Sitting of 12 February 1849

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Bolton. Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knt.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland).
CONFERENCE.—Ingrossing and Inrolling of Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. William Brown, from the Parish of Great Saint Helens, London, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the Church of England Clergy—By Lord Seymour, from the Town of Totness, for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.—By Mr. Thomely, from James Harvey, of Liverpool, for an Alteration of the Present Currency.—By Mr. Colic, from several Tenants of Copyhold Property, in the Parishes of Burnham (Norfolk), for an Alteration of the Law respecting Copyholds.—By Mr. Cornewall Lewis, from the Board of Guardians of the Hereford Union, for the Suppression of Mendicancy.—By Mr. Farrer, from Shipowners, and Others, of the Port of Stockton-upon-Tees, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.'—By Mr. Beckett, from the Township of Leeds, for an Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Sir Thomas Burke, from the Ratepayers, and Others, of the Tuam Union; and by Mr. Leslie, from the Board of Guardians of the Monaghan Union, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Osman Ricardo, from the Mayor and Inhabitants of the City of Worcester, for Referring War Disputes to Arbitration.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAYS.
MR. LOCKErose, pursuant to notice, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere), whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for securing to the public, on Sundays, the limited use of those railways which were open for passenger trafffic during the week?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Government had no present intention of proposing a measure to compel railways to carry passengers on Sundays. At the same time, he desired not to preclude himself
564
against the right of bringing forward such a measure, if he should see cause for doing so. The Railway Commissioners had expressed their feelings very plainly upon the matter, by refusing to sanction by-laws for shutting up certain lines on Sundays—and he could not too strongly express his own individual opinion that it was perfectly possible to open railways on the Sabbath under such proper limitations as should avoid any unnecessary desecration of that day, and should be perfectly compatible at once with the convenience of the public, and the proper respect due to the Sabbath. He hoped that public opinion would be strong enough to induce those companies which had taken a different view of the subject to adopt the course which was more in accordance with custom in this country, he confessed he was most reluctant to introduce any thing like a compulsory measure upon a point involving the conscientious religious scruples of any considerable body of people, except in cases of extreme necessity; and he was happy to say that about half the railways in Scotland did at this time allow trains to run on the Sunday.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
MR. HERRIESinquired of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) what course he proposed taking with respect to the Committee on the Navigation Laws, which was among the orders for that evening, but which, from the business that should precede it, was not likely to be brought on that evening, and he was, therefore, desirous of knowing if the right hon. Gentleman would take it on another day, and if so, on what day? He should also wish to know whether the resolution which was to be proposed now was so nearly in accordance with the resolution proposed last Session, as that the understanding come to on that occasion should be now acted upon—viz., to allow the first reading of the Bill to take place, for the purpose of its circulation through the country, and then to let the discussion be afterwards had on the second reading, when they could enter upon the discussion with a general knowledge of the intentions of the Government on the question. It was important, then, for those who wished to take a part in the discussion, to know whether or not the present resolutions were the same, or nearly so, as those of last year.
Mr. LABOUCHEREhoped that their discussions on the subject last Session

565
would not be altogether thrown away, but might have the effect of saving the time of the House now. In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), he begged to state that it would not be in their power, from the state of the business, to bring forward the Committee on the navigation laws that evening; he should, therefore, postpone it to Wednesday the 14th instant. As to the resolution he proposed moving, he could not certainly say that it would be identically the same as that proposed last Session. He was unwilling to lay it on the table, unaccompanied by any explanation, as the absence of all explanation might give rise to a belief that might not be well founded as to the nature of the modifications proposed. He also thought it expedient that a general resolution of that kind should not be laid on the table before moving the Committee, as it only gave rise to a discussion on the question of the Speaker leaving the chair, instead of that discussion being reserved for the more appropriate occasion of the Committee of the whole House. He was, therefore, reluctant to lay the resolution now upon the table; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reserve any opposition he might have to the Bill until its second reading, and that he would find no difficulty in agreeing to the preliminary resolution on which the Bill was to be founded.
Mr. HERRIEShoped that ample time would be allowed to intervene between the proposing of the resolution and the second reading of the Bill.

THE INFANT PAUPER ESTABLISHMENT AT TOOTING.
VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIGinquired if Mr. Drouet, against whom a coroner's jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter, was still at the head of the pauper establishment at Tooting; also, what number of children were still there?
MR. BAINESstated, that Mr. Drouet had certainly not been convicted of any offence whatever; but he had been put upon his trial upon two or three criminal charges, and that circumstance was sufficient to induce him (Mr. Baines) not to take any further steps as regarded that individual. When the cholera broke out in Mr. Drouet's establishment in the beginning of January last there were 1,372 children in the house, who had been sent there by thirteen different unions. As soon as the cholera made its appearance, the
566
Poor Law Board issued circulars to all those unions, pressing on them in the strongest terms the necessity of providing, without delay, suitable places for the reception of those children, in order that they might be removed at the earliest possible period. That circular had been repeated from time to time. Twelve out of the thirteen unions had been able to provide places for the reception of the children, which they deemed suitable. The thirteenth union—that of Chelsea—had reported to the Poor Law Board that, notwithstanding every endeavour on their part, they had not been able to meet with a suitable place. And, no doubt, there would be a difficulty in procuring suitable accommodation for them. The workhouse was already full, and the owners of private property were naturally unwilling to receive into that property persons coming from an establishment where the cholera had existed. The number of children now at Mr. Drouet's was 223, consisting of those belonging to the Chelsea union, and of others from other parishes, who had laboured under cholera, but were now convalescent, although they had not yet been certified as in a fit state to be removed. He was happy to add, that no fresh case of cholera had occurred in Tooting since Saturday the 13th January last.

PUBLIC ADVANCES IN AID OF THE POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYinquired, pursuant to notice, of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if any expenditure of public money in aid of the poor-law administration in Ireland, and if any, to what amount, and to what unions, had boon authorised under the minute of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, dated the 16th day of January, 1849.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Baronet might remember that in the statement which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made to the House last Wednesday, he said that in accordance with what he believed was the general understanding of the House, Her Majesty's Government were invested with the discretionary power of making small advances to Irish unions for the sole purpose of preserving the people from absolute starvation; and that in the exercise of such discretion, the Government had made grants amounting to about 3,000 l. He had now to state that the actual sum advanced was 2,650 l., and that it was distributed

567
amongst the unions of Scarriff, Kenmare, Ballina, Westport, and Bantry.

RAILWAY BOARD.
MR. BREMRIDGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether (after the notice of a Bill for consolidating the Boards of Excise and Taxes) it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue the present Railway Board as an independent Board, or whether Her Majesty)s Government contemplated, in the present Session of Parliament, bringing forward any measure to place the railway business of the country under the management of the Board of Trade?
MR. LABOUCHERE, in answer to the question, was understood to say, that it was not in the contemplation of Government to bring in a Bill to abolish the Railway Board. Considerable reductions had been made in the railway department, but he did not think that the Railway Commission would be made a branch of the Board of Trade, and abolished as an independent board.

CALIFORNIA.
SIR DE L. EVANSsaid, that he understood there were six ships going from London and Liverpool with merchants and passengers to California, men of high respectability and of different professions. It was also probable that a still greater number of ships would go. It was understood, that they required some sort of protection, and he wished to know if a vessel of war would be stationed at St. Francisco?
SIR F. BARINGsaid, that the general instruction to the admiral on that station, was to attend and give protection to trade. He had already received a communication from that officer, which showed him that the subject had not been neglected by him; but he could not hold out any expectation that a ship would be permanently stationed in California.
SIR DEL EVANSsaid, that he understood the orders were for a ship to touch once in three months, which he considered was not sufficient.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
MR. OSBORNEasked the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Greene), in the absence of the officials connected with the Woods and Forests, what progress had been made in the building of the New Houses of Parliament?
MR. GREENEsaid, that the question would be best answered by looking at the Houses themselves. It was rather difficult to state what progress had been made in the several departments. He could not state when this House would occupy the New Houses of Parliament; he did not imagine it would be during the present Session. A certain delay had arisen from want of money for carrying on the works, which were not proceeded with so rapidly as the architect desired.

THE PUBLIC REVENUE.
MR. HUMEwished to asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be recollected, that last Session the House entered into a resolution that the gross revenue of the country should be paid into the Exchequer. He wished to know whether the gross revenue of the Customs and Excise, agreeably to the resolution, was to be paid into the Exchequer and brought to the public account or not?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it would have been the more convenient course for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) to have given notice of the question to be put. He was not prepared to say, that it was for the advantage of the public revenue or the advantage of the public service, that the whole amount of the gross revenue should be paid into the Exchequer.

INGROSSED BILLS.
The Resolutions relating to Ingrossed Bills were considered. Amendments proposed and agreed to:—Resolutions communicated to the Lords at a Conference;—Conferences had;—Reported that the Lords agree to the Commons' Amendments.
[COMMONS' VOTES, No. 8, see. 65.]

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion for the House going into Committee on this Bill,
MR. J. O'CONNELLrose to move an instruction to the Committee. It was intended to bring out what might be the real meaning and scope of the powers to be given by this Bill, because as yet he said they were not able to judge of the whole extent and bearing of those powers. There was a difference amongst the parties to whom they were referred. In the first place, look at the Queen's Speech. He saw that Her Majesty's Ministers in drawing

569
up the Speech distinctly stated that insurrection still existed in Ireland; and the necessity of renewing the powers was distinctly based on the asserted fact that disaffection still existed there. The statement in the Royal Speech was put in for the sake of the dishonour of the thing. It was not thought right that the less excuseable objects and the true objects should be put into the mouth of the illustrious Occupant of the Throne. There was little care how the parties acted in common fairness to the country, provided they set their feet on the neck of the country. We had the letter of the Lord Lieutenant corroborated by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and then the pretext of disaffection was utterly thrown aside; they did not attempt to bring it forward, or maintain it for one moment. On the contrary, the Gentlemen who were put forward to speak the echo to the Speech, distinctly admitted that no such thing as disaffection existed in Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant himself came out with the real reason. He confessed that the real meaning of the Bill, the real object of the powers accorded to him, was to put down discussion in Ireland, to put down constitutional agitation in Ireland. We had then this discrepancy between the Monarch on the Throne and Her advisers in the House. We had still more—we had discrepancy between those advisers themselves in the House. The last night when this Bill came before us we had the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) standing up to give his version, and the Prime Minister contradicting him entirely. The Secretary for Ireland said that the Bill was not to be applied to such agitation as that to which he had alluded. The Prime Minister said, on the contrary, that it was to be so applied. Of course from the higher position in the Ministry of the noble Lord, we were to lay more stress on his words.
[The hon. Member was here interrupted by a Message from the Lords, desiring a conference on the Resolutions respecting the ingrossing and inrolling of Bills.]
MR. O'CONNELLresumed. He had pointed out these four contradictions, and as the Bill itself gave no information on the subject, he thought it had now become absolutely necessary to make that other half of his speech which he received permission from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on Friday night to do. He begged to thank the noble Lord for that permission. It was something to be permitted to speak
570
in that House, though they were denied the right in Ireland. He begged also to thank the noble Lord for the certificate of character which he had been good enough to give him. He would now refer again to the contradiction between the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and his Secretary (Sir W. Somerville). The Secretary for Ireland said that the Lord Lieutenant would not presume to interfere with an agitation carried on for the repeal of the Union; the Premier said he would. He had no doubt the Premier was correct. He believed the Lord Lieutenant would presume to do anything after the audacity he had shown in mixing together men whose only crime consisted in their having done their duty honourably and blamelessly to their country, together with others who had been engaged in treasonable practices. The noble Lord had, in his explanation, laid great stress upon the danger of the Repeal Association. But if the noble Lord yielded the right to the people of Ireland to meet and hold adjourned meetings, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would promise him he should have no cause to complain. He did not know whether the people of Ireland would wish to hold such meetings he did not know whether or not he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would attend them. All he contended for was that their rights should not be taken from the people.
[The hon. Member was again interrupted by a Message from the Lords.]
MR. J. O'CONNELLagain resumed, and said, that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had implicated the Repeal Association most unfairly in the charge of tending towards insurrection and conspiracy. But he (Mr. J. O'Connell) begged to remind the House, that not one member of the Repeal Association had been for a single hour imprisoned by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the powers entrusted to him by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. And when he (Mr. J. O'Connell) and the other members of the Association had been tried for sedition, it was proved that not one breach of the law had ever been committed at any of the meetings held under its auspices. It should be recollected, too, that that was proved after every means had been tried to catch them. They had an able reporter, sent by the Government, present at each of their meetings, and two constables to watch them. They were watched, in fact, as a cat watches a mouse. And, after all, the noble Lord was obliged to make the most he could of the—he would not call it

571
"mock insurrection,"—but the wretched attempt at insurrection which had taken place. He called it a wretched attempt, for it was proved by the letters from America, to which so much allusion had been made, that not more than 200 persons were at any time gathered together; and that not more than thirty were armed for the purpose of taking an active part in it. He did not wish to say any thing harsh of the unfortunate persons who had taken part in that wretched affair: but he (Mr. J. O'Connell) thought they were the worst enemies of repeal. Reverting to the part taken by the noble Lord on the present occasion, he begged to ask him what he would have said had the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth come down to the House at the time of the reform agitation, and said, they could see what Chartism was—that Chartism was an offshoot of the reformers; and that the constitution should be suspended in order that Chartism might be put down? And further, that as the reformers were criminated by the fact of Chartism being an offshoot of reform, it was not enough that Chartism should be put down, but the agitation for reform should be put a stop to reform also. If it were brought home to himself in that manner, the noble Lord could feel it; but as it was only an Irish Member who had such a complaint to make, he took no notice of it. But did the noble Lord think they had heard nothing about the manner in which the Reform Bill was carried—of the manner in which the pressure from without was brought to bear upon the House of Lords? Did he think they had hoard nothing of the fifty francs from the Home Office, that were sent on the letters to the leaders of the political unions through the country, encouraging them to march upon London? And had they heard nothing of the celebrated letter dated from the Home Office, signed by Thomas Young, and directed to Sir William Napier, asking him to take up arms? [The hon. Gentleman read the letter, which has so often appeared.] That letter was not the production of Thomas Young, but of his employers; of those who now occupy the Ministerial benches, and who were endeavouring to prevent constitutional agitation by those who had never broken the law. After that, he wished the noble Lord joy of his love of the constitution, and his zeal for the preservation of order in the country. He should beg to refer to one other subject which had been alluded to in the debate the other night—the conduct of the Irish Members during
572
the great struggle between Whigs and Tories, from 1835 to 1840, and in particular the conduct of Mr. O'Connell. It was said that Mr. O'Connell had obtained patronage in return for the part he then took. But there was the evidence of Lord Melbourne that there never was a man who so little used any right of patronage he might have had. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) called upon any one to point out where and how his father had used the Government patronage for the benefit of himself or his family. There was indeed one brother of his (Mr. J. O'Connell), and another member of his family in Government employ; but that brother was appointed to the situation he held, not only without application, and without his knowledge, but actually whilst he was labouring earnestly and hard to place another person, an old and veteran reformer, in the situation. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) defied any man (and he had plenty of calumniators both in England and Ireland) to show that his late father had ever sold his country for patronage or profit. He defied any man to point out a single vote of his father's given in that House, that was not in accordance with his well-known opinions out of doors. In one case, that of the Appropriation Clause, it had been charged against Mr. O'Connell that he had yielded a principle. But what were the circumstances? The clause had been abandoned by Ministers, Ireland was being goaded into frenzy by the tithe massacres, and to prevent further bloodshed Mr. O'Connell agreed to a Tithe Bill without the clause. But he could tell the House that an equitable settlement of the Church question was still anxiously looked for by the Irish people. It was one that must be taken up, and before a fortnight he should himself submit a Motion to the House; then they would see whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would stand by his old principles, and consent to apply the revenues of the Irish Established Church to secular and national purposes. He should now return to the noble Lord's allusions to agitation in Ireland; and he must say, from what he could gather, the mind of England was disappointed that there had not been better opportunities for using force in Ireland. The same mind would carry the present measure; but he warned the House that their success would only weaken the bonds between the two countries. It would do more towards separation than the most violent agitations supported by the ragged, shoeless, shirtless crew that had lately

