary for the Colonies had said that more care was taken of the emigrant in British North America than in the United States. He doubted the fact. Take the colony of New Brunswick as an instance. There a tax had been levied on emigrants for many years. What became of the produce of that tax? Was it applied to purposes calculated to relieve or forward the emigrant? No; it had been for years appropriated by the colonial legislature to colonial purposes, and the abuse was considered so gross that it had been remonstrated against by several successive governors. In New York, on the contrary, the produce of the tax was exclusively applied for the purposes of the emigrant. By looking at papers upon the subject which had been presented to the House, their Lordships would find that the system of transmitting the emigrants to the interior, of which his noble Friend boasted, had been in parts of British North America, he would not say so cruel, but so careless, so remiss, so signally defective in all the precautions that ought to have been taken even for the security of human life, as to have caused much of the disease which prevailed; they would find that the diffusion of fever in Canada was mainly attributable to the mode of transmitting the
462
emigrants which had been adopted. The fact had been admitted by persons connected with the Government during the last Session. On the contrary, the United States provided for the proper transmission of emigrants. [Earl GREY: No, no!] He would show to his noble Friend and to the House that the cheapest, the simplest, and most effectual mode of transmitting emigrants was adopted by the United States, not by steamboats, but by railroad. In the railway acts of New York, and he believed of other States in the Union, there was a special provision made for cheap trains for the express purpose of transmitting emigrants to the interior. This duty was imposed upon the railway companies by the legislature, and by such means much more effectual assistance was given by the United States legislature than by providing those dens of fever and pestilence which had unhappily floated along the St. Lawrence, carrying death and disease into the interior of Canada. He did not mean to say that there was no hope of a better state of things in British North America. In spite of the noble Earl's speech he could not surrender this expectation. All that he desired was that the colonies should act in such a manner on the subject of emigration as should be most conducive to their own best interests. We had no right to make use of the colonies merely as a means of getting rid of an excess of population. We should never overlook or disregard colonial interests from selfish views. But our interests, so far from being conflicting, were identical. The Canadas and the other colonies in British North America admitted that the introduction of labour of a proper class, was the abundant source of improvement to the colonies themselves. There were good arguments against the emigration of 1847, when the people flocked not only in excessive numbers, but in contagion and fever, and when in some cases they were sent away without proper precautions; but there was no argument against a better and a properly-regulated system of emigration: all the calamities of the most calamitous years only proved, that the Government and the Legislature ought well to consider what that system ought to be. He was convinced that in relation to the state of Ireland—and even in relation to the state of this country—the question of colonisation was one which must force itself upon their Lordships' attention. On the next occasion their Lordships met it was

463
his intention to move for certain returns which he believed would not be objected to, namely, a return of the number of emigrants who left our shores during the past year, and the different parts to which they went, distinguishing the number taken from Great Britain and from Ireland.
EARL GREYfelt called upon to express his deep regret that his noble Friend had shown such a disposition to censure the legislatures of the British North American colonies: connected as his noble Friend was with Ireland, the speech of his noble Friend would not dispose those legislatures to receive those who sought their shores with more of friendliness. Notwithstanding all the noble Lord had said, he still maintained that the colonies had been most unjustly censured. When he recollected the sacrifices they had made in 1847; when he remembered the noble efforts they had made to mitigate the sufferings of the emigrants, and the evils of such an immigration as then took place, it was hard to censure them. In his answer to the question of the noble Lord opposite, he had confined his observations to Canada alone: his noble Friend had not followed the same course. In New Brunswick, it undoubtedly was a great abuse that the produce of the emigrant tax should be appropriated to other objects than the assistance and forwarding of the emigrants; but that abuse was put an end to by the Act of 1847. His noble Friend then went on to say, that no wonder the tax did not answer its purpose, that it was a bad financial measure, and limited emigration. He begged to inform his noble Friend, that according to the opinion of the very able gentlemen now in the government of Canada—and he could assure the House that there was no government carried on with greater discretion and ability than that of Canada—the able members of the Council of Lord Elgin, had recorded their opinion that the number of emigrants which arrived last year, was as great as the colony could receive with advantage. He spoke from memory, but he believed the number which landed in Canada was 28,000; and, of course, had the immigration been larger, and the means of affording employment being deficient, the produce of the tax was not sufficient for the purpose of providing for and forwarding the emigrants; and in fact, upwards of 1,000 l. beyond the whole produce of the tax was so spent. His noble Friend had said the United States forwarded the emigrants
464
from New York by means of cheap trains on railroads. There might be a law in America providing cheap trains, just as in this country we had cheap Parliamentary trains provided for a certain class of travellers; but he would venture to say that emigrants were not conveyed at a lower cost than the cost of their transport, even in America. His noble Friend had complained of the manner in which the emigrants were forwarded on the St. Lawrence; but his remarks applied to 1847, when no one denied that great evils existed—evils which it was then impossible to avoid or avert—because the immigration was excessive and unexpected. At that period there were not the means of transport upon the St. Lawrence for such numbers as then arrived; but now the great internal line of communication was completed, and emigrants, however large in number, could be forwarded in safety and comfort to the very remotest parts of the far west. Steamboats now existed on the whole route, which had been provided at the charge of the provincial government. The arrangements, as they were worked during the last year, were perfectly satisfactory; at all events no effort would be wanting on the part of Lord Elgin and his Council to render them complete. There was very little doubt that the commercial depression under which Canada, along with the rest of the world, had been suffering, would pass away, the demand for labour would increase, and emigrants would be gladly received; but no policy would be so bad as to endeavour to force the colonies to go faster than they themselves wished. If their Lordships fully looked at the papers on the table of the House, they would be astonished at the extraordinary increase which had taken place in a few years in Upper Canada, in population, in wealth, and the extent of land which had been brought into cultivation—it was daily increasing as a field for emigration. In justice to the colonies, he must again say that they did not deserve the censure which his noble Friend had cast upon them; they had always received the emigrants who sought their shores with the utmost hospitality.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had not cast such sweeping censure upon the colonial legislatures as his noble Friend fancied. He had spoken in strong but well-merited censure of New Brunswick. He had condemned the emigrant tax as excessive; but, as an apology, had himself