573
created disturbance could effect. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) expected more sympathy for the Irish nation from the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) than he had exhibited. There was a sort of similarity between their positions, that should have caused that hon. Gentleman to lean more towards them. They formed the forlorn hope of constitutional liberty against tyranny. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had also a forlorn hope, but it was the forlorn hope of an exploded injustice. That hon. Gentleman ought to recollect the denunciations of Holy Writ against avarice and robbery and the grinding of the poor; and surely there could be no greater crime than for the rich to rob the poor man of his bread. So it was, however, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire took part against the Irish, for reasons which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) could not agree in, for he and those who acted with him were not disposed to—
"Compound for sins that were inclined to
By damning those we have no mind to."
If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire were "the coming man" whom he promised, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) thought that the day of his coming would be a day of bad omen indeed for England. For she would then have to prepare for a renewal of those restrictions which had fettered her trade, and Ireland would have to prepare for a renewal of that armed sectarianism which had been so long her curse and bane. The cry of English politicians had always been for peaceful applications for redress. The people of Ireland had agitated peacefully for years; but how little had they obtained by their forbearance. What consolation would it be to England to know that she had caused increased misery and ruin in Ireland, and that bloody devastation overspread the fair face of that country? Fox had been lately quoted in that House, but he prayed attention to two brief extracts from other constitutional writers. The first was from Locke's Essay on Government, and was as follows:—
"Absolute power is inconsistent with civil society, and can be no form of civil government at all. Wherever any two men are who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to for the determination of controversies of right betwixt them; there they are still in a state of nature and under all the inconveniences of it, with only this woful difference to the subject, or rather slave, of an absolute ruler, that whereas in the ordinary state of nature he has a liberty to judge of his right, and according to the best of his power to maintain it; now, when his right is invaded, he has
574
not only no appeal as those in society ought to have, but, as if he were degraded from the common state of rational creatures, is denied a right to judge of or defend his right; and so is exposed to all the miseries and inconveniences that a man can fear from one who being in the unrestrained state of nature is yet corrupted by flattery and armed with power."
Now this would be the exact position of the people of Ireland if the present Bill passed. They would be in the hands of a man "corrupted by flattery and armed with power;" they would have "no judge to appeal to for the determination of controversies of right; the dictator Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would rule over them, and they would be," not the subjects, but the slaves of an absolute ruler." The next extract was from Mr. Wyndham's remarks, delivered on the 8th of February, 1806, on which occasion that Gentleman said:—
"Vast and extraordinary powers ought not to be delegated merely because some mischievous persons had been taken out, and that the persons to be entrusted with them were of a mild and moderate disposition. We ought to be most tender in granting vast and extraordinary powers with respect to Ireland; not only a power exercised at a distance from control and inspection, but also because there is an obligation of honour and consciousness to be delicate in granting power, the "weight of which would fall exclusively on others, while it could not touch ourselves."
Now, it would be extremely desirable if these important words were attentively considered by the House, because if the present measure were adopted, the weight of the blow inflicted would fall on the unfortunate Irish people, who were already sufficiently sunk in misery and wretchededness. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had told the House of a sop he meant to give to Ireland in the shape of an extended franchise; but at the same time he, the noble Lord, thought that the Irish people had not made quite the use they ought of the franchise they already possessed. It was quite possible the noble Lord might be led to entertain this opinion, because at the last election, the Irish people had refused to return two of his officers. But why had not those officers been elected? Simply because they had refused to go with the popular voice, and that they preferred the interests of England to the demands of the Irish people; and therefore every right-minded man would approve of the use the Irish electors had made of their votes on that occasion; for they had vindicated what they conceived to be the interests of their country by voting according to the dictates

575
of their conscience. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) would not enter upon the miserable game of recrimination, or institute a comparison between the mischiefs, the miseries, and the crimes which had been caused on both sides of the Channel; but if he were to do so, what hideous scenes might be not reveal of bribery in civilised England? Why, if reports were true, the election of the noble Lord himself for the city of London had not been conducted on very pure principles. The noble Lord had alluded to the Revolution of 1688, and seemed to think that, as the English people had then begun to prosper, the Irish people ought to have prospered likewise. But at the time England recovered a portion of her liberties, what did she do for Ireland? Why, she almost immediately after, by positive legislative enactment and Parliamentary interference, struck down with one blow the staple trade of Ireland the woollen trade; and she did so professedly and declaredly, in the words of the address of that day in the House, because the woollen traders of England thought that that trade would interfere with the woollen trade of their own country. But did England stop there? No. She next passed the penal law system, which, besides interfering between man and man on the subject of religion, had the evil effect of disturbing the economic condition of the country, of preventing many from acquiring wealth, of crippling industry and enterprise, and of robbing Catholics of whatever property they happened to possess. How could the country be expected to prosper under circumstances such as these? In 1782, England being obliged to abandon her encroachments, Ireland started on a course of prosperity; and for the eighteen subsequent years, during which the Irish Parliament existed, that country, even according to the confession of some of the chief artificers of the Union, including Lord Castlereagh and the Earl of Clare, prospered more in wealth and general prosperity than aay other country ever did in the same length of time. Then the Irish Parliament was taken away, and since that time England had been made the centre of attraction, Irish manufactures declined, and a refusal was given to interfere between Irish landlords and tenants, with the view of preventing the latter from being robbed. Could it be wondered at, then, that the Irish people had not become rich? But it was not even now too late to redress the grievances of that people. Let conciliation
576
be tried, if it were only for the sake of novelty. Let the House be advised in time. Ireland was paralysed now. She was struck down to the enrth; and therefore there was all the aggravation of wantonness in the present insult. He asked Her Majesty's Ministers to be true to their ancient principles, and he called upon the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth (Sir R. Peel) to look at the storm with which the political atmosphere was now surcharged, and to consider whether it was not desirable for England to have a firm and attached friend by her side, instead of a wretched and miserable slave. The hon. Member then moved—
"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."
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it was not his intention to follow the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) throughout his very discursive speech. He would confine himself strictly to the resolution which the hon. Gentleman proposed as an instruction to the Committee, and he would endeavour in a very few words to show that that Amendment was totally inconsistent with the scope of the Bill, and would, if adopted, fail in advancing the end which the hon. Gentleman himself had in view. The House would observe, if it looked to what the object of the measure was, that the Bill before them was a Bill solely for the purpose of empowering the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chief Governor of Ireland, to apprehend and detain persons whom he should suspect of conspiring against the Government or the person of Her Majesty. Now, it was possible that there might be many acts apparently of an extremely innocent nature in themselves, but which, coupled with other acts, and viewed in respect to information which might be in possession of the Lord Lieutenant, might constitute proofs that the persons who had committed these apparently innocent acts had really been conspiring against the Government or the person of the Queen. But how was a Bill providing for such cases to prevent, or act as a curb upon, legitimate public meetings held for legitimate purposes. In the case

577
of a public meeting held for legitimate and proper purposes, that meeting would be as lawful under the Bill now before them, as it would have been before any Bill of the kind had been introduced, and as it would after the present Bill would have ceased to exist. In point of fact, they might just as well enumerate, in such an Amendment as that now proposed, any other species of acts which, by themselves, were perfectly legal and innocent, as public meetings. They might just as well propose an amendment declaring that no man should be legally interrupted and imprisoned for receiving his friends in his own house. Such an Act might be perfectly proper, nay, highly commendable in itself; but, yet, viewed in connexion with other circumstances, and in connexion with information in possession of the Lord Lieutenant, it might amount to a meeting held in order to conspire illegally against the person or the Government of Her Majesty. It would, therefore, be a stultification of Parliament to provide that this Bill should not interfere with or be applied, under any circum-stances, to public meetings. It might be the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, that in Ireland it was impossible to hold a public meeting for political purposes, without giving an opportunity to some ill-disposed persons of carrying the proceedings of the meeting further than its originators wished or intended. On that point he would give no opinion; but if such were the case, it was clear that such a meeting was one which ought to be prohibited, although the right of holding it was not affected by the Bill before them. There was, in fact, in this Bill nothing whatever to prevent any gentlemen from holding a public meeting, if they thought it could be conducted in such a manner as to make it one proper and desirable to be held. In a Bill of this description they must leave a considerable amount of discretion in the hands of the person in whom the administration of the measure was to be vested. But in the present state of society, and in the face of the knowledge so easily obtained by everybody of what took place in all parts of the empire, he thought that they had a reasonable security that no improper results could take place from putting in force the powers of the Bill against those who had done anything to deserve it. The proof that such was likely to be the case was, that no complaint had been made of any undue severity under the Bill of which the present was a continuation. The hon. Gentleman
578
the Member for Limerick admitted that not a single member of the Repeal Association had been arrested under the present Bill. Was not this a strong proof, both that the members of the Association had no reason to complain of the Bill, and that the Lord Lieutenant bad not considered that they entertained any treasonable motives? He thought that the House might, therefore, safely leave to the Lord Lieutenant a discretion in applying the provisions of this Bill. It was a measure which had this advantage over every other Coercion Bill—that whereas other measures of the class involved very considerable evils and inconveniences to persons purely innocent, this Bill, the provisions of which were to be applied only upon good information and good grounds by the Lord Lieutenant, could only affect persons who were either really guilty, or so culpably indiscreet as reasonably to give rise to a belief that they were engaged in conspiring against Her Majesty or Her Government. No Bill could have been more efficacious than that which it was now proposed to continue; and, he might add, the manner in which Parliament had passed that Bill had done much to prevent the insurrection from being more serious than it was. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not consent to cripple the present measure by introducing a provision which would make it impossible to carry the Bill into effect. The Lord Lieutenant believed that without this measure he could not, with safety, carry on the government of Ireland. Under these circumstances he (the Solicitor General) hoped the House would reject the Amendment, and pass the Bill in its integrity as speedily as possible.
MR. E. B. ROCHEsaid, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor General had only tended the more strongly to convince him of the undesirableness—to use the mildest term—of this measure. What a difference of opinion there appeared to exist in the minds of Her Majesty's Government, as to the intention of this measure! They had the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland saying that this Bill was intended for one purpose; and they had the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General saying that it was intended for another purpose. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had distinctly stated that this Bill was not intended to

579
put down political agitation; but the Lord Lieutenant, in the letter which he had recently written to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Office (Sir G. Grey) had as distinctly stated that he applied to Parliament to be armed with the powers which this Bill would confer, for the purpose of putting down all kinds of political agitation, which he declared to be the bane of Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) was, therefore, quite right in asserting that the noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) were totally at variance in their declarations as to the object and effects of this measure. He (Mr. Roche) did not intend, after the repeated occasions on which he had already addressed the House on this subject, to weary them by going over the same ground; but he could not sit down without protesting in the strongest manner that man could protest, in the name of his constituency, and, indeed, of the entire Irish people, against this unnecessary and unjustifiable attack upon their constitutional rights.
COLONEL RAWDONsaid, the object of the Bill was to put down treason and treasonable practices, in Ireland, and that if he thought any Portion of it would obstruct the free right of discussion for the repeal of an Act of Parliament, no one would more readily vote against it than he would himself. But he (Colonel Rawdon) took a very different view of its provisions, and believed that neither the noble Lord at the head of the Government, nor the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, would have placed their names to a Bill of this description, unless they felt the heavy responsibility which would attach to the Government if a measure of the kind were not introduced. They conceived it essentially necessary for the prosperity and tranquillity of Ireland. He believed the Act was considered to have more the character of a protective Act. He understood that during the time of the violent meetings in Ireland, a father had gone to the authorities with his misguided son and said, "Take this young man, and keep him from taking part in the insurrectionary movement. "He believed that in these days of newspaper power and free discussion, there was nothing whatever to dread from any abuse of the power which now, for the second time, was about to be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant. He
580
had stated, both in and out of that House, that his great objection to the measure of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was, that it was injudicious and vexatious, and that he would have preferred a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act as infinitely more efficient and less vexatious. Believing that tranquillity was essential to Ireland, that no right of discussion would be affected by the Bill, and that the powers conferred by it would be wisely and humanely exercised, he should give his vote in favour of the Bill in all its future stages.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that as there seemed to be some misconception with respect to the provisions of this Bill, he would read to the House the first three or four lines of it, which bore upon the powers to be conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant. The Bill stated—
"Whereas an Act was passed in the last Session of Parliament, intituled 'An Act to enable the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor, or Governors, of Ireland, to detain until the 1st day of March, 1849, such persons as he or they may suspect of conspiring against Her Majesty's person."
Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Reynolds), that, according to the explanation of the Bill given by the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor General, the Lord Lieutenant was to be the solo judge of the party who ought to be arrested. It seemed clear to him that the Lord Lieutenant would have full power to interpret the law, and to "suspect," as he might please, any person whom he might find troublesome. He (Mr. Reynolds) concurred in the opinion offered in a recent debate, and repeated during the present discussion, that the Lord Lieutenant had not abused the powers entrusted to him, but that he had administered them with great temper, judgment, and mercy. But entertaining that opinion, he (Mr. Reynolds) still objected to the extension of these powers to the Lord Lieutenant, because he was not prepared to place the liberties of the subject on so slender a footing as the opinion of any peer or commoner in the realm. To say that the Lord Lieutenant had not in any instance abused the power in his hands, was but begging the question. Was it not saying to the House that they ought not to hesitate to suspend the constitution, because the power was in safe hands? It should not be forgotten, that if the Bill were passed in its present shape, it would be impossible to hold any

581
meeting for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the redress of grievances, because the terror of arrest would act on the minds of the people to such an extent as to prevent them assembling. It was said that political agitation was a great evil. He admitted it to be an evil, if carried to an unconstitutional extent; but it was the reverse of evil when carried on peaceably and constitutionally. He was of opinion that the privilege of political agitation had conferred great and substantial benefits, not only on Ireland, but on England. If the free-traders had been told that a perseverance in their agitation for corn-law repeal would cause a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, they would not have succeeded. Now, suppose he (Mr. Reynolds) was desirous to agitate for a repeal of the Union—a measure which, while it would confer a benefit on Ireland, would not do an injury to England—or for any other measure—suppose, as he had said the other night, the Irish people should take it into their heads to agitate for the abolition of the temporalities of the Protestant Church, would they be threatened with this Act? Formerly a man who refused to pay tithes was called a traitor. It was called treason to refuse to pay tithes; but tithes were abolished, in name, although not in fact. With respect to that question, he might say, that agitation had ended in making the Irish Protestant Church richer, and poor Catholic people poorer. He had heard an allusion the other night to the Appropriation Clause, and one hon. Gentleman had stated that that question was dead. He had great doubts of that. That question might be entombed, but the inscription on the tablet was "Resurgam." That question would be revived, but not on such narrow limits as the Appropriation Clause. When that question should be revived, he believed the Irish people would declare that the temporalities of the Protestant Church were an infliction which could not be borne. He believed that the people would demand that 1,000,000 l. annually should no longer be applied to the exclusive support of the clergy of a small section of the Irish people, but should be devoted to the purposes of the Irish nation. What, he asked, was the meaning of forcing this Protestant Church upon Catholic Ireland? Why not apply the same principle to Ireland that you did to England and Scotland? [An Hon. MEMBER: Scotland had to fight for it.] Yes, Scotland had fought for that
582
principle, and it was worth fighting for. Ireland's altars were not free. The Protestant Church in England was the Established Church, because the Episcopalians were in the majority; the Presbyterian Church was the Church of Scotland, because the Presbyterians were in the majority; but the Protestant Church in Ireland was the Established Church, because the Protestant Episcopalians were in a great minority. Here was a contradiction with a vengeance. The Irish people were sick of being slaves; they felt degraded; and they would feel degradation so long as the present system was continued. The people of Ireland, he could assure the House, were not apathetic on this question. The people of Ireland had thought that by repealing the Union, they would repeal the present Church Establishment. But now the people were told, that they would not be allowed to agitate. If they were not allowed to agitate, he called upon the House to do something for them. Let them get rid of the temporalities of the Irish Church, and let them fully emancipate the people. With respect to the measure before the House, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) proposed to persevere in his Amendment. If that hon. Member persevered, he (Mr. Reynolds) should vote with him; but he objected to the Amendment, as it had the appearance of compromising a great principle. It was as much as to say to the House, "If you will agree to the Amendment, I will agree to the Bill." [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!] He thought the Amendment must bear that construction. But, returning to the Bill itself, he must call it an unnecessary, an uncalled-for, and an unprecedented invasion of the rights of the subject. He begged the House to consider what the state of Ireland was at the present moment. Ireland was tranquil. It was admitted that the people were tired of agitation. [The O'GORMAN MAHON: Hear, hear!] He understood the meaning of the cheer of the hon. Member for Ennis. The people were not tired in the sense which he meant; they were looking for some substantial relief. Tranquillity, he repeated, reigned in Ireland. Some of the most troublesome of the political opponents of the Government had been transported, and others had passed upon them the sentence dictated by the brutal Act of Edward III., which directed that the offenders should be drawn