465
suggested that the legislature had acted in ignorance of provisions made for emigration in England, while we were in ignorance of what provisions they had made in America; and the result of the mutual ignorance was, that a double burden had been thus thrown upon the unfortunate emigrants. In both cases, however, he rejoiced to state that the laws were temporary, and would soon expire.
EARL FITZWILLIAMdenied that his noble Friend had cast any censure upon the colonial legislatures. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had said, the colonial government had represented that it was not desirable that any large number of emigrants should arrive in the colonies until some public works were in progress. He wished to know why such public works were not in the course of execution, seeing they would give employment to so many? The colonial legislatures ought to be encouraged to forward such works immediately.
Subject at an end.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen rose to move for a Select Committee on the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland. The noble Marquess said, that if any proof were wanting that an inquiry on the subject were necessary, he need only refer their Lordships to the two petitions which had been presented in the course of the evening, one of which prayed for inquiry into the operation of the Irish Poor Law, while the other had stigmatised that law altogether as a bad law. Would these petitioners, while thus condemning, in this sweeping manner, a measure passed under the peculiar circumstances which attended the poor-law for Ireland, desire to revert to the state of things which had existed in that country prior to legislation? Their Lordships would hardly expect him to take up the time of the House by making out what was called a Parliamentary case for the inquiry he proposed, inasmuch as it was a case so notorious, and was founded upon circumstances with which they were all so familiar, and of which they had a great knowledge. If even the poor-law had succeeded in Ireland under ordinary circumstances, he believed that some inquiry would have been rendered necessary into its operation, in consequence of the extraordinary circumstances under which it had been introduced. It was a law not brought forward after years of careful and deliberate
466
consideration, but introduced under the pressure of great difficulty and of a great emergency arising out of the existence of a famine. He had had no hesitation in recommending the adoption of that law, but he had recommended it only as a great experiment, an experiment full of difficulty, and fraught with danger—danger to be guarded against in every way that human ingenuity could suggest, but against which it was impossible to guard effectually and absolutely, without some experience, some guide, and some practical experience of the results of the experiment they were about to make. He was not surprised, therefore, that on the first operation of that law difficulties should have arisen, or even that those difficulties should have proved great as regarded many important points; and still less was he surprised that, with respect to some points in particular, those difficulties should have been almost overwhelming. It was a law for which the country had not been prepared, which individuals in that country had had no experience of as regarded its operation. But no man could have foreseen the circumstances under which that law had been introduced; no man could have foreseen that there would suddenly occur a pressure arising out of the heavy infliction which it had pleased Providence to visit upon the land in the form of famine, and which should render the application of such a law imperative. He was not, therefore, surprised at any obstacles or difficulties that had arisen; and those extraordinary and unhappy circumstances must be taken into account. But while he admitted that in some parts of Ireland this law had not had the beneficial operation it was desired to have; yet, on the other hand, he asserted that in other parts of that country the operation had been in a great degree successful—he might say wholly and completely successful; and had it not been for circumstances fresh in the recollection of every one, the objects of the law might have been more fully carried out. But much was to be laid to the account of that which no man could foresee; and, which, even if foreseen, it was difficult to say how it could have been guarded against. That famine, and that failure of the harvest of the country, which it was hoped might be only occasional, had occurred again and again; and in the course of the past year it had, unhappily, occurred under most aggravated circumstances, in those very parts of the country the population

467
of which depended most upon the potato, and were, consequently, suffering the greatest destitution by reason of the failure of the crop. The total failure of the crop, and the general poverty which prevailed, deprived the people of the food, and the landlords and farmers were without the means of procuring food from other places. The state of these particular districts was one most painful to contemplate; but the Government had laid it before their Lordships on undoubted authority, and in an accurate and comprehensive shape. Without going into minute details, he might observe that, taking Ireland, generally, the average amount of the poor-rate during the past year had not exceeded 2s. 9½d. in the pound. There were particular districts in which it had amounted to 7s., to 10 s., and to 20 s.; and he had now before him a return by which it appeared that in one union—that of Clifden—the amount was 2l. 3s. 1d. in the pound. This was a state of things that required the attention of Parliament, and was one of the reasons why he moved for the appointment of this Committee. He was not prepared then, at the moment he was proposing the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the administration of the Irish Poor Law, to offer any suggestion as to specific alterations and amendments to be adopted. Their Lordships must not, however, on that account, suppose that Her Majesty's Government were indifferent to the subject, or that they had been inattentive to the various representations which had been addressed to them on the subject by official personages and individuals with respect to the working of the poor-law in Ireland; those representations would receive due and deliberate consideration in proposing or making any alterations in the provisions of that Act. An opinion had been entertained in that House that it was unwise to disturb the electoral boundaries as they existed before the poor-law. All that Parliament could do at the time was to avail themselves of the best existing divisions. But a Commission was appointed for the purpose of revising the electoral boundaries, and at the head of it was placed Major Larcom, a very able officer, who had since made a very clear and detailed report on the subject to the Government. That report, however, had been sent back to Ireland for the purpose of having some additions made to it; but he hoped very shortly to lay it before Parliament in a complete state, when the Committee
468
would have the advantage of its contents to aid them in their deliberations and conclusions. There were other matters to which the attention of the Committee would of course be directed. One of these would be how far it would be desirable to renew the appointments of vice-guardians in some districts, and under what circumstances that should be done, in preference to having recourse to the old system of electing guardians. He would abstain, as he said before, from laying down any rule for the guidance of the Committee, but he trusted that they would divide the general question submitted to them for consideration into parts, and make each part the subject of an early and separate report to the House. He proposed that the Committee should be composed of noble Lords connected with Ireland, who had a practical knowledge of the working of the poor-law in that country, and of certain English Lords who had given their attention to the operation of the law generally throughout the United Kingdom. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to Inquire into the Operation of the Irish Poor Law; and the Expediency of making any Amendments in its Enactments."
LORD STANLEYsaid, that if on the present occasion he had followed the dictation of his own inclination, he should have been disposed, notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the noble Marquess, rather to have referred to the prayer of the petition from Limerick than to the petition presented by his noble Friend near him from another part of Ireland, calling upon their Lordships to appoint a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Irish Poor Law, in order to show that a remedy for the evils existing in that law was immediately required at the hands of Parliament. But, if, in deference to the opinions of those who anticipated more practical advantages from the appointment of this Committee than, he confessed, he was able to anticipate—if in deference to their opinions he abstained from offering any opposition to the Motion of the noble Marquess, he could not refrain from expressing the deep dissatisfaction he felt upon hearing the speech of the noble Marquess. His conviction was, that the appointment of this Committee would tend to a postponement of the consideration of the Irish Poor Law to an indefinite period, and thus defer the application of remedies to an acknowledged and most urgent evil. It was, in

469
his opinion, a question which ought not to be delegated to a Parliamentary Committee. It was a question which more properly belonged to the Executive Government to determine; it was their duty to determine it, and to submit a measure upon the subject for the consideration of Parliament. He considered that there were many cases, in which, previous to the alteration of an important law, inquiry by a Committee was desirable. If any Member of the Legislature, unconnected with the Government of the day, was desirous of proving to the House and to the country, and more especially to those through whom the amendment of the law could be effective, the mischievous operation, or the dangerous working of a particular law, be could conceive no mode in which the end could be more properly attained, or judiciously aimed at, than the appointment of a Committee, by which the opportunity was given of bringing before the Government and the public those facts with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and upon the perfect knowledge of which legislation should be based. At the time of the introduction of the English new Poor Law in 1834, the Government, contemplating a great and extensive amendment of an important law of the land, thought that, previously to introducing that amendment, it was necessary for them to enlighten and instruct the public mind, and to convince the people, not only of the magnitude of the evil, but of the applicability and fitness of the remedy they were prepared to administer. In that case, and in other cases also, the conduct of the Government of the day, in proposing a preliminary appointment of a Committee—preliminary he meant to the introduction of the legislative measure—was a wise, judicious, and perfectly proper course; but in the case now before their Lordships, there was no new information to be obtained. The facts were plain, palpable and notorious; notorious to every man who had the misfortune to be connected with a great portion—he was not speaking of the north or east, but of the south and the west of Ireland. The facts were notorious and palpable, in fact, to every man who had taken the trouble to inquire into the subject; they were to be mot with in the most alarming form in the papers which Her Majesty's Government themselves had laid upon the table of the House. The Government were in a position to obtain information in reference to this important subject, of far more value than any information
470
that could possibly be collected by the most impartial Committee. Her Majesty's Government required nothing to guide their judgments, except the power of their own minds for making those minds up upon the facts before them; and he could not help thinking that they were shifting upon a Committee that which they, as the responsible Ministers of the Crown, ought themselves to undertake—it was their undoubted province to undertake it, and, possessing the information they did on the subject, to submit the case for the consideration of Parliament. That was the course which ought to be pursued. A Committee might be useful for the purpose of investigating details, but any great principle upon which a law was to be amended ought to originate with the Government, to which was confided the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the country. He had already said that he was not referring to certain parts in the north and east of Ireland, but as regarded that part with which he was best acquainted, personally,—and be believed that the remark was equally applicable to the whole of the south and west—ho did not hesitate to say that, making every allowance for the circumstances to which the noble Marquess had properly adverted, such as the difficulties thrown in the way of the administration of the poor-law by the unhappy famine and failure of the crop of the people's food which had prevailed during the last two or three years, and making every allowance for additional obstacles arising out of such a state of things, he declared that the poor-law in the south and west of Ireland had broken down, and had proved a failure from first to last. And if he wanted to prove that the poor-law in these districts, and in many parts of Ireland, had been a failure, he should refer, not to what the noble Marquess had alluded to—that upon the whole rated property of the country the burden had upon the average been only 2s. 9½d. in the pound; for although the rating might be only. 3s., or 4s., or 5s. upon the whole rated property of a union, yet the amount levied—he had almost used the word extorted—from those unable to pay, yet willing to meet a just demand to the utmost of their ability, and holding a very small proportion, indeed, of the whole property of the union—upon those who were able and willing to pay, the real amount levied had been more than double, and in many instances treble and fourfold, what had appeared on the papers. He would take

471
this case. There was one union mentioned in these papers, 11–19ths of the lands of which was waste and desolate, yet these 11–19ths were taken into consideration when a rate was levied. The whole rate was charged on the 11–19ths, while it was paid by only the 8–19ths of the union, and consequently, the 11–19ths were included when they spoke of the amount of rates levied on the union, although this enormous portion of it had not contributed to the rate at all. He found ample evidence of the failure of this law, in looking into the statements which appeared in the papers that had been laid on the table within the last two days by the Government—he found by those papers that there were 130 unions, of which there were 117 in debt beyond the means of meeting their engagements. He found that the debt of these 117 amounted to no less a sum than 252,000 l., exclusive of every amount of assistance, of whatever sort or kind, derived in the shape of loans or advances from the Government or the British Charitable Association. He found that the amount of these loans over and above this debt was 241,000 l. more—making together nearly 500,000 l. of debt beyond their means of meeting. He found that even that amount did not measure the whole of the liability, or rather of their inability to meet their obligations, which this poor-law had cast upon them; for even with that enormous amount there was excluded from their consideration the amount of food and clothing—the 200,000 children in the schools who were supported independently of this money who were brought up by the British Charitable Association. He found a further proof of the failure of this law in the fact that there were 28 unions that had received amongst them an amount in the way of assistance of 190,000 l. There were 20 unions which were confessedly by the report of the Commissioners themselves in a state of bankruptcy. He found that there were ten more in a state fast approaching to bankruptcy. He found that there were 21 unions the valuation of the property in which amounted to 422,000 l., and yet they had paid no less than 220,000 l., for poor relief, being after the enormous rate of 10 s. in the pound, or 50 per cent on the rental. Their Lordships would see how largely the proprietors in these unions must have been made to pay, over and above the contributions to which they had been fairly assessed for their respective properties, to make good the deficient means or the neglected
472
liabilities of others. It remained for him to add that of the unions where the law had proved so signal a failure in its operation, only 48,000 l. had been actually received out of assessments raised within them; the remainder of the rates which had been declared had been supplied either by advances from Her Majesty's Treasury, or from the contributions of private and charitable sources. He did not mean to argue that any doubt could be entertained that much of the disability or disinclination to pay the rates assessed under the poor-law must have arisen out of the unexampled distress, the famine, and the misery under which Ireland had been so recently and so severely suffering. But what answer had Her Majesty's Government to make to this assertion, to which he believed he might challenge contradiction, namely, that out of 131 unions in Ireland, Her Majesty's Commissioners had been compelled, practically, to abolish the system of the poor-law in that country in 36? Now he, for one, did contend that the electoral system, upon which the board of guardians, appointed to watch over and be responsible for the due administration of the assessments for the relief of the poor contributed by the ratepayers, were by those ratepayers elected, was the fundamental and vital principle of the general amended poor-law that Parliament had passed in 1834. To supersede these boards of guardians by commissioners appointed by and acting under instructions from the Government, was a manifest and a fatal infraction of that principle. For what was the constitution of the board of poor-law guardians, as contemplated by that Act? This—namely, that it was to be a body of individual ratepayers of the district, clothed with the power of taxation for certain defined and limited objects, but wholly independent of the Government of the Crown. To replace them by a body of commissioners directly under the control and appointed by the nomination of that Government, was utterly to repudiate the electoral principle, essential, as he would again contend, to the very elements of the poor-law of 1834, and all other measures founded on its objects. In truth the Irish poor-law had been so completely vitiated by proceedings of this nature that he ought rather to say the poor-law as it practically exists in England is inconsistent with the sort of poor-law practically administered in Ireland. It was a fact beyond dispute that in two-sevenths of all the unions of

473
Ireland, Her Majesty's Government had been under the positive necessity of superseding the whole machinery and action of their new system of poor-law for that part of the empire. No further argument, surely, could be necessary to show that, with regard to a very large portion of Ireland, the further administration of the existing Irish Poor Law was found to be impracticable. He pressed this on the attention of noble Lords, because the fact justified his predictions of the fate of this measure. There were those both in and out of their Lordships' House who were well qualified to speak to such a point, and he had repeatedly told noble Lords, when the Irish Poor Law was first submitted to them, that it must fail from the want of the adequate physical, and he would even venture now to add the moral machinery necessary to ensure its efficient practical administration. Yet Her Majesty's Government had persisted in introducing this poor-law into Ireland, utterly regardless of the wide difference between the state of society existing in England from the state of society existing in Ireland. The condition of society in England alone, he would fearlessly state, had made it possible to administer the present poor-law here. In Ireland the condition of society rendered the practical success of the working of such a measure hopeless. Let them only look at some of the elementary differences on the very surface of the social aspects respectively presented by the two countries, and noble Lords would find that it was not at all surprising that any poor-law should have proved a failure in Ireland, with whatever success it might have operated in England. In England, for example, as he believed, the numbers of small properties in fee-simple—although he was aware that there might be a greater class of large owners of such property here than in Ireland—much exceeded the numbers of small proprietors in fee in Ireland. In England, again, in every union there was a considerable number of such small proprietors in fee. All of them had—as he himself and every noble Lord who heard him must have had opportunities of remarking—a considerable and a direct interest in the well-being of the labouring poor within the areas of such unions. The whole framework and action, indeed, of the new poor-law depended on the harmonious co-operation of the landlords themselves, and the occupiers, not only in properly cultivating the land, but in keeping labourers employed
474
upon it. Our poor-law could not subsist for one moment without this union of action between the landlord and the tenant, the proprietor and the farmer. When noble Lords spoke, therefore, of landlords and tenants in England and in Ireland, they spoke of two very different classes of men. In England they had the assistance in the administration of their poor-law of a considerable body of tenant-farmers who were possessed—who had once been possessed—of competent capitals—most of them employers themselves of agricultural labour, and most of them, he believed, chargeable in their own person, as occupiers, with the poor-rate assessed on the properties held by them; such rates being of course in proportion to the good or bad cultivation of their lands, and the number of heads engaged in that cultivation. There was another significant distinction to be taken in noting the differences between the same classes of persons in the two countries. In England the landlord was the real possessor of the land. He was not only responsible for the demands of the law upon it, but he had the power of enforcing the rights of his property. He spoke not of physical, but of legal rights; and in England a landlord, so far from being complained of for venturing to enforce them by law, whilst he discharged his own duties to his tenant, would be complained of only as wanting in his duties to himself and to the public at large, if he did not compel the occupier to look after the due cultivation of his land, and the employment of agricultural labourers upon it. That could scarcely be said to be the case in Ireland. The English landlord, above all, could compel the tenant to the employment of so much labour as was necessary to the proper cultivation of the soil occupied by such tenant. More than this—however punctual the tenant might be in the payment of his rent, yet if he failed in this contract of proper cultivation, and the employment of the labour required thereby, no man in England would feel a moment's indignation, if the landlord, finding his land growing out of heart, for want of being properly attended to, were to give such negligent tenant notice to quit, and in due time replace him by some other who would be more able and willing to do justice to the land, and put the proper number of labourers upon it. Now this was the state of the law—this the practice pursued in England. You begin by arming the landlord with sufficient power to compel the due cultivation of his