583
and quartered, und their bodies be disposed of according to the pleasure of Her Majesty. He hoped that such a savage sentence would never be carried into effect on any subject of the Crown. But the Government had even a better guarantee for tranquillity than the convictions they had obtained. They had 30,000 or 40,000 troops in Ireland, and 11,000 police—thirty or forty of whom, by the by, had gained the great battle of Waterloo at Ballingarry. And yet, in the midst of all this tranquillity, it was proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. He believed that he was as well acquainted with the feelings of his fellow-countrymen as most Gentlemen were; and he had no hesitation in assuring the House that they need be under no apprehension of any danger to the public peace. What the people required was relief; they had discharged from their minds all notions of fighting. The raw material of disaffection had disappeared. It was notorious that nineteen out of twenty of the disturbances which had occurred in Ireland, had grown out of competition for land. But agrarian outrage had disappeared altogether; the poor-law and the famine had destroyed that, and land was now no longer a bone of contention. The people were expatriating themselves. They would not take land now for which a few years ago they would have shot their landlords, if they had attempted to disturb them in the possession of it. As to the measure before the House, he regretted that the Government, whom he recognised as the old and tried friends of civil and religious liberty, should have brought it forward. He should not have addressed the House had he not wished to urge upon the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) the impolicy of placing his opposition to the measure on such narrow grounds, and to recommend him to give his opposition to the entire proposals of the Government.
MR. ANSTEYalso rose to appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) not to press his Amendment to a division, as it seemed to him it would be impossible for the House to come to a satisfactory vote upon it. He thought the Amendment took more the shape of a question to be moved in Committee than any other. In the Committee, the Act might be amended so as not to press upon persons engaged in the agitation for the repeal of the Union. Now, if that was a treasonable agitation, the matter was ended;
584
if it was not, then the proposed measure did not bring it within its scope. Under all the circumstances it appeared impossible for him to hesitate as to the vote which he should be obliged to give. In one point of view the Amendment was unnecessary, in another pernicious. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
MR. J. O'CONNELLrose to explain. He wished to know whether he rightly understood the hon. Member the Solicitor General to state that the letter of the Lord Lieutenant and the commentary of the Irish Secretary, in both of which it was said the powers of the Bill were to be used against an agitation described by the one as for an object that could not be attained, and by the other as for an impracticable purpose, did not refer to the agitation for the repeal of the Union?
SIR G. GREYsaid, neither the letter of the Lord Lieutenant nor the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland could be supposed to have the force of law. He was quite willing to concur in the opinion expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Anstey). He thought the hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. O'Connell), who proposed the Amendment, would act wisely in attending to the suggestions which had been thrown out.
MR. J. O'CONNELLthen withdrew his Motion, intimating that its substance might be embodied in a clause in Committee.
The question was then put that the House should go into Committee.
MR. J. O'CONNELL MR. J. O'CONNELL moved a negative, and the House divided on the question, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair:—Ayes 84; Noes 14: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Crowder, R. B.

Adair, R. A. S.

Cubitt, W.

Anderson, A.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Duncuft, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Dundas, Sir D.

Baines, M. T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Bellow, R. M.

Ellis, J.

Bernal, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bernard, Visct.

Fordyce, A. D.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bremridge, R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Brisco, M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Granby, Marq. of

Brown, W.

Granger, T. C.

Butler, P. S.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Gwyn, H.

Craig, W. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

585

Harris, R.

Nugent, Lord

Hastie, A.

Owen, Sir J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Pigott, F.

Henry, A.

Raphael, A.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Rawdon, Col.

Heyworth, L.

Rice, E. R.

Hood, Sir A.

Rich, H.

Hotham, Lord

Romilly, Sir J.

Howard, Lord E.

Russell, Lord J.

Hume, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Kershaw, J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Somerville, rt. Hn. Sir W.

Lacy, H. C.

Spooner, R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Stafford, A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lewis, G. C.

Stuart, Lord D.

Lockhart, A. E.

Thompson, Col.

Macnamara, Maj.

Thornhill, G.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Villiers, hon. C.

Maitland, T.

Walter, J.

Mandeville, Visct.

Willyams, H.

Masterman, J.

Wilson, M.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Milner, W. M. E.

Moody, C. A.

TELLERS.

Morison, Sir W.

Tufnell, H.

Napier, J.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

O'Flaherty, A.

Fagan, W.

Power, N.

Grattan, H.

Reynolds, J.

Greene, J.

Scully, F.

Meagher, T.

Sullivan, M.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Williams, J.

O'Brien, J.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, T.

O'Connell, J.

O'Connor, F.

Roche, E. B.

House in Committee; Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
On Clause 1 (Persons imprisoned in Ireland for high treason, &c. may be detained) being proposed,
Mr. ANSTEYrose to propose, pursuant to notice, several Amendments of which he had given notice. In moving these Amendments, he avowed himself opposed totally to the principle of the present Bill; but as the House had affirmed that principle, he conceived that the Bill would be modified and improved considerably by carrying out his suggestion. He would propose the very reverse of what the Bill contemplated, and would only give the extraordinary powers which it invested in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to a Committee of the Privy Council. It appeared to him strange that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House should feel so apathetic about a measure which went so much to infringe upon one of the oldest and most important principles of the constitution He concluded by announcing his intention of dividing the House on the first of his Amendments; and if it should be lost, he would not divide upon the
586
others. He would move to leave out the words "is, are, or."
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said he wished now to take the sense of the Committee not merely upon the technical alteration of the words embraced in his first Amendment, but practically upon the broader question as to the effect of the whole of his Amendments generally. But when the Committee contrasted for a moment the real effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments, with the title of the Bill itself, which they had just affirmed by so large a majority, they would see at once that when they had voted the second reading of the Bill, they had virtually decided upon negativing these Amendments. For what was the object of these Amendments? Why, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to omit the whole of the 2nd clause of a Bill consisting of but three clauses. He proposed to strike out the power now given to the Lord Lieutenant and the Government to apprehend persons suspected of treasonable practices, and only gave authority to proclaim them. The Bill was brought in for the purpose of continuing the Act of last Session, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to do that, but to introduce an entirely new Act for a different object. His (the Attorney General's) answer to this was—he admitted that the powers demanded by the Government were very large, and granted that they might be abused, although he hoped the House had confidence in the Government, and believed that it would not not abuse its powers. If they were abused, however, the Government would still be open to responsibility and inquiry quite as much if the Bill were passed as it now stood, as they would be if it were altered in the mode which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. But his (the Attorney General's) further answer was this—that in dealing with large powers of this doubtful nature, it was far better to follow the old established form; and when Bills like this were renewed, so far as his recollection extended, it was always done ipsissimis verbis, according to precedent. It was always far safer to follow the old form, than open a door to what was not understood, and the effect of which could not be controlled by previous practice. For these reasons he must resist the Amendments.
The Committee divided on Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the clause:"—Ayes 79; Noes 12: Majority 67.

List of the NOES.

Fagan, AV.

Roche, E. B.

Greene, J.

Scully, F.

Meagher, T.

Sullivan, M.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Williams, J.

O'Brien, T.

O'Connor, F.

TELLERS.

O'Flaherty, A.

Anstey, T. C.

Reynolds, J.

O'Connell, J.

The remaining Amendments proposed by Mr. Anstey were then severally rejected without a division; as was also an Amendment moved by Lord Nugent, to limit the continuation of the powers of the Act to the 1st of June next, instead of to the 1st day of September next.
Clause 1 was then agreed to.
On Clause 2,
MR. ANSTEY MR. ANSTEY moved the omission of the clause. He thought it would be unreasonable and unjust to confer on the Lord Lieutenant the power of selecting any place he might please as a gaol for carrying out the object of the Act; because a person might by that moans be removed to a part of the country where he would have no opportunity of entering into communication with his friends, or of preparing his defence.
The Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was negatived without a division, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 3 having next been agreed to,
MR. J. O'CONNELLwished to bring up some additional clauses. The first clause he would move was to the effect—
"Provided always, and he it enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed or taken to warrant the arrest, committal, or detainer of any person procuring, or seeking to procure, in a legal and constitutional manner, the holding of meetings to petition Parliament, or to address the Queen, in accordance with the law and constitution, or of any person attending or taking part in the proceedings of such meetings,"
His object in wishing to introduce these words into the Bill, was to protect the liberty of the subject in holding meetings of a peaceful and constitutional character. Ho, of course, did not admit that the Association with which he was individually connected was guilty of treasonable practices—at the same time the Act was left in a very dangerous—because very ambiguous and equivocal—state. They had already had four different Members of the Government all contradicting each other as to the
588
object and intention of the Act; and it was not safe to pass a measure that gave rise to such contrariety of opinions amongst its principal promoters. He wanted it defined by positive words, that the right in question should not be interfered with when only exercised in a legitimate and legal manner, and must, therefore, divide the Committee upon the clause he had just read.
SIR GEORGE GREYhoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would see the propriety of withdrawing his Motion. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had already occupied a considerable portion of time in laying before the House the grounds for the instruction which he wished to be given to the Committee, and which instruction was substantially the same as the words of the present Amendment. The discussion upon that instruction had altogether occupied the House about two hours, and the opinion of hon. Members had been so generally expressed against it that the hon. Gentleman had been prevailed upon to withdraw it. He (Sir G. Grey) thought the hon. and learned Member ought to be satisfied with the clear explanations of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), and the equally clear argument of his (Sir G. Grey's) hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) near him. They had convincingly shown that the instruction could not be entertained, and the same remark equally applied to the present Motion, which was practically the same as the instruction that had been withdrawn.
MR. J. O'CONNELLwas proceeding to reply, when
The CHAIRMANinterrupted him, and said, a question arose upon a matter of form, as to whether the Motion could come within the scope of the title of the Bill.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) could answer one question fairly, he would withdraw his Motion. Was it intended by this Bill to interfere to prevent the subject in Ireland from agitating for the repeal of an Act of Parliament—that Act being the Act of Union?
SIR G. GREYsaid, the Lord Lieutenant would adopt such a course, in carrying out the powers of the Act, as he thought proper; but he would assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, nor any other Member of the Government, would promise or hold out an immunity to any person bringing himself within the suspicion of entertaining treasonable designs.
After a few words from MR. HUME,
MR. O'CONNELLsaid he must persist in taking the sense of the Committee upon his proposition.
MR. B. OSBORNErecommended the hon. and learned Member for Limerick not to press for a division. It was impossible to make the Bill any better; and if he (Mr. J. O'Connell) was so anxious to get a practical answer from the Minister as to what course he should take with respect to the Repeal Association, it was very easy for him to do so. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had only to go over to Ireland and begin again to agitate, and he would then soon find out the truth.
The Committee divided on Question, "That the said clause be now brought up:"—Ayes 11; Noes 105: Majority 94.

List of the AYES.

Fagan, W.

Roche, E. B.

Grattan, H.

Scully, F.

Greene, J.

Sullivan, M.

Meagher, T.

Williams, J.

O'Brien, T.

TELLERS.

O'Flaherty, A.

O'Connell, J.

Reynolds, J.

O'Connor, F.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Grenfell, C. P.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Grenfell, C. W.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Armstrong, R. H.

Gwyn, H.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Harcourt, G. G.

Harris, R.

Raines, M. T.

Hastie, A.

Bass, T.

Hawes, B.

Bellow, R. M.

Hay, Lord J.

Bernard, Visct.

Heathcoat, J.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Heathcote, G. J.

Blakemore, R.

Henry, A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Brisco, M.

Heyworth, L.

Brotherton, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brown, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Carter, J. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Hood, Sir A.

Craig, W. G.

Hotham, Lord

Crowder, R. B.

Howard, Lord E.

Cubitt, W.

Hume, J.

Disraeli, B.

Humphery, Ald.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Jervis, Sir J.

Drummond, H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Duncuft, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dundas, Sir D.

Lewis, G. C.

Ellis, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Macnamara, Maj.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Maitland, T.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Mandeville, Visct.

Fordyce, A. D.

Martin, C. W.

Forster, M.

Masterman, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Gooch, E. S.

Miles, W.

Gore, W. O.

Milner, W. M. E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Granby, Marq. of

O'Brien, Sir L.

Granger, T. C.

Owen, Sir J.

590

Parker, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Perfect, R.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Power, N.

Spooner, R.

Prime, R.

Stafford, A.

Raphael, A.

Stephenson, R.

Rawdon, Col.

Thompson, Col.

Rice, E. R.

Thornely, T.

Rich, H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Romilly, Sir J.

Walpole, S. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Russell, F. C. H.

Ward, H. G.

St. George, C.

Wilson, M.

Scrope, G. P.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Seymour, Lord

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

TELLERS.

Sheridan, R. B.

Tufnell, H.

Slaney, R. A.

Hill, Lord M.

The Bill reported: the House resumed.

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND)— (ADJOURNED DEBATE).
The House having gone into Committee,
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that it was not his intention to press the Amendment which stood in his name on the present occasion. He would not take upon himself the responsibility of opposing a vote which he believed to be absolutely necessary, and the object of which was to prevent the starvation of numbers of the Irish people. If any proposition to that effect was made, he hoped the Committee would not listen to it. But supposing that the Committee would agree to the vote, he would only attach one condition to it. It was now understood in Ireland that the poor had a right to relief in the extremity of destitution. And if the Committee came to a vote which should have the effect of doing away with that right, it would not only incur the heaviest of responsibilities, but would give a license to plunder to those in whose behalf that right had been proclaimed. The refusal of relief had gone to a lamentable extent. The vice-guardians of Ballina and Westport had declared that they refused relief in a great many cases in which, in their opinion, relief was necessary. That was incurring a dangerous responsibility on their part, but if they had not sufficient funds in hand he did not know what they could do. Now, if they under such circumstances refused this vote, or if they declared to those starving paupers who had been once admitted to relief as a right that they would have it no longer, they would render themselves liable to all the fatal consequences that might ensue. He would, therefore, on a future occasion, endeavour to persuade the House to agree to this condition—