475
property; you may make him responsible through those who occupy under him for the assessments upon it; and you practically conclude by making it the common interest of landlord and tenant, proprietor and occupier, to lighten the burden of unoccupied pauper labour, and to watch over the due assessment and administration of the funds levied for the relief of the poor. But in Ireland their Lordships would find the fee-simple of property in few hands, comparatively speaking; the fee proprietors generally very much embarrassed; their lands ill cultivated; and most of the landlords (he himself must plead guilty to being often one of this class) absentees—or habitually non-resident on their estates. Under those circumstances there could be no effectual co-operation in the objects of such a law as this between the landlords of Ireland, generally, and their tenants, or those who occupied rather than cultivated the land. In fact, as a rule, there was not to be found in that country those classes which we had in England, the existence of which was so essential to the due and practical administration of the poor-laws. There was not between the capital and labour of the country that class of persons to be found in Ireland which was represented by the substantial tenant-farmers in England. Between the landlord and tenant in Ireland there was in the great mass of cases a class that was called here by the name of a mere cottier tenantry—something above the class of labourers. And, from the strange notion of dignity that was attached to the possession of land, these persons would prefer to have three acres of land under their own immediate control, than habitual employment as labourers, although in intelligence or substance they were not one step above those labourers—he was going to say whom they employed—but whom from the poverty of their circumstances they were wholly unable to employ. This class of persons occupied such minute subdivisions of land as to render the proper cultivation of the soil impossible, either by themselves, or any one else. Now observe the difference here between the state of society in both countries. While in England the occupier was chargeable with the rates, in Ireland the rates were imposed by the occupier, but the burden of them was borne, not by the occupier, but the landlord. Now recollect this, whatever might be the abuse of property with which an Irish landlord might be justly charged, whatever
476
faults might be alleged against him, the landlord, in the south and west of Ireland, at all events, was no more than the chief renter upon the property he held. In these small holdings it was not possible for him to exercise the rights of a landlord, nor was it possible for him to turn out the most lazy, disgraceful, and improvident tenant, even for the purpose of securing the proper cultivation of the land, by placing a man of industry and capital in his stead. He stated this fact as principally applicable to large portions of the south of Ireland; and he was convinced he should be borne out in the truth of this statement by the testimony of many of their Lordships who were now listening to him. Under these circumstances what hope was there that the law would ever be practically carried out? He recollected many material alterations that had been made in these laws. It was prophesied both in this and the other House of Parliament that the result of these alterations would be that the tenant would find it to be to his interest to employ a large additional amount of labour. He had taken the liberty of showing the fallacy of those anticipations. He had stated that this class in Ireland would not only not employ an extra number of hands, but they would actually diminish the amount of the labour that they had engaged. The result had proved the accuracy of that declaration. They not only had not employed such extra labour, but their circumstances did not permit them to employ as much as they were accustomed formerly to do. The landlord had not the real possession of his land in Ireland. The tenant was unable to employ labour himself. Under such circumstances how was it possible that there could be an increased amount of labour. That which was the mainstay of the English poor-law—combined exertion for the purpose of advancing their common interest—was wholly wanting in Ireland. That this was a true picture of the condition of a great part of Ireland, he should be borne out by many noble Lords who heard him in asserting. Under these conditions, he believed it would be thought little matter of wonder that there should have been found no practical working for the present poor-law in Ireland. This result had been clearly foretold by the best authorities in both Houses of Parliament when that law was first brought forward. The only improvement it would be possible to effect in the condition of the landlords would be to guarantee them the means of

477
compelling the employment of labour on their property by their tenants. But who would suppose that such a measure was practicable in the existing condition of society, and of the relations between tenant and landlord in Ireland? But the poor-law having proved a failure, what were Her Majesty's Government prepared to substitute for it? The only substitute he could think of would be, if it were possible, to individualise labour and responsibility among landlords and occupiers. Their Lordships' Committee might inquire into the state and working of the poor-law in Ireland, though he could not imagine what practical good could result from such a course in the face of the facts on that subject already reported to the House, and showing the incompatibility of such a law with the state of such a country. But any such proposition as he had hoard of for altering the limits of the existing electoral districts of unions, individualising responsibility, and remodelling assessments, on a principle not hitherto acted on—noble Lords might depend on it that all their attempts to botch up a law so radically defective in all the elements of practical working would terminate in utter failure. He had heard many complaints of the extent of the Irish unions, and he was disposed to think that in many instances they were too large—inconveniently, and even oppressively large; but, considering the large amount of capital already expended in Ireland on their organisation, and that there certainly was great economy in centralising as much as possible their areas, he was disposed to consider that it might be advantageous rather to adopt new centres for such unions, radiating to smaller circumferences, than those now in existence, but without abandoning the old ones, to which more contracted areas might, perhaps, be conveniently adapted. But he begged to impress upon the noble Lords the consideration that, after all, the size of the areas of unions, though not an unimportant feature in itself in the details of the working of the law, was of no consequence, no weight, or relation to the importance of reinstating the electoral principle in the constitution of boards of guardians. The noble Marquess said, that there would shortly be laid before them a report, by an able officer, upon this subject, of the diminution of the area of taxation, or a new arrangement of the electoral divisions. He (Lord Stanley) had no doubt whatever that that gentleman, Major Larcom,
478
would most ably and punctually execute the instructions given to him. But what he wanted to know—and this must be decided by the Government—was this: upon what principle was this remodelling of the electoral divisions to take place? He cared not for minor details, provided he knew the exact principle upon which the Government proposed to act in respect to this matter. He wanted to know, was it to be upon that principle which he conceived to be so necessary—namely, that of individualising responsibility? If it were not upon this principle, it would be worth nothing. But they had also heard great remonstrances on the subject of the extreme inequality between the assessments levied on one tenant and those levied on another. They were now told that the principle of those assessments should be as much as possible equalisation of population and property. The noble Marquess had said that this was no new principle. Now he (Lord Stanley) wanted to know in what way this principle was to be carried out. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had issued instructions as a whole—not as an individual suggestion for an isolated case, but as a general ride; and whether the noble Marquess meant to say, by equalisation, that all the properties within one and the same district should be assessed on their respective assessments to the general property, or rental of it after one and the same rate. Let him explain himself by supposing a case: that, side by side, there should be two properties; the one administered under an embarrassed, needy, reckless landlord, care-loss of the state of the land, reckless of the condition of his wretched tenantry: the other, administered by an active and careful proprietor, who, for twenty or twenty-five years, has devoted unremitting attention to the improvement of his property, and the bettering the condition of his tenantry, providing employment for them, and expending his capital upon the improvement of the land and all upon it; not with a view to raise his own immediate rents, but to prevent, as far as in him lay, the accumulation of paupers on the estate, and the consequent burden their support must entail on the district; and to insure the comparative happiness of those engaged in various labours upon it. If, by the effect of his own exertions to maintain tills improved condition, it were found that the levy or assessment for poor-rate was but small; whereas, in consequence of the