591
that the money voted should not he a grant, but a loan, which he believed would afford security against its being improperly administered, and also against the continuance of future applications. If voted as a grant, it would encourage future applications and the non-payment of the poor-rates.
MR. GRATTANthen rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice:—
"On Motion for Relief of Distress (Ireland), to insert after the word 'that' the words 'the Collectors of Excise in Ireland be henceforth directed, and do in future pay into the office of Vice-Treasurer in Dublin the amount of all Crown and quit-rents, and that the same be appropriated to the Relief of distressed Poor Law Unions in that Country.'"
He complained of the attacks that had been made upon the people of Ireland, and assured the House that he, for one, did not come there to beg; and he believed if the people of that country were but fairly treated, they would do without assistance from England. These were the premises he would lay down, and it would be for hon. Members to say whether he made out his case or not. There was quite enough of money in Ireland to support the people if they would only leave it there. There were such items as "Paid to Queen Victoria, 10 gs.; paid to Queen Victoria, 20 gs.; paid to Queen Victoria, 50 gs.; and so on; and these vouchers were lying in Dublin in the bank. Let that money not be taken out of the country, and there would be no necessity for their coming to England to ask relief. The objection of hon. Members in that House was that English money should be devoted to Irish purposes; but here was a case of Irish money lying there which there could be no objection to devote to Irish purposes. When the adventurers, as they were called, the drummers and filers of Cromwell, came over to Ireland, and the London companies, they had largo tracts of land divided amongst them, for which they had paid merely a small sum of 1d. or 1½d. per acre, by way of quit-rent; that money amounted to about 70,000 l. annually; and although it had been somewhat reduced of late, it still averaged 55,000 l. per annum. Now let them come to a proper understanding, and when hon. Members talked of their coming to England to ask for money, let them first refund the money which belonged to Ireland. Lot them only leave the money there instead of carrying off these Crownrents
592
and quit-rents to decorate Carlton House at one time, and St. James's Palace at another. There could be neither justice, nor propriety, nor good sense in acting thus, and then saying that the Irish came to that House as mendicants. He did not think the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), was justified in sneering in that way at the Irish Members and the Irish people. If the Irish landlords only did their duty, there would be no necessity for their coming to that House to ask for assistance. But, independently of this, there were the rents of the great absentees, which were drawn from his country and spent in this. He had a list of them, and be would give their names. There were the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Buckingham. He, to be sure, was sold out. His property amounted to about 400,000 l. Mr. White, formerly a Member of that House, bought three town-lands for 25,000 l. He knew that they were afterwards set up for sale, and sold for 14,500 l. The Times, and Morning Post, and Morning Herald had been abusing the Irish Members and the Irish people, and had set the lower against the upper owners. They had taunted and insulted them. They would defend themselves, and show that the mischief of Ireland arose from the absentees. They might be excellent men, but they were bad landholders—they might be very good Englishmen, but they were bad Irish proprietors. There were the Marquess of Hertford and the Duke of Bedford. The Duke of Bedford was a very good man, but he bad a poor tenantry—Irish tenantry. There was the Marquess of Conyngham, who said that he had not the means of improving his property. Where were all his means spent? In this country. There were the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Anglesea, the Marquess of Donegal, and the Marquess of Bath. The tenantry of the latter were in a wretched condition; the property was quite bare—wood or tree scarcely to be seen on any part of it. Then came the Marquess of Ely and Earl Fitzwilliam, a most excellent man. There were Lords Essex, Audley, Maryborough, Middleton, Albemarle, Clifton, Ashbrook, Arden, Stafford, Lifford, Templemore, Colonel Wyndham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. All of these might be excellent individuals, but they resided out of the country; and any person who knew the value of a resident gentry could from this circumstance

593
account for the misery of Ireland. Mr. Greville, Mr. Lane Fox, and Mr. Ormsby Gore had also large properties in Ireland. He suggested that the best thing they could do would be to impose a tax of 10 per cent upon the absentee landlords; if they did that the people of Ireland would willingly dispense with their 50,000 l. Hon. Members said they would grant it because it would be the last he said, "No"—it was only the beginning of a series. If they were to be thus treated as mendicants, it would be better for them at once to take off their clothes, and come to that House in the old garments that had been sent to Ireland. He had already mentioned one fund, and he would now mention another he would go back to the petition of right, when the poor Catholics were duped after granting 130,000 l. to King Charles. But that was not all. In 1782 the Irish Parliament gave 20,000 l. to support 20,000 seamen, which they voted for the protection of England. That was not all. When the late Earl Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland, the Catholics were promised their rights, and, on the faith of that Parliament, voted 250,000 l. The money was paid; but the moment it was paid the compact was broken. The letters of the Earl of Carlisle and Lord Fitzwilliam proved that. Here there were 130,000 l., 20,000 l., and 250,000 l., making altogether 400,000 l., which had been given to this country by the people of Ireland. He would take the absentee rents drawn from Ireland at 3,000,000 l., though he believed it was nearer four millions. This drain existed for the last fifty years, which made a total of 150,000,000 l. He defied the ablest arithmetician to say that these figures were wrong. Take the Crown rents at an average of 70,000 l. for fifty years, and that would make 4,200,000 l., so that instead of coming as beggars to that House, he would take the liberty of telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would find it difficult to contravene the fact, that there was altogether a sum of 158,000,000 l. sterling taken out of Ireland during the last fifty years. He trusted that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), now that he had heard these facts, would blush for shame for the attacks he had made upon the Irish people. He thought the hon. Member was altogether unjustified in the charges he had brought against them; he should be glad to know whether the hon. Gentleman really thought that the
594
people of Ireland had swindled the country. He cared little for their 50,000 l. that was to be voted that night, because he could tell them that 50,000 l. would not do, nor five times 50,000 l. He thought it better to speak out and be honest at once. He had never been insensible to the kindness of England; but when he heard so much talk of the British Association, and the large sums subscribed by the people of England, he would first remind them that the whole amount did not exceed 600,000 l., and that if the names of the subscribers were looked over, it would be found that a great portion of them were persons who were connected by property or relationship with Ireland. He admitted, however, the kindness and the liberality of England in the season of Ireland's distress; but they had heard quite enough of it from the hon. Member for Tavistock, and he would say to him—
"To John I owe some obligation,
But John hath lately thought it fit
To publish it to all the nation,
So John and I are more than quit."
And he believed, if the accounts were fairly balanced between the two countries, Ireland would be found to owe England nothing. In reality the debt and the obligation lay the other way—not money merely, but empire; for let the people of England bear in mind who it was that really wished to separate Ireland from England. It was one of their own countrymen—not one of the mere gentry, but one of the nobility, a high and titled bishop—the Bishop of Derry—who rode in at the head of 5,000 followers, and said to the Earl of Charlemont, "Now is the time for us to slip the connexion—let us have blood, and blood enough." "No," said Lord Charlemont, "there shall be no bloodshed if I can help it," for his Lordship was attached to the connexion with England, and he, with other Irishmen, united together in opposition to such a proceeding. What was the use of this grant? Why, this 50,000 l would not last the Irish any time. Twopence out of every 1s. of it would only go to feed the poor, and the 10 d. would be divided amongst the officers and staff. There were 131 unions in Ireland, and it appeared that there were 50 more to be added. Did they really think that this would remedy the evil? Why they built the most ridiculous teetotum poor-houses that could be conceived, which cost 5,000 l. to 8,000 l. and 12,000 l. They gave the paupers gardens too, and so

595
very generous were they in their attentions to them, that they gave them for their odours sweet peas and mignionette. There was a ridicule accompanying this extravagance that was quite disgusting. In the union to which he helonged, one of the guardians, who had nothing else to do, pushed his stick through the wall of the workhouse, it was so very ill-constructed. In the Celbridge union, they had kept down the rate by voluntary assessment. In consequence of its having the advantage of a better resident gentry than other parts of the country possessed, they were able to get rid of the Government officers, and to support the poor themselves. They owed the Government a small sum of 30 l., which he would be willing to pay them back; for he did not want their money. He held in his hand a book, called "The Irish Crisis," which he was informed was published and circulated at the expense of Government. A former hon. Member for Sligo had once accused him (Mr. Grattan) almost of treason, because he had attended a meeting where there was a banner on which was represented a harp without a crown. Now, he found that this book had got upon the cover the harp without the crown. Merely such a thing as this might be made evidence against some of the unfortunate Irish who were charged with high treason. He had purchased this book before the Act was passed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; for if he had bought it now, it was possible he would be arrested under this Act and thrown into prison. This book, however, was written by an Englishman high in favour with the Government. It commenced and ended with misstatement. It depicted the poverty of the Irish, and reproached them for their poverty. It libelled the people of Ireland for being poor, told them that they were slaves, and informed them that they were never fitted to take part in such proceedings as those of '82. What did the writer get for that publication? If he (Mr. Grattan) had come to the door of the House a poor, creeping creature, demanding charity, he would have been offered a farthing; but here was an English gentleman who had been made a knight, and rewarded by a vote of 2,000 l. for writing a book which added insult to injury as regarded the Irish nation. He believed Lord Clarendon to be an honest man; but, at the same time, he thought he was very ill-advised. The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was
596
not wanted in Ireland, but it was necessary in order to keep their eyes and their ears closed until the revolution was completed. There was now a gradual change of property in progress. Their policy was, first to vilify the Irish people, to call them barbarians—their priesthood, surpliced ruffians—their landlords, tyrants, exterminators; and these same landlords they were now endeavouring to sweep down in one general mass of ruin. It happened that a friend of his, an individual in this town, had lent 50,000 l. in Ireland against his (Mr. Grattan's) advice, and he had never been able since to obtain any interest for his money. He did not wonder at the disrelish of the English to speculate in that country; for who would leave his soft downy bed in London to sit upon a naked rock in Connemara? He was not a leader nor exterminator; he liked the aristocracy; he preferred the coach-and-six to the miserable one-horse chaise. If they gave the Irish freedom, they would support them in war or peace; but if they gave them chains and slavery, they would hate them, and they would get rid of them when they could. Now, there was nothing like speaking the truth. The Irish would act as the English themselves would act under similar circumstances—as the Norman barons at Runnymede acted—as their ancestors had acted in the time of Charles I., and in the time of James H.; they would stand up for the civil and religious liberties of their country. They ought to tax the absentees, if they would not send them back to Ireland. The time would come when they would regret not having done so. Let them not pride themselves, in their vain glory, upon their wooden walls and their military forces. The might depend upon it, if republicanism had succeeded upon the Continent, the Irish people would not be left in their present low and miserable condition; the exigencies of the empire would have compelled that House to do them justice. The time might come when this country would deeply regret their policy towards the sister country. There might be a reflux of the tide, when the Irish people would obtain what they wanted. Whatever might happen, he should have the satisfaction of supporting that which he considered more conducive to the interests of both countries; for he would rather suffer his right hand to be cut away from his body than take any other course. He was for freedom for England equally with Ireland.

597
His countrymen were born equal to the English; and he would never submit to behold an Irishman treated as a slave. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
The CHAIRMANsaid, he apprehended that the proposition of the hon. Member for Meath could not be entertained. It was a Motion affecting the Crown rents. It was, therefore, not competent for the hon. Gentleman to submit such a Motion.
MR. H. GRATTAN: Her Majesty's name does not appear in this proposition.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will perceive by the terms of his proposition that he intends to deal with the revenue of the Crown. It is not competent for any hon. Member to bring forward a Motion professing to deal with the Crown revenues, unless with the consent of the Crown signified in a proper manner.
The Amendment was then withdrawn.
MR. O. GOREsaid, he looked upon the speech which had just been made as conveying an accusation against every absentee. [Mr. GRATTAN: I made no accusation.] Although he resided in England, he was proud to acknowledge his connexion with Ireland, and to remember that he once had the honour of representing an Irish county; he also felt proud at the recollection that not much more than two years ago his tenantry in Ireland assembled and voted him one of the handsomest memorials of gratitude that had ever emanated from any similar body, for his kindness to them, and his attention to their wants. Under those circumstances he felt perfectly at case with regard to the arraignment of the hon. Member (Mr. Grattan). Agreeing in a great deal of what had fallen from him, he did not concur in all that he had said with regard to absentees. Although an absentee landlord might not spend so much money in the country as he would if he resided in it, still, if he per-formed his duty to his tenantry, and took care of the public institutions of the country, he could hardly be expected to do more. No man could reside in six or seven different places at once. His (Mr. O. Gore's) tenantry in Cornwall might much more justly accuse him of being an absentee landlord than his tenantry in Ireland; while even if he resided in Sligo, his tenantry in Westmeath might complain because he did not reside amongst them. It was impossible, he repeated, to reside everywhere. He entertained a sincere affection for Ireland, having spent
598
there a very happy portion of his life, and there was not a week in which he had not some communication with that country. It was curious that on that very day—the day on which he had boon arraigned as an absentee—he had received letters from Sligo, from Leitrim, and from the county of Meath, on the very subject then before the House. He could enter fully into the feelings of the hon. Member (Mr. Grattan), with regard to absentees; especially when he recollected that the hon. Member's father, one of the ablest men that Ireland ever possessed, stood up boldly in his place to oppose the measure which deprived Ireland of a resident gentry by depriving her of her Protestant Parliament. Ireland would never get that Parliament again—it was out of the question. It was his (Mr. O. Gore's) firm conviction that Ireland had always been shamefully ill treated by all the Governments of this country, especially in having been robbed of her staple manufactures over and over again. Need he go into details? Ireland was not understood even at the present day. 50,000 l.! Why, all the gold of California would not place her in her proper position. He was not opposed to the existence of a poor-law; but he wanted to see one suited to the country, not one which was a bonus on idleness. He would now read an extract from one of the letters to which he had previously referred; premising that the writer, who was, in fact, his own agent, had, at his request, established an agricultural society among the tenantry in Sligo; and that in the last year from twenty to thirty prizes had been distributed. The agent said—
"The rating for the support of the infirm is of little consequence, as it cannot exceed a shilling in the pound; but if some radical change—[he hogged pardon of the House for the use of the word 'radical']—if some radical change be not made for the support of able poverty, it will consume, in these free-trade times, the property of the country."
That Irish labourers were equal to any in the world was proved in 1816, on a comparison of work performed by Irish and English labourers on his own estate in Shropshire. He should oppose this vote of 50,000 l. on principle, wholly objecting, as he did, to constant applications to this country for that support which would not be at all wanted if Ireland was properly governed and properly managed.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, however natural it might have been for the hon. Member (Mr. O. Gore) who had last addressed the

599
House to reply to what he considered a personal attack upon his private conduct as a landlord, still it would be his duty to recall in a few words the attention of the House to subjects which were not of a personal, but of a national character. If the part which he had taken in the House with respect to Irish business, and his conduct with respect to his own property in Ireland, did not sufficiently exculpate him from a charge of want of feeling in relieving the distress of Ireland, at least the fact that he was connected with property in one of the unions which it was intended to relieve out of the proposed grant, would be sufficient to prove his sincerity in the course he was prepared to take with respect to the present measure. The year they had now entered upon, was one that must be marked with great results for good or evil in the history of Ireland; and as they had now experienced not only the political, but still more the social causes of the difficulty and misery under which that island laboured, it was gratifying to him to be enabled to address a House of Commons more disposed than any which had ever assembled to discuss the social evils of Ireland, at all events in no sectarian or party spirit. Her Majesty's Ministers had come forward and asked for a sum which had already, in the course of the evening, been characterised, upon both sides of the House, as miserably inadequate to its professed purpose. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly stated that it was only the first of a series. He (Mr. Stafford) hoped that under such circumstances the House would bear with him while he adverted to the grants which had been made from time to time towards the relief of Irish distress. By a return moved for in July, 1847, by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), the amount of taxes levied in England, and not levied in Ireland, amounted to 10,500,000 l To this there ought to be added an allowance for the differential duties which existed in favour of Ireland. Such, for example, as the hawkers' license, charged at 4l. in England, and only 2l. in Ireland, and even in that case no revenue had hitherto been derived from the tax. If such an allowance was made, it was not too much to say that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) was correct in stating that the difference in taxation between the two countries amounted to eleven millions. The next paper to which he would refer,
600
was one moved for in 1848 by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), of the sums actually voted for the relief of Irish distress; and he found that the amount stated was 9,536,675 l other items, however, were specified in subsequent pages, which brought up the sum to 10,000,000 l. By a return moved for in 1845 by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. J. O'Connell), it appeared that upwards of 11,000,000 l had been voted from the national exchequer to the erection of workhouses and other purposes connected with the poor-law. In the absence of all information from the Government as to what further sum might be required for the use of the twenty-one distressed unions, he had endeavoured, by comparing two poor-law returns—the one ending with April and the other with July—to arrive at something like an estimate of the amount of pauperism to be provided for. From these returns he found that in the last week of April, in the twenty-one unions, 270,051 persons were receiving out and indoor relief; and in July the number was 414,807. It was stated in these papers that twenty shillings would—according to the then prices of provisions—afford relief to each pauper for three quarters of a year; and he assumed that, in consequence of the greater cheapness of provisions at the present period, the same amount would now afford similar relief for a whole year. He would assume, too, and he was sure it was a very moderate proposition, that the amount of pauperism in these unions had not increased since July last. The real truth, he conceived, on this point was, that while there was a small diminution of the number of those receiving relief during the harvest, there had been an increase in the number since the harvest. He would take, therefore, one pound per head, in accordance with the statement in these papers as to the amount required for the relief of each pauper, and it would thus appear that a sum of 414,000 l. would be requisite for the purposes of relief in the twenty-one unions for one year. But in addition to the paupers who had been supported last year by this system of relief, no fewer than 200,000 children had also been relieved out of the funds at the disposal of the British Association, under 'the superintendence of its agent, Count Strzelecki, whose name and whose zealous exertions in behalf of the suffering Irish ought never to be mentioned without respect and gratitude. He found, therefore, that the year's

601
expenditure in these twenty-one unions had been 468,101 l.; that, towards that sum, there had been collected 19,023 l.; that there had been advanced to them 237,200 l.; that the debts duo from them amounted to 123,985 l.; and that the available rate was 273,481 l. He doubted the propriety, however, of depending upon what was called the "available rate" returns, for he would defy those connected with the south of Ireland to bring him one case in which the rate had ever been realised—and he considered he was entitled to add a considerable sum to the amount under the head of "debts" of these unions. The result, however, was, that they had 414,000 paupers receiving relief; that they had, besides, at least 100,000 children to be relieved; and, in the absence of any clear and positive information from the Government, and being unable to ascertain what the real amount of destitution was, and what was to be the process for the future, he had come to the conclusion that half a million of money would be absolutely required to maintain the poor in the twenty-one unions from this time till the month of February, 1850. But of the unions in Ireland it had been said there were some ton or eleven, in which, with proper care and management, financial difficulties might be avoided. He much wished the Government had named which those unions were. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) if some unions in Clare and Limerick were not included in that number? Whether, for instance, the union of Newcastle, in the county of Limerick, and the union of Ennis, were not among them? The right hon. Gentleman had understated his case; and he believed that, instead of some ten or eleven unions in which financial difficulty might be avoided, it would turn out that a few months, or even weeks, would add more unions to the list of those already in difficulties. If such, then, was the case with respect to their present position, what, let him ask, were their prospects for the future with reference to these unions? Assuming that they granted this sum—that the House voted this half-million of money all at once, or was ready to advance it in ten successive grants of similar amount—what results would they have produced by this liberality? Those who had read even in a cursory manner the report of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of last year,
602
or who had looked through the return which had been moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), would be aware that nothing could exceed the perplexing state in which many of the accounts between England and Ireland were kept. With the exception of the poor-law, and the details connected with that system, all their accounts were in perplexity and confusion; it was, however, some satisfaction to know that, so far as the poor-law was concerned, these things would in future be avoided. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made his statement to the House—a most candid, he must say he thought it, and ingenuous statement—declared explicitly that, so far from there being any symptom of returning prosperity in Ireland, more land was laid waste, more capital was leaving the country, more landlords were being ruined, and fewer labourers were being employed. This being the case—and he now came to the more practical part of the question—this being the case made out by Her Majesty's Government, he need not remind hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the process of agriculture, that a very important time of the year, as regarded agricultural operations, was now at hand. And what prospect was there, he asked, that they had—if they should vote this money—expended this 50,000 l. to support the pool—what certainty had they that the state of all these districts would not be much worse than even it now was, in the month of February, 1850? He firmly believed that it would not only he worse than now, but that desolation would have greatly progressed and extended; and it was for the House to determine within the next few weeks, or even days, whether that desolation should be suffered to proceed, or whether any check should be placed upon its progress. Those who read these papers would see that there was the greatest disinclination to grow spring corn in these districts. In page 5 would be found the evidence of Colonel Gore, the lieutenant of the county Sligo, and a magistrate of Mayo, who said that he was a constant resident upon his estate in the Ballina union; that, before the famine of 1846, he employed near a hundred men a day, to whom he paid weekly wages; that, since 1846, he had lost near one-third of his small tenants; that one-third of his property was unproductive at present, the unproductive part being pretty equally divided between deserted lands and

603
those held by tenants who could not, or would not, pay rent; and that he paid over 1,500 l. rates since 1846, and owned none, having always made it a point to pay his rates the moment he got the means. The hon. Member also referred to another instance of a proprietor who, having gone over from Lancashire to invest capital in Ireland, had found the rates so oppressive that he had left his land, dismissed 120 labourers, and gone back to Lancashire to wait for better times. Well, but they of the present day boasted that they were far wiser than those that had gone before them; and, yet, what, let him ask, would posterity say of them when they looked at what was the state of the case at the beginning of 1849? A large quantity of land was lying desolate; there were laud-lords willing to improve their estates, and labourers willing to work; and yet the landlords were being ruined because they were obliged to support those willing labourers in idleness within the walls of the workhouse—both parties anxious, indeed, the one to provide, and the other to obtain, work; and yet the law stepped in to prevent them. The book which he held in his band spoke of maintaining the people till harvest time; but that was a mere mockery, for harvest in Con-naught was forbidden by Act of Parliament. There would be no harvest; and let him tell them that all their proceedings would recoil on their own heads unless they provided some remedy for such a state of things, and they would be compelled to vote this money for what they knew to be hopeless or useless, or they would be held up to public scorn and odium. All this land was lying desolate, and scarcely a sower was going forth to sow, because he knew that no sooner should his seed have come to maturity than his crops would be seized upon to support paupers in idleness. The average size of parishes in England was about 2,500 acres; but 17,000 acres formed the average of these electoral divisions in Ireland; and how was it possible for any man to advance money for the stocking or the sowing of such lands, when not only was there a huge mass of poverty to be supported, but a large arrear of debts to be paid? If these things were true, and if no remedy for them could be suggested by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, then he would ask them to take that diminution of the area of taxation he had ventured to offer; and the strong feeling expressed by the English taxpayers on this grant of
604
50,000 l., far from being unwelcome intelligence to the Irish proprietor, would be the best news that had crossed the Channel for many a long day, because he would see in the expression of that feeling the urgent necessity that existed for his case being taken up by England, and that the feeling in his favour, and the conviction that his interest was their interest, was strong in this country, and was greatly on the increase in that House. It was not his (Mr. Stafford's) wish that those who might vote for the Amendment he now brought forward, should be considered as pledged to agree with him as to any detail connected with the question of the poor-law in Ireland; but he had felt it to be absolutely necessary to point out these results of the system they were pursuing, and the state of affairs with regard to these unions. He thought it right, also, now to mention that they ought, in these papers which the Government had laid before them, to have been furnished with the details of the thirty-one unions referred to, instead of those of twenty-one only. It might be—and, doubtless, it was so—in the present state of Ireland, in the present tone of public opinion in that country, and which they had unfortunately assisted to promote by previous grants of money to it—it might be very difficult for any Irish Member to vote against the grant now proposed. But lot the Government mark how many Irish Members had come forward and said, that this grant from the public exchequer would not do the least good. Let them say whether one of those Members, on either side of the House, would get up and tell them that this grant would do anything more than merely alleviate momentary distress—let them say whether they were not still persevering in a course which found no sympathy even from those for whose benefit it was professedly adopted. The hon. Member then proceeded to observe, with reference to the course the Government proposed on the subject of the Irish Poor Law, that, independently of the Boundary Commissioners, there was no subject in regard to which they (the Government) ought to be, and were, in possession of such full information, as they were in respect of that very law. They must have come to some conclusion on that question, or to none; and if in November last they had not arrived at any conclusion as to the best course to be adopted, and could not decide for themselves, why did they not call Parliament

605
together to help them? But if, on the contrary, they had made up their minds in the autumn, he wished to know why this winter came upon them only to change or to confuse their views? He (Mr. Stafford) thought that that House did not deserve by its conduct in regard to Irish affairs in the last Session of Parliament, that the Government should expect opposition upon subjects connected with Ireland. But it was now fit that there should be opposition, and that those who had the welfare of Ireland at heart should begin to speak out respecting the course which had been pursued towards that country by Her Majesty's Government. When the Government were asked, as they recently had been, whether they had any plan ready to submit to Parliament on the subject of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) avoided the question; and, afterwards, when pressed upon the subject of the poor-law, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir G. Grey) said it was their intention to preserve the main principle of that law. But as regarded a great portion of Ireland, the time for deliberation was passed, and the time for action was come. Let him tell them that legislation could not wait, because the seasons would not wait, for certain details from a Committee on the question of the poor-law. How could this Committee deliberate when they knew, as they well did know, that every hour they postponed their report, rendered loss and less the chances of the harvest of 1849? The Government had not scrupled to say, "Unless you consent to vote this money, the people must starve." Place that responsibility on those upon whom it ought to rest—inasmuch as there had been nothing to have prevented them—with the moans of information at their disposal, and with the amount of executive ability at their command—nothing to have prevented them from adopting some course or other; neither was there any thing now to prevent them from entering upon instant legislation upon this most important subject. On them, therefore—on the Government—let the grave responsibility rest of having put the House in this serious dilemma. Look, too, at these returns themselves; how inaccurate they were, and how little to be depended upon, when he found that in one union alone—in the union of Ballina—there was absolutely a mistake in the number of
606
paupers of no loss than 10,000. The very papers he hold in his hand, which the noble Lord had just submitted, in the eagerness of hot haste, to the House, had another mis-statement in regard to the union of Ballina, of 100 holdings; and in this way, and upon returns which could not be depended upon, passed hastily through the press, without time to read them, far less to examine them, the House was called to legislate. But this was not all, for Her Majesty's Ministers came for-ward and said that they had no measure of their own, and that they could put no limit to the sums they intended to ask for; compelling the House, while obtaining from other and more accurate returns the information necessary to make an estimate, to labour under the imputation of cruelty, and a willingness to doom to death their fellow subjects, or else to take the word of the Government, that 414,000 paupers required the means of subsistence, and that 50,000 l. was the sum requisite to support them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had stated that this was to be his last grant, while it was admitted at the same time that that sum would only be six weeks' maintenance to those paupers. He would therefore ask those who talked of giving grants now, or permitting the people to starve, where they were prepared to stop? Here was a new Session of Parliament, and the commencement of a new financial year, and he trust-ed they would not forget the past. They had Ireland relieved of 11,000,000 l. of taxes, and receiving 10,000,000 l. in grants—and with what result? The present of Connaught was the future of Munster. Had Her Majesty's Ministers made out any thing like a case for the course which they were now pursuing? He would not have said one word in reference to any alienation that might exist on the part of England towards Ireland—for he did not believe that any such alienation existed—had he not heard with regret, allusions to it in the course of the debate. He believed that whatever opinions might be entertained with regard to grants of public money, the liveliest gratitude was entertained by the Irish for the noble exertions made by private individuals on their behalf. The way to win over the affections of the Irish people was not to pander to their faults. They were divided into two classes—those who were anxious to discharge their duty, and those who were determined not to discharge it. In this hour

607
of Ireland's trial she could not be righted without the infliction of an amount of individual privation and sorrow, which he was sure every Member of the House would regret. A recent frightful accident which occurred onboard a steamer belonging to Ireland, formed an apt illustration of the position of that country. The captain of the steamer being fearful that some of his passengers would be washed overboard in a storm, forced them into the hold for protection, and thought to preserve the whole; but the very means taken to save them destroyed them. So would it be with Ireland, if, by their legislation, they bound up the improving with the negligent. They could not save the negligent, but they might and certainly would overwhelm the industrious. He felt this so strongly that it was impossible for him to address the House without alluding to it. With regard to the question of grants he knew very well, from his experience during the time he lived in Ireland, what false hopes and evil propensities the least notion of a grant from England originated. And when he looked at all the money spent in public works, and found that no individual was the richer or the better for it—he knew not where it was gone, but it certainly had left no trace of fertility behind it—he did not for a moment doubt but that this 50,000 l. would go after the 10,000,000 l., or that 50,000,000 l. would go with no better result, unless the system were changed. That change ought to be brought forward now; and he could find no language strong enough to express his condemnation of Her Majesty's Government, for trying to throw the responsibility upon a Committee, while the period was fast speeding away in which that change could be of the least avail. They who intended to vote for the addition to the resolution which he should have the honour to submit to the House, felt that it was unfair and unjust to place them in the position they would occupy. They were placed in a position which would make it appear as though they had no feeling for the distresses and miseries of Ireland—as if they would willingly permit thousands of their fellow-subjects to starve—because they raised their voices in behalf of the hardly and heavily taxed people of England. The Government said there was nothing for it but to pay the money without inquiry, and that the future policy of the House must be decided by the Committee; but that was a state of things which would never
608
be suffered to pass unchallenged; and upon the Government which had charge of this great empire the responsibility must rest—they could not remove from it, they must abide by it—of having placed the Opposition in the position of appearing to close their ears and shut their eyes against compassion, or else to agree to a vote which would fill England with discontent, and hand over Ireland to the lassitude of universal ruin. He concluded by moving, as an addition to the original Motion—
"That, in the opinion of this Committee, the application to Parliament for any sum of money for the relief of such distress, ought to have been accompanied with an estimate of the probable amount which will be required for this purpose; that the continual application of sums of money, raised by the general taxation of the Country, to the relief of such distress, is vicious in principle, unjust in practice, and impolitic with respect to the suffering districts themselves, as tending to destroy all spirit of self-reliance; that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, without delay, measures which may obviate the future necessity of applying to Parliament for the relief of local distress in Ireland."
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: Sir, I certainly am relieved by the statement made by the Hon. Member (Mr. Stafford) who has just sat down, that it is not his intention to oppose the grant of 50,000 l. for the immediate relief of the distress existing in some parts of Ireland. I own I should have considered the visiting on the distressed unions in that country, and on their inhabitants, who are without the means of support, that censure which the hon. Member feels ought to be passed upon the Government, would, in the first place, be unjust, and in the second would be visiting on the unoffending, a starving and a miserable people, faults Which, if they deserve censure, ought to be censured as the faults of those who occupy the position of the Government of this country. I am glad to find that the hon. Member, instead of opposing the grant, has thought proper to move a series of resolutions reflecting on the conduct of the Government. But, Sir, I cannot but think the hon. Gentleman has taken a course which cannot be defended or justified by anything which has occurred during the course of the present discussions. The hon. Gentleman says in his first resolution—
"That, in the opinion of this Committee, the application to Parliament for a grant of money for the relief of this distress, ought to have been accompanied with an estimate of the probable amount required for that purpose."