479
same want of management and attention, the other and perhaps larger property was assessed at the same time to a much larger amount, owing to the greater quantity of paupers or unemployed labourers upon it, or any other such cause—in such a case, was it meant to be said that the better landlord, because he had been hitherto more lightly rated, not in consequence but in spite of the proximity of the worse—that because his assessment amounted to, say but 1s. in the pound, and the negligent landlord's to 5s. in the pound—should henceforth be rated at the heavier assessment, on no other ground than that by reason of neighbourhood his property should pay to the general assessment of the district equally with the others? Why, this would be a monstrous proceeding; and yet he inferred from the statement of noble Lords opposite that it was to be enforced, on the ground of "economy," against the better landlord. If he rightly understood, that the new principle in contemplation was thus to equalise rates on populations and properties, he could only say, that they would effectually discourage all attempts to retrieve the miserable condition of Ireland by "equalising" the liabilities of good with those of bad landlords. He could imagine no proposition more replete with gross injustice and with gross impolicy. But, after all, let the faults of the landlords of Ireland, as a class, have been what they might, they had been severely punished, and were still dearly paying for them; and they were faults for which they themselves were neither directly nor altogether indirectly responsible. There were men among them labouring honestly and most strenuously for the improvement of Ireland, and men who were actuated by that generous devotion to her best interests the consciousness of which alone could have sustained them under the cruel reverses against which they had had to contend. Convinced as he was of the utter hopelessness of any attempt to persist in the endeavour to work the present Poor Law (Ireland) Bill, he cautioned noble Lords to beware how they further legislated for the relief of the poor in that country without taking into their most serious consideration the very great difference between its condition and the possibility of finding the machinery necessary for such a law, as compared with the condition of England. The cost of that machinery and the abandonment of the great electoral principle of the new poor-law
480
for England, condemned this law. It did not work—it could not work—it ought not to work. To persevere on the new principles, however, to which he had been addressing himself, could only lead to this result—their new Irish Poor Law must sink in the general ruin which had over-taken the most reckless of the Irish landlords, all those who might have been or still were most disposed to exert themselves for the amelioration of the domestic condition of Ireland. Her Majesty's Government had not yet stated what the objects specifically were in the contemplated alterations to which they were prepared to give their support, or what the nature of the amendments they desired noble Lords to sanction in the existing Act. However undesirable he might think it for Her Majesty's Ministers to delegate the recommendation of such amendments to a Committee, and throwing the whole onus of the responsibility for the Committee's recommendations on their own shoulders, he yet felt it his duty, as a Peer of the realm, here, in his place, and as an Irish proprietor, than whom no Irishman in that House or elsewhere could be more deeply solicitous than he was for the welfare of so important a portion of the empire—he felt bound to say that this poor-law might have been expected, from the first, to fail—as it had failed—by persisting in the course upon which they had attempted to carry it out. The point for which he contended was, that the principle of any amended measure ought to be—to give to the proprietors of the soil a direct personal interest in the careful cultivation of the land, the employment of labour in their own districts, and the administration of the relief funds—not to unite in the same category such landlords with those who were as unwilling as unable to accomplish these great objects, by subjecting them to one and the same scale of assessment. They had been told by a noble Lord that at the rate of increase which the poor relief assessment was now proceeding on in Ireland, the whole rental of that kingdom would soon prove unequal to supply the fund for such assessment. If this opinion was well founded (he heartily trusted it was not), nothing of course remained to the unfortunate Irish landlords but to fold their arms in despair, and await the disastrous issue. But he (Lord Stanley), for one, did not think the problem of Irish re-establishment impossible, even now, to be solved. The means, however difficult to be found, might consist in diffusing

481
the relief assessment over the whole property of Ireland, to accelerate the progress of social improvement—to encourage its farming industry, and to improve the condition of the relations between landlord and tenant. As an Irish proprietor he would say, that if he could secure by any means such objects to be accomplished, if he could be secured from being held responsible for others, he would willingly consent to be responsible—in consideration of the boon they would confer on his own and all other Irish property—to take on himself the entire charge and responsibility of all paupers on his estate. But he was not prepared to pay assessments for such a purpose on the iniquitous principle they had heard advanced of equalising property and population in the new rating. Let him only have the security that such should be the object, and such the application of any tax or rate; and for such a boon, he repeated, he would gladly contribute—say an additional 6d. or 1s. in the pound, on his own assessment, towards a fund in aid. He cared not to what imputations he might expose himself by such a proposal—he knew what were his own intentions in making it. If he was told that there were insolvent unions involved—say to the extent of 500,000 l.—a rate of this amount on all the rental of Ireland would more than pay their involvements off. To such a rate, then, or even a much heavier one, he would cheerfully assent, for it would tend, not to his benefit alone, but to that of Ireland at large. There was no English Member of either House of Parliament who was more profoundly interested than himself in the welfare of that country, and he should say some such system was quite practicable. In the thirty-eight unions which he had referred to, it had been found necessary to supersede the boards of guardians by paid commissioners nominated by the Government. Whatever his objections to this arrangement, his own impression was, that Government would be obliged to continue, and even to extend, the plan. His great object, however—and one in which he was sure every landed proprietor in that House would concur—was, that the principle of contribution to poor relief should be carefully considered and distinctly stated—not loft to the application of those new propositions of equalisation to which he had referred. It was all important to maintain, if possible, the electoral principle, and the liability to control in the application of the assessments. His
482
next proposition would be, that, supposing such a fund in aid of involved unions as he had suggested could be raised from advances, it should be made for their relief under the sanction and direction of the board of guardians; that such advances should be limited to cases where the rates had risen to such an excessive scale as 5s. or 7s. in the pound, or upwards; and where, consequently, it must be assumed that anew state of things had arisen in the district differing from any which it was ever contemplated the board would have to deal with. In reference to this scheme, too, it would be highly necessary that the paid commissioners should be replaced by elected guardians; but, in any case, it would be for the Government to devise all necessary securities for the due application of such advances. There was no doubt that electoral guardians would not be so attentive to the discharge of their duties, or so generally active, as guardians appointed by the Poor Law Commissioners, and paid for their services. And then it might be asked, how, if you appoint paid guardians, can you possibly reduce the amount of expenses in those districts? It did not at all necessarily follow that the expenses should be kept up in consequence of paid guardians being employed. In many instances it was a matter of unavoidable necessity, but then it did not always entail increased expenses. In one case which he could mention, so great was the improvement in the management of the district, that the expenses were reduced from 690 l. to 60 l. or 70 l. a year. It might be said, an isolated instance would not justify a general principle; and it might be asked, what changes could be devised for the permanent relief of those pauperised districts. Then they should perhaps be driven to the necessity of looking to those moans of general relief, with respect to which, although each was totally different from the other, and calculated for very different purposes, there was more diversity of opinion—more contrary and discordant views, than with respect to any other two subjects whatsoever. Each of those means had warm supporters and zealous partisans, some right in many of the reasons they assigned in support of their views, and others of course egregiously wrong. He need hardly say, he alluded to the two important subjects of emigration and the improvement of waste lands at home. These two remedies, for the relief of such general and deplorable distress

483
as existed in Ireland, were in no manner inconsistent. The papers upon their Lordships' table showed that two cases did exist at that moment, for the relief of which each of those two measures, separately, would be for each form of distress the most appropriate mode of applying relief. Emigration might be resorted to when the population became so superabundant that the soil was incapable of supplying them with sufficient food, and home colonisation when the population was barely sufficient for the cultivation of the soil, but superabundant for the extent of capital employed upon its improvement. People were heard to argue against emigration and in favour of home colonisation, as if one was inconsistent with the other. He admitted that there were many districts in Ireland where emigration might be, and perhaps was, the only mode of leading to permanent improvement in the land. On the other hand, there were districts where the reclamation of the extensive tracts of waste lands, of which so large a part of Ireland consisted, might be properly made the means of relieving and employing the labouring population. As to the cost of emigration, he presumed that the expenses of carrying out an emigrant to one of the British North American colonies could not greatly exceed 3l., or at most 4l. a head. Some three years ago, 4l. was considered a fair average charge per head for carrying an emigrant to any of our American colonies. In the papers before the House it would be found that 1s. 3d. per week was the average cost per head for the maintenance of paupers in Ireland. It therefore appeared that the cost of maintaining a single pauper for one year, being less than 3l. 10 s., would be very nearly sufficient to relieve the union altogether from the burden of his maintenance, and enable him to go to another part of Her Majesty's dominions, where he would in all probability be more prosperous, God forbid he should suggest any undue compulsion, or anything of the sort! He did not advocate any extensive system of colonisation or emigration; but where the expenses of transferring a pauper to one of our American colonies so very little exceeded the cost of even one year's maintenance, he thought it would be of advantage to many of the unions to consider the question. He believed it was the opinion, generally speaking, of the paid guardians, who, no doubt, turned their serious attention to the matter, that
484
the removal to another country of a large portion of the poor people of Ireland, instead of increasing the rates, would very considerably reduce them. But then there were districts in which the people might find employment at home. It was a very singular and lamentable feature in the present condition of Ireland, that in many unions there were large districts lying waste and totally uncultivated—not land never brought into cultivation before, but waste and desolate, as an unavoidable consequence of the present unfortunate state in which the country was. The labourers, the tenants, and in many instances persons of some consideration, had collected together the whole of their property, and, without the slightest reference to the claims of the landlord or their other obligations, had, after selling it, emigrated, leaving the landlord large portions of his estate in an abandoned condition, and charged with a large arrear of poor and other rates. What was to become of lands so situated? How could they be let? If they were let to a solvent tenant, his stock would be instantly distrained, and all his property found upon such lands would be seized and sold for the payment of that arrear. The lands would therefore remain waste, and unless something was forthwith done to remedy the evil, it would be perpetuated to such an extent that no remedy could remove or palliate it. He knew of one union, that of Clifden, in which eleven-nineteenths of the land, which was the only source of food for man and beast in that district, were not only lying wholly waste and uncultivated, with large arrears of rates due upon it, but must so be under the penalty that the first man who took any part of that land would of course have his stock immediately seized upon and sold for that arrear. Again, in the union of Ballina, in the county of Mayo, he would refer to a case which might show the condition in which that district was; he meant the case of a Mrs. Bingham, who, although holding a considerable quantity of land, had no means of paying her rates, and had nothing to live upon, being almost in a state of destitution. A portion of the land which was left uncultivated having at length been let to a solvent tenant, the tenant immediately had his whole stock seized upon for the arrears by the Poor Law Commissioners; and that statement was received with much approbation in another place, as a proof of the extraordinary diligence and activity with

485
which the collectors of the poor-rates in Ireland discharged their duties. No arrangement between landlords and their tenantry could obviate that new difficulty. It was not only a dangerous, but a growing, a daily increasing difficulty, and productive of the worst possible consequences. It would greatly increase the number of people who were unable to pay rates—it would render the land less valuable year after year, and entail innumerable disadvantages, not only upon the proprietors and occupiers of land, but upon all classes of society in Ireland. The question was, how could such a difficulty as that be properly met? He was opposed, upon principle, to the proposition of the Government, upon their own responsibility, taking into their possession, or taking into their own hands, the management of large districts of waste lands for the cultivation or improvement of them. He thought such a course was in itself a dangerous thing. In such unions as Kilrush, for instance, where the bulk of the population was not larger than would be necessary to cultivate the land properly, but where there was a large number of paupers and labourers half employed, and consequently on the verge of pauperism, it might be proper to purchase tracts of land, or allow and encourage the landlords to lease it to the Poor Law Commissioners, or to the paid guardians of unions upon certain terms. It might, for example, be proper to permit the guardians to hold their lands free from the payment of rates, that they should be authorised to let them, and that their lessees should likewise be exempted from the payment of rates. That was one mode in which the present alarming obstacle to the cultivation of land in Ireland might be got over. Suppose 100 acres of land now lying waste, and likely to remain so, from the circumstances he had mentioned, were properly cultivated under some arrangement such as he had suggested, would not the advantage accruing not only to the poor-law unions in general, but to the people employed, the proprietors, and the inhabitants, he very considerable? The paid guardians might be at liberty to employ the paupers of the union in the cultivation of the land, or they might be empowered to let it to others free from the present arrears of rates, the payment of which prevented solvent tenants now from incurring the risk of taking it. It might also be arranged that whatever rent was reserved to the landlords should be retained
486
by the guardians for a reasonable time if necessary, and he made available for such rate as the landlord or proprietor in fee should be properly chargeable with, respecting any other portion of his estates. That would in a great measure remove the present obstacle to the cultivation of the soil, and it would greatly facilitate the collection of the rates; because the guardians might apply the rent of such lands as they obtained leases of, to the discharge of rates due upon any other part of the landlord's estates situated within the union, while many solvent persons, who now object to encounter the enormous arrears due, would readily become tenants upon the condition that they should be exempted from the payment of that arrear. He did not say that this mode of meeting the difficulty to which he had adverted was not open to objections; but, at all events, it was susceptible of improvement. It was the only mode he could conceive of bringing the area of Ireland into cultivation, and permanently improving the condition of the people, by employing them. He owed many apologies to the House for having trespassed so long upon their Lordships' patience. But the state of Ireland appeared to him to be so alarming, and the total absence of any fixed principle with respect to the poor-law was so objectionable, that he felt it to be his imperative duty to lay before the House, valeat quantum, the plans which appeared to his mind best and most practicable. He had heard a great deal said about saddling mortgagees and all incumbrancers upon laud in Ireland, with poor's rates; but he thought such a course would be most unjust and impolitic. The consequences would be, that mortgagees would instantly institute proceedings to raise the amount of their mortgages, expensive proceedings would be resorted to, the proprietors of encumbered estates would be crushed or ruined, and no relief whatever would be obtained by such a measure. Whatever might be said with respect to the taxation of rent charges, dowers, annuities, and other charges upon laud created by family settlements in many instances, there was no doubt, if rates were imposed upon such incomes, they would far exceed the whole of the proceeds of many estates in Ireland. He did not wish to express any positive opinion upon the subject, but he thought the suggestions he had made worth consideration. Every one would admit the wide distinction which existed between mortgagees and such incumbrancers