609
Now I say, in the first place, that this is what has never been done by any previous Government under similar circumstances to the present. I alluded the other evening to two cases which served as precedents to the present vote—I mean the grants of 1822 and 1846. In the first instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), who I see has just taken his place, was then Secretary for Ireland, and he brought forward in the month of April, 1822, a proposal for granting 50,000 l. in order to employ and feed the poor of Ireland. At a subsequent part of the Session, some few months afterwards, another proposal of 100,000 l. for the same purpose was agreed to. In 1846 one of the first votes of the Session was that of 50,000 l. for Public Works. Then came the Ports and Harbours Bill—a further grant of 50,000 l.; and then the Drainage Bill, amounting altogether to 228,000 l. in loans, and 220,000 l in grants. Such have been the modes taken by Government in cases somewhat similar to the present. They have come forward at the commencement of the Session, and have asked for some vote or proposed some measure which they thought necessary for the immediate relief of the distress, and proceeding according to the necessity of the times as the Session advanced. But it appears to me, Sir, that that is the obvious and necessary course. I think, if the Government were to come forward and to say, as the hon. Gentleman does, "Let us vote at once four or five hundred thousand pounds for the relief of the distressed unions in Ireland," that you might be quite sure that that four or five hundred thousand pounds would be spent; but you would have no security at all that you would not be asked for further sums. But, Sir, it is impossible to say with regard to particular districts of the country how much may be required until you have the case before you, and know the urgency of the moment. Now with respect to the union of Ballina: the guardians who are there state that it might be possible to collect a further rate, but they think that the collection of that further rate immediately would destroy the means of the farmers still remaining, and the prospects to be anticipated from the harvest. They therefore advise, with a view to allow the industry of the country to have some chance of maintaining the people of the country, that advances should be made in the interim, and no new rate be struck till May; and, according to their
610
opinion, by that period there will be the means of collecting a rate sufficient for the destitute poor of that union. Now, would it be wise in us to say that in May we suppose there will be no such means, and, therefore, to vote the necessary relief for the whole year without knowing what the case may be? I apprehend not; and I conceive, therefore, both according to precedent and to obvious and practical reason as concerns this matter, that we have taken the course which we were justified in taking, and that we should have been liable to censure, if, instead of that course, we had adopted the one which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Staffford) recommends. And yet a vote of censure for that conduct of ours forms the first part of the hon. Gentleman's resolution. The next part of his resolution is—
"That the continual application of sums of money raised by the general taxation of the Country to the relief of such distress, is vicious in principle, unjust in practice, and impolitic with respect to the suffering districts themselves, as tending to destroy all spirit of self-reliance."
Why, I think. Sir, that this is nothing more than a truism. I entirely agree with the spirit of that resolution. Nothing can be worse than the continual grants of money for this purpose. It tends to destroy self-reliance, tends to make the people improvident, and is no doubt vicious in principle. I confess I think that there are many cases of the kind in which grants or measures are vicious in principle, but in which the extraordinary circumstances of the case justify the Government and justify this House in acceding to them. When a House is on fire, measures which would be very wrong, such as defacing a part of the building and destroying the furniture, if done wantonly and when there is no occasion for them, would be quite justifiable under the extraordinary circumstances of the case—and so here. But, Sir, the hon. Gentleman goes on to say, that "it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, without delay, measures which may obviate the future necessity of applying to Parliament for the relief of local distress in Ireland." Now, Sir, upon this subject I am obliged both to refer to what has been done, and to what it is proposed to do. With regard to what has been done, let us not omit that which is the extraordinary feature of this case—that which makes it, as far as the present crisis has gone, extraordinary in the history of the world, but yet which has been entirely overlooked in the speech of the

611
hon. Gentleman. He has spoken of the distress of Ireland as the ordinary and usual distress of that country. Now the fact, as I apprehend it, is, that there has been, by the fault of whom you please—I say not now by the fault of the laws or of the people—but there has been an immense population growing up in certain parts of Ireland, and more especially in districts near the sea coast, where sea-weed could be plentifully collected for manure—a population, fed, not by the wages of labour, not employed by the farmers; but fed by means of small patches of ground, on which potatoes were grown sufficient for the immediate wants of themselves and their families. There has happened during the last few years a succession of calamities, sweeping away that food on which the people depended, not affording them, but rather depriving them of, those means of support and employment which must have been extended to a very great degree in order to relieve such want and famine as those calamities occasioned. There have been then. Sir, multitudes of people who have been altogether without employment and without food. Now, we can imagine, in a less civilised state of the world, that if any such failure of food had taken place, a million, or two or three millions, of persons would have been swept away; and afterwards that another population would have taken their place, and a new cultivation would have succeeded to that which had gone before. But this allowing of the operation of famine to take its course in a country with which we are so nearly connected, and without holding out a hand to check its ravages, would have been a course inconsistent with the humanity of this House, inconsistent with the feelings of this country, and, I will add, shocking and revolting to the minds of every civilised nation in the world. Well then. Sir, in 1847 we made extraordinary efforts in order to keep those people alive. In that year the people of this country raised subscriptions to an immense amount for that purpose. That subscription lasted through 1848, and numbers of persons—200,000, as it is stated by the Poor Law Commissioners—were supplied with food. By means of the British Association last year, many more persons, perhaps more than a million, were kept alive. The hon. Gentleman says, "But by those means you made things worse; they still remain without the means of employment." Sir, I totally deny that consequence. I think
612
that the efforts you made in 1847, and that the efforts that were made by the British Association in 1848, have enabled many of those persons to emigrate to other countries; and, having surmounted the immediate season of despair, to find in other lands a reward for their toil, and to look forward for the future to the enjoyment of comforts more extended than they could ever have possessed in their original position. I do not now. Sir, enter into the question whether the money has been rightly spent, into whether it has been expended in an unprofitable or imprudent manner, instead of in the surest possible manner. All that I consider but a small part of the question. The real question was, whether or no it was advisable to keep as many people alive as possible. That object I think we did accomplish; and that having been accomplished, I think we as a nation have reason to be proud. Well, then. Sir, I admit that after these exertions, if you should find that you have still the same thing to repeat, that you have nothing to do but to spend millions every year in order to keep the destitute poor, who are called "idle," but who may more properly be called "unemployed;" I do admit that that would be a most unsatisfactory result and a most dreary prospect; but, in the first place, let it be recollected that when this House consented to the grant of immense sums of money, they laid down as a rule to be conceded to your legislation that in future the property of Ireland should be made responsible for the poverty of Ireland. Now, let us consider how much was implied in that. They had heard much of absenteeism—much of the conduct of landlords. There are, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) said just now, both good and bad landlords. I believe that there are many good landlords in Ireland whose conduct is deserving every approbation, and whose exertions during these past years entitle them to the gratitude of their country. But, with regard to the bad landlord—previous to the introduction of the poor-law, he did nothing but receive the rent of his estates—not a single farm-house, not a farm-building, was erected by his means—no drainage was carried on by his capital—the beggar and destitute poor received no help from his charity. Such was the conduct of the bad landlord. But he cannot be so indifferent now. Whether he choose to live in Ireland or not, whether he choose to perform his duties or not, a rate is levied for the support

613
of the destitute poor on his property, and of the produce of Ireland a share is allotted to those poor people whom his conduct has contributed to fix on his estate, but of whom, before that time, he might have been regardless. Well, then, we have passed for Ireland a large and extended poor-law. What has that poor-law done in the past year towards the object of maintaining the poor? Why, during the past year, no less than 1,700,000 l. has been collected in Ireland for the purpose of maintaining the infirm and ablebodicd poor; and I am happy to say that, according to calculations which I have seen, the number of ablebodied poor support-ed by the poor-rate is by no means so great as that which any one would have anticipated from the former accounts of the Poor Law Commission of Inquiry, and from statistical documents of authenticity. I am told that of that l,700,000 l. not above 300,000 l. can be considered as having been contributed to the outdoor relief of the ablebodied poor. Such is the calculation made by one of the Commissioners of the Poor Law. Then you have advanced this step, that with regard to the support of the poor in Ireland, a very great proportion at least of the means is now obtained from the rates collected in Ireland, and out of the property in Ireland. Take the advances made last year by the British Association and by the Government, and you will find that so far from being the greater part given for the support of destitution, they do not amount to one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole amount given for that purpose, so that the remaining four-fifths or five-sixths were contributed by the property of Ireland. If that is the result, Sir, we at least see with respect to the relief of the poor that Ireland has greatly contributed, and I think that that is a reason why this House should be more ready than it otherwise would have been—more ready than it should have been in 1822 and 1846, although at that time you proved yourselves most ready to come to the assistance of the destitute poor in Ireland—to come forward to relieve the existing distress. But not only is that the case. There is another pleasing circumstance to be considered. The number of unions to which large contributions were made by the British Association and the Government, is very few. Out of 130 unions in Ireland, not above 21 received that support. Here again you see that you are bringing the matter
614
more within compass, and that so far from the evil becoming worse, you are confining it within a narrow district, and that district one almost entirely marked by the features which I have mentioned, namely, that the people live not by wages, not by employment, but upon potatoes raised from the sea-weed, to which I have before referred, as manure. Then, Sir, is there no hope that there may be some remedy? The hon. Member (Mr. Stafford) told us that there was no hope of any improvement or of any remedy with regard to the distressed unions. I hold in my hand a report of the poor Law Commissioners, representing the very distressed state of many unions, dated the 11th December, 1848. In that report it is said—
"In several unions the outdoor relief is far less in extent than it was at the corresponding period last year. For example, in the Kenturk union there were in the week ended 27th November, 1847, 18,460 persons relieved out of the work-house at a cost of 472 l.; in the week ended 25th November, 1848, the number was 2,323 only, at a cost of 46 l. In Killarney union, the number receiving outdoor relief in the week ended 27th November, 1847, was 8,49,5, at a cost of 289 l.; in the week ended 25th November, 1848, the number was 2,129, at a cost of 661. These instances show the degree in which an improved management, assisted by additional workhouse accommodation, has served to keep in check the outdoor relief which suddenly arose in 1847–8 under the influence of the example of the Temporary Relief Act, and while the machinery of administration under the permanent poor-law was yet new and inexperienced."
I say, therefore, that you do find that there is a prospect of improvement with regard to some of these unions. I come now to the consideration as to what Prospect can be held out to the people; and here I must notice a statement, repeated frequently by hon. Gentlemen, that my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, that the present must be the first of a series of grants. My right hon. Friend has no recollection of having made any such statement. That he said, and I said afterwards, that we would not pledge ourselves that this should be the only grant during the Session of Parliament is perfectly true; and I say again, I would not consent, if the 50,000 l. was granted at once, without any remark or observation, to tie my hands, and not to ask for more from this House. I think that I should not be doing my duty in the condition in which I am placed if I consented so to be fettered in respect to the conduct of the Government; but, having said this, I do admit that there is one point

615
of view in which this question has been placed in which I think the reason of those, not who have objected to the grant, but who have desired explanation and discussion upon this grant, is natural and reasonable—I mean when they say there are very considerable taxes imposed upon Great Britain, in which Ireland has no part—there are many parts of Ireland which seem not only to be not suffering this extreme distress, but seem as capable as any part of England, or of Scotland, of bearing their part of the burden, and therefore the subject ought to be considered by those who have to administer the affairs of the country. Sir, I stated the other night that I should think it my duty to propose to the Committee of the House of Commons this measure, which I thought necessary for the amendment of the poor-law, and to provide for the future amendment of the law in such a manner that I thought would be beneficial to Ireland, and least burdensome to this country. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) finds fault with the Government because they proposed to appoint a Committee; he says that they should at once have come forward in the month of November with a measure upon the subject. Why, Sir, we thought last year that it was desirable upon this important subject to obtain the benefit of experience, and amongst that experience I find that one of the many charges with respect to the poor-law is, that it was proposed in this House by Gentlemen who had the conduct of affairs in this country, who had not sufficient local knowledge with respect to Ireland. If that is the case—if that is the accusation against us—if we had met Parliament, and said, "Here is our measure ready prepared; we have not consulted Irish Gentlemen on the subject, but it is ready prepared, and we do not mean to alter it from your representations "—it would have been said, why not consult those who have local experience on the subject? Let them know what your plans are, ask their advice, and see whether they would be practicable. Sir, I think one of the amendments to be proposed in the poor-law should contemplate an encouragement to those who would be prepared to lay out their capital and to improve and cultivate the land in those parts where, partly from the entire failure of the crops for the last three or four years, and partly from the burdens which have been imposed, there is now an unwillingness to enter on the occupation of those lauds. But,
616
Sir, in so doing, I confess I should not be prepared to rush at once to that division of the country which the hon. Gentleman seems, in his frequent speeches, to contemplate; I own I cannot imagine that there should be a division with regard to each property in Ireland; that each of the small properties in Ireland should be formed into an electoral division, without leading to the consequence of a law of settlement, and thereby doing that which I think has been a great misfortune in England—which I should be sorry to see introduced into Ireland, namely, impeding the free circulation of labour, and depriving the labourer of his right. Besides which a law of settlement implies a law of removal. If you found a man in Bedfordshire whose parish was in Gloucestershire, you would remove him; but what would be the consequence if you found men rushing, as they all do in the early part of the spring, from Con-naught into other parts of Ireland, or into England, and Scotland, and you were to send them back to those districts in Con-naught which are most pauperised, and where they are at present utterly incapable of supporting themselves? There could not be a greater cruelty to the people of Ireland than to enforce the strict law of settlement against removal in that country. Therefore, in proposing any plan of amendment to the Committee, I shall endeavour, in the first place, to provide for the greater encouragement of capital and employment of industry; and, in the next place, I own I do consider it just that in some way or other Ireland should be made further to support the cases of exception in Ireland, and that those cases should not come exclusively as a charge on the public expenditure. Whether what I shall propose on this subject is practicable or not, is of course a question of immense importance; and upon the solution of that question would much depend what is the course we might hereafter think it necessary to take on this question. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says upon this subject that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce without delay a measure which may obviate the future necessity of applying to Parliament for the relief of local distress in Ireland. I do contemplate a measure which would have that tendency. I think there are other questions with respect to local taxation in Ireland, upon which measures are under consideration, which will be introduced, and upon which I think it will be

617
necessary to legislate in the course of the present Session. I do myself consider that it may be possible to go through this great transition; one of the most extraordinary transitions that ever took place—a transition which is not the act of any Parliament or of any Government, but a transition which has been brought about by the calamity of the loss of the potato crop; a transition from a state of the population living upon their own plots of ground, to a state of the population consisting chiefly of farmers and labourers. I do look forward with hope that the transition may be brought about without any very great loss of life. No doubt a very considerable loss of property has already taken place; but considering the vastness of the changes, considering the sudden manner in which the change has come upon us, we have less of suffering, less of loss of life, than any one could have anticipated, if we had boon told two years before that the loss of the food of the country for so many years would have taken place. Now, Sir, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) to pursue his own course; and if he thinks it necessary to push this Motion, as a declaration against the Government, to a division, I can only say that he has taken that course which is best adapted to the exigencies in which he stands; that I do not think it would have been advisable to have brought forward a Bill for the amendment of the poor-law without a grant; that I should not have been justified in coming to the House and asking the House for a temporary grant for the relief of distress. I feel confident—nothing will persuade me to the contrary—that this House will assent to the grant which we have proposed. I feel confident that they will not visit upon these wretched and destitute people in Connaught any faults that we have committed—any want of foresight in not proposing a measure in November—any want of the adaptation of the present measure to the end that we have in view. But, agreeing to the proposal, undoubtedly the House may think it proper to accompany the vote with the resolution which the hon. Gentleman has proposed. With respect to that, it is entirely in the hands of the House to decide as they shall think proper. I have given what I must say I think is a fair account of the position in which we stand. I have given some views to the House of the nature of the measures that we shall have to propose, My belief
618
is that you cannot, by any one measure, remedy a state of society which has been, from the year 1760 at least, one of suffering, of crime, of division of landlord and tenant, of division of one class from another, of conspiracy frequently repeated; of laws of repression continually enacted in the hope of permanent tranquillity continually frustrated. If it be true, as I believe it is, that the hope has been frustrated because the state of society in Ireland brought on those contentions for land, brought on those assassinations of proprietors, brought on the perpetual war of one class against another; if that be true, then it is only by a total change in the state of society that these evils can be remedied; and if it is only by a total change in the state of society that these evils can be remedied, let me, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, tell him, that if he were on those benches to-morrow to propose a measure for the purpose, that a great social change cannot be effected in one, two, or three years; that it must be the work of time; but that I do believe, with time, with patience, with a judicious adaptation of the remedies, we may arrive at that result which we all desire, that of seeing the state of Ireland improved, and at length happy.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid: I entirely concur with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in thinking that it would be a most unfair and ungenerous proceeding on our part to attempt to saddle on the poor of Ireland the consequences which I believe to have been occasioned by the negligence and indiscretion of Government. But while we are prepared to vote this sum for the relief of distress in Ireland, we do think we have a clear right to require that we should be furnished with some definitive estimate of the total sum which Her Majesty's Ministers propose should be expended in this manner. What we contend for is, that the continual application of sums of money raised by the general taxation of the country to the purpose of relieving local distress in Ireland, is injudicious even so far as the suffering districts are concerned, as being calculated to destroy the spirit of self-reliance, at the same time that it fails to furnish a permanent remedy for the distress of the people. That the people in certain districts of the west of Ireland are enduring dreadful hard-, ship, and are exposed to a degree of suffering which it is appalling to contemplate, is impossible to doubt after perusing the papers which have been recently put into