487
as he had previously mentioned. He did not intend, as he had already stated, to offer any opposition to the appointment of the Committee, although he should confess it appeared to him to be a very hopeless mode of meeting the question. The appointment of a Committee—launching them upon such a sea, without rudder or anything else to guide them—was, in his opinion, of no use whatever. It was of the most vital importance that some remedy should be administered—some decisive step taken immediately to arrest the progress of the evil, so that those who still laboured in Ireland to keep their heads above water, in the hope that practical and decisive means would be adopted for their assistance, might know whether they were to be assisted or left to their impending ruinous fate. Above all, he implored their Lordships' co-operation with the landed proprietors of Ireland, who were sinking deeper every day in the scale of society. Their Lordships would expect in return that the landlords of Ireland would use every effort of which they were capable; but impossibilities ought not to be required of them. They were the natural guardians of their tenantry; and if they were suffered to fall—if their influence was paralysed the interests of the people generally must be affected.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYhad no intention of trespassing on their Lordships at any length; but he should deem himself an unworthy listener to the able speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down, if he failed to offer his humble testimony to the truth of the statement of his noble Friend with respect to the state of Ireland; and he felt confident that the views thrown out by him, when they became known in Ireland, would enhance the high position in which the noble Lord stood in that country, both as a landlord and as an individual. What he (the Marquess of Londonderry) complained of was, that Her Majesty's Government on so important a subject should have proposed no definitive plan. The difference of opinion on Irish matters was so great that the result of appointing a Committee would be, that they would never arrive at any conclusion at all. It would be impossible to devise a remedy for the evils in one part of Ireland which would be equally applicable to others; evidence would be heard from all quarters—different remedies suggested; and the consequence would be that nothing would be done. As a friend of a
488
well-administered system of poor-laws in Ireland, and one who thought that measures might be framed which would remove many of the evils which at present existed, he protested against delay, and implored Her Majesty's Government, especially those who were Irish proprietors, to put their shoulders to the wheel, and bring forward such a measure as would enable landlords who were anxious for the prosperity of their tenantry to make it their own business to superintend and improve the condition of their estates.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEhad heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), that it was not his intention to oppose the appointment of a Committee; and, in fact, if he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had entertained any doubt as to the wisdom of the course pursued by the Government, that doubt would have been removed by the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Marquess had told them that it would be impossible for a Committee to arrive at any conclusion, in consequence of the difference of opinion which prevailed as to the remedies which the state of Ireland required; but the noble Lord who preceded him, in censuring the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government, certainly had said nothing to induce them to believe that any other course which they might have proposed would have met with his especial favour; and in speaking of remedies to be applied, with all that skill and ability which belonged to him, there was hardly one topic on which he touched on which he would not find a greater difference of opinion than on the proposal of the Government. He differed from the noble Lord in the view which he took of the constitutional duties of a Government. To him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) it appeared no part of the duty of the Executive Government, on every subject concerning the welfare of the country, to propose changes of the law. He knew not where the noble Lord had got that doctrine; and certainly did not think he would find it supported by the best authorities. Undoubtedly where great principles of policy were contested, he agreed that it was quite right for men possessed of that influence in the legislative assembly derived from office, and identified with the advocacy of certain principles, not to shrink from carrying out those principles by means of the support and influence which they enjoyed. But on a question of this kind, where no such

489
principles were involved, he denied that it was the duty of Government to propose special laws to Parliament. The noble Lord had referred to the question of the area of taxation, without, however, pointing out the exact course which he would wish to recommend. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) denied that the Government had failed to pay attention to that subject. A report had been made on the subject, to which the attention of the Committee would be immediately drawn. He agreed with the noble Lord that it was desirable to stimulate individual exertion in order to provide employment for the people; but it might be carried to excess. He denied that the poor-law had totally failed in Ireland.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he had referred only to that part of Ireland with which be himself was connected, and had not alluded to the north of Ireland.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEbegged the noble Lord's pardon for having given too extended a bearing to his observations; but he felt compelled to say, in spite of all the prejudice which he once felt against it, that the law had worked well in other parts of Ireland besides the north. In the west of Ireland, in 1845, the poor-law was working very smoothly and well. Until the famine came, there had been no just complaint of any extraordinary pressure from the law.
LORD STANLEY: It was not the same law.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: But it was the extraordinary circumstances of the country that had rendered the change necessary. He believed that if the Government had proposed that they should at once proceed to legislate on the subject, they would delay instead of expedite its settlement; and he had no doubt but that a Committee would, in that case, have been called for, in order to inquire into many of the alterations which might be submitted to Parliament. He also felt persuaded that any amendment of the law which it might be desirable to adopt, would be more easily carried after the Committee had concluded its labours; and he was, therefore, glad to find that the Motion was to meet with no opposition.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he agreed entirely in the opinion expressed by the Lord President who had last addressed their Lordships, as to the necessity of appointing this Committee. He did not think that Parliament could proceed to legislate effectually without this inquiry;
490
for unless they succeeded in carrying the convictions of the English people with them, he despaired of any effectual legislation upon the subject. In relation to the present state of public opinion, he was far from thinking that they would meet in the opinions of the people of England anything but a kindly feeling towards the people of Ireland; but, at the same time, he regretted to say, they had to struggle against an entire ignorance, on their parts, of the actual state of the facts, and of the law as it had produced that state. He knew that it was very generally said by the people of this country, "We pay our poor-rates; we have our poor-law; we support our poor; and should not the people of Ireland do the same?" This, however, assumed that the state of the two countries was alike, and that the poor-laws of both countries were also alike. Any person who supposed this to be the case, must be as misinformed of the state of the facts as of the state of the law in both countries. Caught by the mere similarity of words, they were led astray from the actual truth. He believed that, if the state of the law as to rating in Ireland were introduced into England, the English Poor Law could not exist one calendar month. He was not prepared to contend that the English law, exactly as it existed in this country, was necessarily applicable to Ireland; but he did contend that it was most illogical to infer, that because the same law might be applied to both countries, two wholly different laws must likewise. The Irish Poor Law and the English Poor Law were the same in name only. If the system of rating adopted in Ireland were introduced into England, the English Poor Law could not last a month. In England, the rates were paid by the occupier; in Ireland they were paid by the landlord when below 4l.; and in other causes were divisible between the landlord and tenant. When the rent and the valuation coincided, the rate was then equally divided; but if the guardians, exercising their power of altering the valuation from time to time, rated the land not at its real value, but at a lower, say a half valuation, the effect of that would be, to throw the whole burden of the rate upon the inheritor or proprietor. But even without a fraudulent reduction of the valuation, the same consequence followed with rates greatly and rapidly rising as at present, the principle being, to deduct the amount of rate from the actual bonâ fide value

491
of the land; so that if the rate rose from 5s. to 10 s., the whole burden of the rate was cast upon the landlord alone. In England, the law was so entirely different that no comparison could be instituted as to its operation in the two countries. In Ireland the rate would soon fall exclusively on the proprietors, who were few in number. They would be administered by the many, who would also share in their distribution. If he thought that the appointment of this Committee would lead to any prolonged examination, or that it would relieve the Government from any responsibility in bringing forward some proposition on the subject, he certainly should not have been favourable to its appointment. The first duty of the Committee would be, to ascertain the fact which had been assumed throughout the speech of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), namely, the failure of the present system. This would not require much evidence. Was it possible for any sane man to affirm that it had answered the purpose for which it was passed? It had been said that the measure had failed because of the famine. He admitted that the famine had necessarily severely tried the principle of the measure; but the famine had in this case only placed additional impediments in the way of a law which must of necessity have found difficulties even under the most favourable circumstances; and, for that matter, we should remember that it was the famine which had alone procured the passing of the measure in its present form. He was far from saying that no poor-law was required for Ireland; he would not enter into any such indefensible crusade as to endeavour to obtain the repeal of the Irish Poor Law: but he demanded as an act of justice such amendments in the present measure as should adapt it to the wants and capabilities of his country. He would remind the House that it could not be said this Bill had failed in consequence of any want of local co-operation on the part of the Irish landlords. It should be remembered that the law had been entrusted to the irresponsible control of three vice-guardians, armed with despotic authority, without local bias, and indeed often unacquainted with the character of the parts of the country to which the law was to be applied by them, and having no connexion or interest in the country. He did not, however, mean to make any complaint on this particular head; for he was quite ready to admit that, under the circumstances
492
of Connaught and parts of Munster, that despotism had been attended with beneficial results. But this, equally with all the other features of the measure, required careful investigation. He did not conceive that the failure of the plan could be attributed to any want of local aid in its development. He was disposed to attribute much of its failure to the circumstance that it raised too high in the minds of the people the expectations of the relief to be derived from the measure. There had spread over Ireland an impression that by the operation of this Act all persons who chose to seek relief, under whatever circumstances, were entitled to have it. In fact, the supporters of the measure had practically tended to generate those very theories of socialism and red republicanism, which very many of them held in such utter abhorrence. We condemn these principles in France. We have adopted them against all warning in Ireland. La nation garantie le travail, said Louis Blanc. But this did not mean mere un-recompensed work—it meant wages, and wages affording the necessaries of life. Therefore socialism and red republicanism contemplated the guaranteeing to every member of the nation food, clothing, house, fuel, whenever such member thought fit to apply for these things. This we condemn and ridicule as an impossibility and as a wicked absurdity. But he should be glad to know wherein the guarantee held out, or supposed to be held out, by the Irish Poor Law, differed from the socialist guarantee? The simple truth was, that, in this measure, Parliament had entered into obligations towards the population of Ireland which it had not the means of fulfilling. The promise was a cheat and an imposture. The effect of this law on the population, in a moral point of view, had been most pernicious. Colonel Clarke, one of the assistant inspectors, had, in his report, distinctly stated that throughout his district the clear impression was, that no man need work unless he chose, and that every man had full right to be maintained by the State—an impression fast creating a further impression wholly incompatible with the security of property. His words were as follows:—
"The doctrine has been publicly preached that a man has no occasion to work unless it so pleases him, but has a right to support for himself and family in the workhouse."
Colonel Clarke adds—
"All principle of right and decency appears to