619
our hands. The dreadful picture presented in those pages, shows us landlords and tenants ruined—peasants without food, clothing, or employment—workhouses overflowing—deaths daily increasing—guardians without money or credit—contractors unwilling to forward the necessary supplies. Such is the terrible state of things we are called to contemplate. But that is not all. I fear that there is but slender hope that the condition of these poor creatures will be materially ameliorated. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has assured us of great progress towards the amelioration of the condition of the people; but I do not think that this is an opinion in which the Poor Law Commissioners, or gentlemen resident in Ireland, and practically acquainted with that country, will be likely to concur. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has made a mistake in taking the whole of Ireland together, and in not separating the north from the west and south; and I maintain, that unless you view each province by itself, it will be impossible for you to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the real condition of the whole. He (the Marquess of Granby) found that in twenty-one unions the amount of rates collected was I,985,660 l., in addition to which there had been a vast deal paid through the Government and the British Association, not less than 2,360,000 l. Ho, therefore, did not feel there was that cause for future hope in those parts of Ireland he had referred to, which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) appeared to think. Sir, I do not intend, at this late hour of the night, to trouble the House with any long-extracts from the papers which have been laid before us; but I will, if the House will allow me, read one extract, because I conceive it of great importance that the picture it conveys should be placed before the House. It is an extract of a letter of the vice-guardians of the union of Bantry. These vice-guardians say—
"As to the degree in which destitution prevails, and the prospects of its cessation or diminution—destitute is a term usually and fitly applied to the lowest and most dependent grade in civilised society. It is, however, a term that conveys no idea of the privations and sufferings of a largo proportion of the people in this wretched union, without clothing, without food, without employment, and with no hope whatever, save from the relieving officer, or from the chilly protection of the workhouse. We have given much and most earnest attention to their whole condition, and we have also had pretty extensive communications with well-informed parties from each of the
620
electoral divisions, and we have found an entire unanimity of opinion as to the pitiable state of the whole of the labouring poor. We are, therefore, grieved to state that we cannot see any prospect whatever of a cessation or diminution of their present misery; on the contrary, we are compelled to express our fears that their wants and their sufferings will considerably increase."
I am sure, Sir, we must all feel that this statement truly pictures what is the present condition of a large portion of the people of Ireland; and such, I fear, for some time to come, will be the picture we must look forward to. Sir, under present circumstances lands are thrown out of cultivation, the people are thrown out of employment, and no tenant with capital will take the land. Why, Sir, is this? What cloud hangs over this unfortunate district of Ireland? What blighting influence is it which prevents the employment of capital? What is it that drives capital away from the country? Why, Sir, it is the effect of the poor-law. The capitalist feels that he has no protection, and should be cultivate the land, it may be taken from him for arrears of poor-rates. How can we expect that any man will employ his capital in the cultivation of the land, when he feels that it may be taken from him to pay for an arrear of rate? Again, how can we expect any one to cultivate the land, when he knows, whatever exertions he may make—whatever employment he may give to the poor—he will have to pay for the support of the poor of his idle neighbour? Sir, it is impossible under such a state of circumstances to expect that there will be an amelioration in the state of Ireland. Sir, the noble Lord admits that the law has been vicious in its operation; but he states that extreme cases require extreme remedies. He says, if a house is on fire we must not he particular in the moans which we take to put it out. Now, Sir, what we wish, for we do not object to the advance of the 50,000 l., but we wish to give it combined with such conditions that we shall not he asked for a renewal of the grant. What we wish is not only to put out the fire, but to take precautions that the fire shall not occur again. Then, Sir, the noble Lord refers to 1847, when the people of this country came nobly forward to relieve the distress in Ireland, to show the feeling existing with respect to that country. Sir, it would be unfortunate indeed if the charity of the people of this country was to be used as an argument for making perpetual demands on

621
their resources. Sir, with respect to the area of taxation, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) says it would be most unfortunate if, by any alteration of those areas, the labourer was deprived of the result of his labour; but. Sir, the question is not whether the labourer shall be deprived of the result of his labour, but whether he shall be employed at all. Sir, what we are anxious to know is this, how long this state of things is to last—how long the Irish population are to be taught to look to the liberality of England—how long the Ministry are to trust to the forbearance of the Opposition? Have you no remedial measures to bring forward—have you no plan for the improvement of Ireland? It is true that you have appointed a Committee to inquire into the Poor Law. Why, Sir, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford) has stated, the result of the operation of that law is already known. This is not a time for inquiry, but for measures of vigour; and I cannot but think that such measures would do more to restore the prosperity of that country than Committees of Inquiry. Sir, Her Majesty's Government were not always so ready to refer matters of importance to Committees of this House, when laws which affected the industry of this country were to be discussed—when a code of two centuries was proposed to be swept away. Her Majesty's Government would not wait for the report of a Committee of Inquiry. But now that they require a law for the protection of the people and property of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government shrink from the responsibility of proposing it. Sir, this grant of 50,000 l. to Ireland is a tax on the people of this country, while I do not think, under present circumstances, it will be materially beneficial to the people of Ireland. Sir, I will not trouble the House at any greater length at this late hour, but for the grounds I have stated I must give my support to the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Stafford).
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would not vote for the grant on any conditions whatever. He had listened with the greatest attention to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), and if he understood him right he meant to vote for the grant, with some conditions attached to it. Now this he (Colonel Sibthorp) would not do. He would yield to no man in the House, he might safely say, in humanity and consideration for his fellow-creatures; but he
622
told the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) before, and he told him again, that he had no confidence in any of his propositions. The noble Lord would hold out to them no promise that this vote was to be the first and last. The noble Lord had told them, if he understood him rightly, that he was not capable of bringing forward comprehensive measures for the amelioration of Ireland. He would, therefore, only infer that the noble Lord meant to steal this vote from the House merely to pacify those without whose votes and assistance he could not sit whore he now did. Then there was another ground on which he opposed this grant—the distressed state of this country. There was such a thing as drawing too much from the well, and finding it dry at last. The noble Lord appeared to have no consideration for those whom he and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had brought into distress—the farmers of the country. He repeated that he would not trust the noble Lord a single title; and, looking to the condition of the country at large, looking to the condition of the farmers, and indeed of all classes, he would vote against this dirty, Jesuitical, low, and pitiful grant.
MR. HUMErose merely to state what course those who meant to object both to the Motion and the Amendment meant to take. He could not agree to the additions which were proposed by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), because he thought them inconsistent in first agreeing to the grant, and then protesting against it. He disapproved of the grant; and he meant to divide first against the resolutions; and if they were rejected, then he would take the sense of the House against the grant.
MR. MUNTZsaid, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he could not allow the House to go to a vote without expressing his opinion upon the question before them. The other night he had voted against the Government, because he could not honestly or conscientiously support it, and on the present occasion he must do so again. He could not see how they could call upon the people of this country, taxed as they were, to contribute endless gratuities for the relief of Ireland; and they were particularly told that the application of that night would not be the last. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had told them the other night that they could not allow the people to starve—that he would vote for the present grant, but that

623
he would never vote for another. The time had been when he (Mr. Muntz) should have considered the right hon. Gentleman a great authority in such matters; but he must now allow him to remark, that some time ago he had informed the House that he had changed all his opinions of the previous thirty years, and therefore he (Mr. Muntz) doubted the soundness of his judgment, and could not see how the right hon. Gentleman would be able to refuse the next similar application which must be made. Now, he (Mr. Muntz) hoped, when he was giving his own money away, that he could be as charitable as any one; but he had to consider that he was the representative of others, and that he had to deal with their funds. He did not see any improvement that was likely to take place in the condition of Ireland; on the contrary, he believed that condition would get a great deal, and rapidly, worse. He believed, too, that a great deal of that distress was to be attributed to the general system of Government, that there should be cheap food and dear money. He asked whether there was any opportunity afforded for an advance in the value of produce; or a decrease in the value of money? They were told it was to come from California. He was prepared to admit that if the proceeds of California were in any proportion to the reports, all our difficulties might thereby be removed; but all depended upon the quantity of gold which would come, and the speed with which it came, for all Ireland might be dead before it did come. He was free to admit that if the gold of that country were already here, it might be beneficial; but it must be a work of time before any quantity could arrive, and they might all die first. What was the position this country was in, that she was supposed to be fit and ought to be called upon to pay such a demand upon her resources? Hon. Gentlemen had told him, and he had seen in the papers, that they were all well off in Birmingham, which was never more prosperous. Well, he always heard in London and in that House what he could not hear at home; but he went home on Saturday last, and instead of finding the prosperity spoken of, he was told by every one that trade was extremely flat and unprofitable, and that they could see no chance of there being any improvement so long as they were compelled to compote with foreign manufacturers. That very morning he met one of his own travellers who had just returned from the north of
624
Europe, and he asked him what was the state of trade in Germany. He replied that there was plenty of trade in Germany, but that it was not with England, as the Germans could manufacture cheaper themselves; and notwithstanding the very low prices prevailing in this country, it was impossible to compete with them. A curious circumstance had lately occurred to him (Mr. Muntz), to which he wished to call the particular attention of the House. Three or four years ago, the glass manufacturers of Birmingham were anxious to have free trade. They came to him and said, that if the duty was taken off glass, they could do a good trade. He cautioned them on the subject, and told them that they employed Bohemians, Belgians, and Germans in their manufactories, at high wages, and that if the duty were removed, they would have a heavy competition to contend with. They said they were aware of that, but it was highly desirable for the interests of the trade that the duty should be taken off. Well, he accompanied a deputation of the trade to meet the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and he was horror-struck to find that the first thing they asked for was protection for three years. He (Mr. Muntz) said to them, "Why, I thought you came here to ask for free trade;" to which they replied, "So we do; but we want protection for three years, just to prepare us for the change, after which it will be all right." His next question was, "Well, but tell me why you will be better prepared in three years to compete with foreign manufacturers than you now are?" to which they replied, "Oh, let us have free trade, and we can compete with all the world;" and he (Mr. Muntz) then told them that at the end of the three years they would ask for protection. Well, to show them what had been the result of that measure, he would take the liberty of reading to the House a letter upon the subject which he had received from Birmingham within the last few days. It was as follows:—
"Birmingham, February 5, 1849."
Dear Sir—As the import duties on flint-glass will expire soon, the trade is, I fear, in danger of expiring also in this country, owing to those countries whoso manufactures are protected by an import duty being allowed, duty free, to send all their excess of production here, thus keeping up their prices at home, by not glutting their market: at the same time ruining ours. The manufacturers of this district are anxious to memorialise for a continuance of duty, being persuaded that they can prove that that alone will protect our trade, from the peculiar character of

625
our manufacture. I have written to Mr. Sehole-field, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Newdegate, to ask their opinion and co-operation; will you oblige me with your advice upon the subject?—Your's faithfully."
He (Mr. Muntz) told them that they could do as they pleased, and, if they wished it, he would be happy to present their memorial. That was not a solitary case; but other trades were in the same condition. When they saw in the papers that trade was recovering, that trade was better, it was just like the case of a man with fever, who had been laid up with fever for twelve months, and was enabled to get up and sit in his arm-chair for half an hour. He might say that he was a little better; but so far from its being a sign of solid improvement, there might be reason to fear immediate dissolution. The fact was, that not only the glass trade, but half the other trade of Birmingham had vanished and gone to the Continent, in consequence of the competition which existed. Now, they had been told that there was an improvement in the trade of Birmingham; and, what was most strange, in two of the trades which had most suffered, and were still very bad, two of the trades which he particularly saw noticed in the public press as having improved, was the gilt-toy trade and the brassfounders. Now, he had formerly exported per annum thousands of pounds' worth in those trades, but he did not now expend as many shillings in them. There were formerly sixty or seventy gilt-toy makers in Birmingham, but there were now only four or five, and they had nothing to do. There were certainly more brass-founders remaining, but they were very slack, and badly paid, in consequence of foreign competition. Were the people of this country in a position, then, to be called upon for this grant? The distresses of the Irish were now attributed to the potato rot; but did they never hear of distress in Ireland before? Did they recollect the year 1822? Was there no distress at that time? Was there not a king's begging letter, and also immense private subscriptions, and Government grants, to relieve the most wretched misery? If they went back to the year 1842, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was in office, they would find there was distress at that time; but they did not hear of any potato rot. He believed that the rot under which Ireland suffered was not the potato rot, but a rot of another kind. He opposed the grant because the Government did not say that, if they made it, they could show
626
that they could make Ireland prosperous. What would 50,000 l. be to relieve the distress existing in Ireland? Why, it would be like a mere drop in the ocean, and the money would be thrown away. Out of doors there was a great feeling against granting the money, not from a feeling of parsimony, but because the people conscientiously felt that they would soon be seeking for something to be given to themselves. The people felt that they could not afford to pay the taxes, and they looked for relief in the reduction of taxation. He liked economy as much as any one, and it ought to be carried out as far as possible, consistently with the honour, power, and interest of the nation. He liked to see any such reduction, but it was useless to look for much relief from that source, because there was very little margin to act upon when they had made provision for the interest of the debt, and the necessary expenses of the State. The plan implied that the only way in which any material saving could be made in the expenditure of the country was by the abandonment of their colonies. He did not believe, if they looked at such a proposition in a £ s. d. point of view, that that would be any great loss to the country, as under our present system the colonies are free to trade everywhere; therefore, whilst we secure no exclusive advantage with our colonies, we pay all the expenses necessary for their security. He admitted that they might reduce their expenditure by abandoning their colonies; but there was a moral point of view upon which the question ought to be considered, and that was—are we justified, after encouraging men to emigrate and colonise, in leaving them to the mercy of the world, without that support which they bad justly calculated upon? He again repeated that he could not conscientiously vote for the grant, and he must, therefore, vote both against the Government, and against the Amendment.
The Committee divided on Mr. Stafford's Amendment:—Ayes 125; Noes 245: Majority 120.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Bourke, R. S.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Bramston, T. W.

Arkwright, G.

Brand, T.

Bankes, G.

Bremridge, R.

Bennet, P.

Brisco, M.

Blackstone, W. S.

Brooke, Lord

Blair, S.

Brown, H.

Blakemore, R.

Burghley, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Burroughes, H. N.

627

Cabbell, B. B.

Moody, C. A.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Muntz, G. F.

Christopher, R. A.

Napier, J.

Cobbold, J. C.

Neeld, J.

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

Neeld, J.

Cocks, T. S.

Newport, Visct.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Nowry and Morne, Visct.

Coles, H. B.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Nugent, Lord

Cowan, C.

Osborne, R.

Disraeli, B.

Ossulston, Lord

Dod, J. W.

Palmer, B.

Dodd, G.

Palmer, R.

Duff, G. S.

Perfect, B.

Duncuft, J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Dundas, G.

Prime, B.

Du Pre, C. G.

Renton, J. C.

East, Sir J. B.

Repton, G. W. J.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Richards, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Rufford, F.

Farrer, J.

Sandars, G.

Floyer, J.

Scott, hon. F.

Fox, S. W. L.

Seymer, H. K.

Fuller, A. E.

Shafto, R. D.

Godson, R.

Shirley, E. J.

Gooch, E. S.

Smyth, J. G.

Gordon, Adm.

Smythe, hon. G.

Goring, C.

Somerset, Capt.

Granby, Marq. of

Somerton, Visct.

Grogan, E.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Hale, R. B.

Stafford, A.

Halsey, T. P.

Stanley, E.

Henley, J. W.

Stuart, H.

Herries, rt hon. J. C.

Stuart, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Hildyard, R. C.

Taylor, T. E.

Hodgson, W. N.

Thompson, Col.

Hood, Sir A.

Thompson, Ald.

Hornby, J.

Thompson, G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Thornhill, G.

Ker, R.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Trollope, Sir J.

Knox, Col.

Turner, G. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Verner, Sir W.

Leslie, C. P.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Lowther, H.

Waddington, D.

Lushington, C.

Waddington, H. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Walpole, S. H.

Mandeville, Visct.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Manners, Lord G.

Meux, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Miles, W.

Beresford, W.

Moffatt, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Baring, T.

Adair, R. A. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Alcock, T.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bass, T.

Anson, Visct.

Bellew, R. M.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Armstrong, R. B.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Bernard, Visct.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Ashley, Lord

Blackall, S. W.

Bagshaw, J.

Blandford, Marq. of

Baines, M. T.

Blewitt, R. J.

Baring, H. B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

628

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hastie, A.

Bright, J.

Hawes, B.

Brockman, E. D.

Hay, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Brown, W.

Headlam, T. E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Heneage, E.