493
have vanished since the outdoor relief commenced, and the assistant barrister declared from the bench that he had never witnessed such profligacy or wilful perjury as had been exhibited."
The noble Lord opposite urged with great force the principle of individualising responsibility; in that principle he (Lord Monteagle) quite concurred; and his view of the objects contemplated by the Boundary Commission was, that they deserved the most serious consideration as involving a practical explanation of this principle. Another point to which the attention of the Committee could not be too earnestly directed, was the injustice now so constantly practised upon landowners, of making a revaluation of their property for rating purposes immediately after large sums of money had been expended upon its improvement. Sound policy, quite equally with justice, required that every encouragement should be given to the men who, perhaps at a heavy sacrifice, applied their capital, their credit, and their energies, to the amelioration of the condition of their country. As it was, so far, being so encouraged, all they got in certain cases by their outlay was, to have their rating augmented in even a greater proportion than the profits arising from that outlay. In order to show the injurious operation of the present system, he needed only to inform their Lordships that a friend of his, possessed of an unencumbered estate, but surrounded by overpeopled and pauperised estates, had given constant employment to between three and five hundred labourers; that there was not a single claimant, still less a recipient of the poor-rate, upon his own demesne estate; and that he was employing his neighbour's poor. Yet he was at this moment paying 10 s. or 11 s. in the pound for poor-rates, in addition to the amount he was expending on labour; and he had already paid between five and six thousand pounds as rates, over and above what he had paid for labour. It was impossible that this could last. He begged, in the next place, to call their Lordships' attention to the question of emigration. Without emigration, their Lordships might depend on it, and emigration on a greater scale, the frightful problem of Irish distress could never be solved. But it was no less true that the emigration which was at present going on was not at all likely to benefit the country. The movement was chiefly amongst that class of the population which it was the most desirable to retain—the possessors of capital. In that class were
494
included not only those persons who were described as taking away that money without meeting the just demands upon them; but also persons who took away considerable capital after the due performance of their engagements. He was passing through Dublin the other day, and visited one of the emigration offices in that city connected with Liverpool, and in that single office he found, on inspection of the books by the agent, that (independently of the sums taken out in coin, which were so considerable as to attract the notice of the statesmen of the United States) the amount taken out in bills on Boston and New York by emigrants was at the rate of 25,000 l annually. This, it should be remembered, was after the cost of passage and outfit, and represented the necessary remittances from one single office. But important consequences followed this emigration. The land which had been held by those emigrants was suddenly thrown upon the landlords' hands; and how were they to make it productive? Their resources were already destroyed by the poor-rate. The labour fund was in their case abortive. Even if it were not so, the case would be much the same. Suppose that the best managed estate in the best part of England—for example, the estate of his noble Friend (Earl Grey), in Nor thumberland, which, as he understood, was a perfect model of what an estate ought to be—were so circumstanced; suppose that all the farmers were to throw the whole of their farms on his noble Friend's hands, and that at a time and under conditions which rendered it impossible for him to get other tenants to occupy them, would it be possible for his noble Friend, from his own resources, to undertake the cultivation of the land in his own person, and at his own cost. It was wholly impossible, on the part of proprietors, to supply the farming capital necessary for the cultivation of deserted lands. Every day the quantity of unimproved and untilled land in Ireland was increasing, and with the diminution of the cultivated land the poor-rates would become larger, and the resources out of which rates could be levied would diminish. It was said by some persons, "Oh, sell the Irish lands, and let them pass into the hands of better men." This was much more readily said than done. To sell, you must find a purchaser as well as a vendor. This was rendered difficult by the existing law. When a Bill was introduced by his noble Friend on the woolsack, to facili-

495
tate the sale of encumbered estates, what had been the result? Though it had passed the House of Lords on the high authority of the Lord Chancellor, his learned Friend's bantling was subsequently changed at nurse, and came back to them another Bill. His noble and learned Friend was, however, kindly willing to accept the paternity, and to take charge of the child. But though it had been thought that the Lord Chancellor's Bill was a despotic anomaly, it was discovered in the Commons that it would not be effective enough to attain the great object of revolutionising the whole state of landed property in Ireland, and extirpating the present proprietors as a useless race, in the hope of substituting gentlemen of capital, intelligence, and power. The Bill was therefore remodelled with this intent. With what result? He asked, what sales had been effected under the Encumbered Estates Act? It was often complained in Parliament, when returns were called for, that delay was produced in consequence of the length and complication of the papers required; but he ventured to say, that, if a return were ordered to be made of the number of estates sold under this Act, no such objection could be made—no delay need take place. He predicted that the return could be furnished by the expenditure of a single sheet of paper, bearing as an inscription upon it the three emphatic letters "Nil." That was all they had obtained from the mighty efforts of the combined wisdom of both Houses of Parliament; and he understood that parties had been equally unsuccessful when trying to sell property without the intervention of the Encumbered Estates Bill. Those of their Lordships who expected to produce by changes of ownership any large and effective deliverance from the calamity which now threatened to overwhelm Ireland, would certainly be disappointed, unless some change were made in the present poor-law. The present state of affairs was certainly fearful. The great bulk of the gentry in the distressed parts of Ireland were actually crushed; day by day habitations which had once been the centres of kindliness and benevolence, the pride and ornament of the country, and which men had been accustomed to regard as proofs of an increasing civilisation, were closing up, or becoming auxiliary workhouses for the increasing pauperism. The time was coming when the bench of justice would be deserted, when there would
496
be no magistrates to administer the law, and no gentry or proprietary to stand between their Lordships and the pauper population; and when the distressed parts of Ireland would, in fact, be converted into one general den of pauperism, governed only by paid officers, acting under the despotic control of the central power. And let not the possessors of property in the more favoured parts of Ireland, imagine that they could long escape. They might struggle against the evil for a time, but the plague-spot would become part of the permanent system, and would extend to all parts of Ireland. England, too, must suffer; for, if not immediately, yet eventually, but most certainly, was the Irish Poor Law an English question. Irish paupers would persevere in their endeavours to find subsistence in England. Their numbers must rapidly augment. All attempts to check this by sending the Irish back to their own country, would only accelerate their arrival, facilitate their journey, and increase their numbers. After earning all they could in England, they would remit what they had saved to their own country, by means of a bank or post-office order, then they would render themselves chargeable, in order to return at the public expense. In conclusion, he must declare that, while he should cordially vote for the appointment of the Committee, it would be by no means with the intention of shielding the Government from the responsibility of propounding such measures as were required by the public interest.
On question, resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned to Monday next.