Bunbury, E. H.

Henry, A.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Herbert, H. A.

Butler, P. S.

Heyworth, L.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Callaghan, D.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Hodges, T. L.

Cardwell, E.

Hodges, T. T.

Carter, J. B.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Caulfield, J. M.

Hollond, R.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Horsman, E.

Cavendish, W. G.

Howard, Lord E.

Cayley, E. S.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Clay, Sir W.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Howard, Sir R.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hume, J.

Cobden, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Jackson, W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Jervis, Sir J.

Corbally, M. E.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Kershaw, J.

Craig, W. G.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Crawford, W. S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Crowder, R. B.

Langston, J. H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Lemon, Sir C.

Devereux, J. T.

Lewis, G. C.

Duncan, Visct.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duncan, G.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Locke, J.

Dunne, F. P.

Lockhart, A. E.

Ebrington, Visct.

Lockhart, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Ellis, J.

Macnamara, Maj.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Euston, Earl of

M'Gregor, J.

Evans, W.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Fagan, W.

Mahon, Visct.

Fergus, J.

Maitland, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Marshall, W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Martin, C. W.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Masterman, J.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Matheson, A.

Foley, J. H. H.

Matheson, Col.

Fordyce, A. D.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Forster, M.

Melgund, Visct.

Fox, R. M.

Milner, W. M. E.

Freestun, Col.

Milton, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Monsell, W.

Glyn, G. C.

Moore, G. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Grace, O. D. J.

Morris, D.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Grattan, H.

Mowatt, F.

Greene, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Greene, T.

Norreys, Lord

Grenfell, C. P.

Nugent, Sir P.

Grenfell, C. W.

O'Brien, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Grey, R. W.

O'Brien, T.

Grosvenor, Earl

O'Connell, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

O'Connor, F.

Hamilton, J. H.

O'Flaherty, A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Owen, Sir J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Paget, Lord A.

Hastie, A.

Paget, Lord C.

629

Palmerston, Visct.

Smith, M. T.

Parker, J.

Smith, J. B.

Patten, J. W.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Spearman, H. J.

Peel, Col.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Stanton, W. H.

Peto, S. M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Pigott, F.

Sullivan, M.

Pilkington, J.

Talfourd, Serj.

Power, N.

Tancred, H. W.

Pusey, P.

Tenison, E. K.

Raphael, A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Rawdon, Col.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Reynolds, J.

Thornely, T.

Ricardo, J. L.

Towneley, J.

Rice, K. R.

Townley, R. G.

Rich, H.

Townshend, Capt.

Roche, E. B.

Vane, Lord H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Rumbold, C. E.

Vivian, J. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Wall, C. B.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Walter, J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Ward, H. G.

Sadleir, J.

Watkins, Col. L.

St. George, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Sandars, J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Scholefield, W.

Westhead, J. P.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, J.

Scully, F.

Williamson, Sir H.

Seaham, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Seymour, Sir H.

Wilson, M.

Seymour, Lord

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wood, W. P.

Shelburne, Earl of

Young, Sir J.

Sidney, Ald.

Simeon, J.

TELLERS.

Slaney, R. A.

Tufnell, H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hill, Lord M.

MR. HUMEsaid, that the Government were bound to come forward with some other measure to meet the distresses of Ireland, and to render the money given by this country really useful to her. As he did not think the grant good in principle, or likely to be of any service, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Original question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 143: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Bellow, R. M.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bernard, Visct.

Anson, hon. Col.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Anson, Visct.

Blackall, S. W.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Blandford, Marq. of

Armstrong, Sir A.

Bourke, R. S.

Armstrong, R. B.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Brockman, E. D.

Brothorton, J.

Ashley, Lord

Bunbury, E. H.

Bagshaw, J.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Baines, M. T.

Butler, P. S.

Baring, H. B.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Callaghan, D.

Baring, T.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Barrington, Visct.

Cardwell, E.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Carter, J. B.

Bass, T.

Caulfeild, J. M.

630

Cavendish, hon. C. O.

Koppel, hon. G. T.

Cavendish, W. G.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clay, Sir W.

Lewis, G. C.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Locke, J.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Lockhart, A. E.

Cole, hon. H. A.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

M'Gregor, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Macnamara, Maj.

Craig, W. G.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Crowder, R. B.

Mahon, Visct.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Maitland, T.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Marshall, W.

Devereux, J. T.

Martin, C. W.

Dod, J. W.

Masterman, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Matheson, A.

Dunne, F. P.

Matheson, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Melgund, Visct.

Ellis, J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Milton, Visct.

Euston, Earl of

Mitchell, T. A.

Evans, W.

Moffatt, G.

Fagan, AY.

Monsell, W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Moore, G. H.

Filmer, Sir E.

Morgan, H. K. G.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Foley, J. H. H.

Napier, J.

Forster, M.

Norreys, Lord

Fox, R. M.

Nugent, Sir P.

Freestun, Col.

O'Brien, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Glyn, G. C.

O'Brien, T.

Gordon, Adm.

O'Connell, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

O'Connor, F.

Grace, O. D. J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ogle, S. C H.

Granby, Marq. of

Ossulston, Lord

Greene, J.

Owen, Sir J.

Greene, T.

Paget, Lord A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, Lord C.

Grey, R. W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Grosvenor, Earl

Parker, J.

Hamilton, J. H.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Peel, Col.

Hawes, B.

Peto, S. M.

Hay, Lord J.

Power, N.

Hayter, W. G.

Pusey, P.

Headlam, T. E.

Raphael, A.

Henley, J. W.

Rawdon, Col.

Herbert, H. A.

Reynolds, J.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Rice, E. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rich, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Roche, E. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Romilly, Sir J.

Hodges, T. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Hollond, R.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hood, Sir A.

Sadleir, J.

Horsman, E.

St. George, C.

Howard, Lord E.

Sandars, G.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Sandars, J.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Scholefield, W.

Howard, Sir R.

Scrope, G. P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Scully, F.

Jackson, W.

Seaham, Visct.

Jervis, Sir J.

Seymour, Sir H.

631

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Shelburne, Earl of

Vane, Lord H.

Simeon, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Slaney, R. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Smith, M. T.

Wall, C. B.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Walter, J.

Spearman, H. J.

Ward, H. G.

Stansfield, W. R. O.

Watkins, Col. L.

Stanton, W. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Stuart, Lord D.

Westhead, J. P.

Sullivan, M.

Williamson, Sir H.

Talfourd, Serj.

Wilson, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Wilson, M.

Taylor, T. E.

Wodehouse, E.

Tenison, E. K.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Wyvill, M.

Thornely, T.

Young, Sir J.

Towneley, J.

TELLERS.

Townley, R. G.

Hill, Lord M.

Townshend, Capt.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Gaskell, J. M.

Alcock, T.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Arkwright, G.

Godson, R.

Bankes, G.

Gooch, E. S.

Bennet, P.

Goring, C.

Beresford, W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gwyn, H.

Blair, S.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Blakemore, R.

Halsey, T. P.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Boldero, H. G.

Hastie, A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hastie, A.

Bramston, T. W.

Heneage, E.

Brand, T.

Henry, A.

Bremridge, R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Bright, J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Brisco, M.

Hodgson, W. N.

Brooke, Lord

Hornby, J.

Brown, H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Brown, W.

Ker, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Kershaw, J.

Burghley, Lord

King, hon. P. J. L.

Burroughes, H. N.

Knightley, Sir C.

Cabbell, B. B.

Knox, Col.

Christopher, R. A.

Langston, J. H.

Christy, S.

Law, hon. C. E.

Cobbold, J. C.

Leslie, C. P.

Cobden, R.

Lockhart, W.

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

Lowther, H.

Cocks, T. S.

Lushington, C.

Coles, H. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Cowan, C.

Mandeville, Visct.

Crawford, W. S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Disraeli, B.

Meux, Sir H.

Dodd, G.

Miles, W.

Duff, G. S.

Moody, C. A.

Duncan, Visct.

Morris, D.

Duncan, G.

Mowatt, F.

Duncuft, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Dundas, G.

Neeld, J.

Du Pre, C. G.

Neeld, J.

East, Sir J. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Newport, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Farrer, J.

Nugent, Lord

Fergus, J.

Osborne, R.

Floyer, J.

Palmer, R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Palmer, R.

Fox, S. W. L.

Pilkington, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Plowden, W. H. C.

632

Powlett, Lord W.

Stuart, J.

Prime, R.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Renton, J. C.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Ricardo, J. L.

Thompson, Col.

Ricardo, O.

Thompson, Ald.

Richards, R.

Thompson, G.

Rufford, F.

Trollope, Sir J.

Scott, hon. F.

Turner, G. J.

Seymour, Lord

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Shafto, R. D.

Verner, Sir W.

Shirley, E. J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Waddington, D.

Sidney, Ald.

Waddington, H. S.

Smith, rt. hon. R.

Walpole, S. H.

Smith, J. B.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Smyth, J. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Smythe, hon. G.

Williams, J.

Somerset, Capt.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wood, W. P.

Spooner, R.

TELLERS.

Stanley, E.

Heyworth, L.

Stuart, H.

Hume, J.

Resolution to be reported.
House resumed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE IRISH POOR LAW.
On Motion of SIR W. SOMERVILLE, Order (8th February), "That the Committee do consist of twenty-one Members," read and discharged.
SIR W. SOMERVILLE SIR W. SOMERVILLE moved, that the Select Committee on the Irish Poor Law do consist of twenty-six Members, and that the following Members he added thereto:—The Earl of Lincoln, Sir Lucius O'Brien, and Mr. Moore.
Motion made that Mr. Bright's name be added to the Committee,
CAPTAIN TAYLORsaid, as originally constituted, there was too great a preponderance of borough Members upon it; but above all men, he did not see why the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) should be added. What he (Captain Taylor) wanted was a fair, and at the same time an effective Committee; but he had yet to learn why the Manchester school should be allowed to send its delegates to this already large Committee, and perhaps delay its proceedings by pressing the marvellous doctrines which were heard from that quarter, upon all subjects and upon all occasions. He, therefore, objected altogether to Mr. Bright, and with the less hesitation, because he bad a distinct and an unhappy recollection of the hon. Member having served as a selected Member upon a former Committee. That Committee certainly sat upon a different question; but having watched the proceedings of it, he now looked with jealousy and no small fear at the hon. Member for Manchester being commissioned to deal with interests for

633
which he (Captain Taylor) had a great affection, but with which he did not think it possible the hon. Gentleman could in any manner be identified. The hon. Member concluded by proposing to substitute the name of the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) in lieu of Mr. Bright.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsupported the nomination of Mr. Bright, and called the attention of the House to the enormous interest which Manchester and Lancashire had in the proper administration of the poor-law in Ireland. A very large proportion of the poor's-rates both of Manchester and Liverpool had arisen from the enormous amount of Irish pauperism thrown into those towns. He could not exactly call to recollection to what previous Committee the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Taylor) alluded in his objection to his hon. Colleague; but he (Mr. M. Gibson) must express his conviction, that if his hon. Friend were selected, he would do his duty faithfully.
SIR W. VERNERsaid, that after what had taken place, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the composition of the Committee, although he might have taken exception at the way in which Ulster was represented on it. The addition of Members to those originally proposed was a change, but he did not consider it an improvement.
LORD C. HAMILTONhad no personal objection to the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) serving upon this Committee. He admitted the great interest which Lancashire had in this question; but he contended that it would be adequately represented by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford). He objected to the number of English borough Members which had been selected. Out of eight English Members upon the Committee as originally constituted, six represented boroughs. Now, he submitted that, as this inquiry involved questions of poor-rates, some county Members ought to be consulted. If the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) were appointed to serve, there would then be nine English Members upon the Committee, of which seven represented boroughs. He appealed to the House whether this was not a very unusual proportion. He recommended the Government to add to the Committee some Gentlemen representing a large agricultural county.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, that allusion had been made to the conduct of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) on another Committee. The hon. and gallant
634
Member opposite (Captain Taylor) had objected to the hon. Member for Manchester being placed on the Committee, because after having watched his conduct on another Committee, the hon. Gentleman said he felt no confidence in the hon. Member for Manchester with regard to the Committee proposed. He believed the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman (Captain Taylor) referred, was the Dublin Election Committee. Now, this was the first occasion on which the character and honour of a Member of any Election Committee, appointed during the time he (Mr. F. Maule) had had the honour of being chairman of the Committee of Selection, had been called in question. And any charge of that sort was a serious one, when it was recollected that a Member of an Election Committee did not proceed to discharge his duty until he took an oath, or made an affirmation, that he would discharge his duty honestly and conscientiously. The present was not the time for calling in question the conduct of any Member while serving on an Election Committee. If the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had been guilty of a breach of his affirmation, there was a proper time for calling him to account. But so far from that being the case, he believed on every occasion involving any proposal, the decision of the Committee was nearly unanimous. The hon. Member for Manchester had been placed on the Committee referred to with the unanimous consent of the Committee of Selection; and he (Mr. F. Maule) believed that the hon. Member was as incapable of doing anything contrary to his affirmation as any other Gentleman contrary to his oath.
MR. BATESON, as an Irish Member, would state the reason which induced him to think that in Ireland this Committee would be considered "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." In the first place, it was calculated to bolster up all the evils and abuses of the present system of poor-law, for there were placed upon it one or two ex-poor-law officials—men wedded to the present system, who looked upon their bantling with true fatherly affection, however worthless it turned out. And now, by way of mending the matter, it was proposed to add the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). Why, if the hon. Gentleman possessed such peculiar qualifications, how was it he had not been called upon in the first instance? Was it that the light of the hon. Gentleman had hitherto

635
been hid under a bushel, that Her Majesty's Government now, at the eleventh hour, declared his peculiar qualifications for the inquiry? Or was it that the knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Manchester in Irish affairs were so great that he could assist the Committee to remedies for evils and abuses? He (Mr. Bateson) was not aware of the hon. Gentleman having yet developed any extraordinary experience in Irish affairs; but if he had any, let him give the Committee the benefit of it by being examined as a witness, rather than permit his views to be diluted with those of twenty-six other Members. But it had been whispered that the hon. Gentleman and several of his friends had made extensive arrangements for the purchase of landed property in Ireland. That, he supposed, was the reason for his selection. But, independently of all this, he regretted to say that he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman credit for possessing a fair, impartial, and unprejudiced mind. He could not forget that upon several occasions, when the hon. Member had addressed the House with regard to Ireland, he had shown most violent, most virulent, and most vindictive feelings towards the landed interest of that country. He (Mr. Bateson) would read one short extract from one of his speeches in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman said—
"With regard to Ireland, you have everything Protestant—a Protestant clergy, which monopolises the places and emoluments of the Protestant Church; a Protestant magistracy before whom a destitute peasant could not hope for justice. They had not only a Protestant, but an exterminating landlord, and a Protestant soldiery, who, at the beck of a Protestant priest, had butchered a Catholic peasant in the presence of his widowed mother."
He wished to know whether the Government thought that the report of the Committee would be more valuable were there added to it the name of a Gentleman holding the opinions of the hon. Member for Manchester? But why had not his name been originally proposed? The fact was that they all knew how his nomination originated. They were not so blind as not to see that it was a sop thrown by Government to a party whom they could not satisfy, and whom they dared not offend.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that there was only one portion of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Bateson), to which he would allude. The hon. Member had stated, amongst other reasons for objecting to the nomination of the hon. Member for Manchester,
636
that he had heard it whispered that the hon. Member for Manchester was about to invest capital in Ireland. Now, if this were the case—and he earnestly hoped it was—he thought the fact constituted a very good reason for placing the hon. Gentleman on the Committee. What the hon. Gentleman intended to do in Ireland he (Sir G. Grey) did not know; but there were many amongst that society with which the hon. Gentleman was connected, who had displayed, he (Sir G. Grey) could hardly say more than their ordinary benevolence—but who had displayed the whole of that customary benevolence in relieving the late distresses in Ireland, not only by great sacrifices of time and money, but by the judicious application of capital to develop the resources of the country. The society in question constituted, indeed, a body which every Irishman was, in his opinion, bound, far from depreciating, to speak of with that gratitude and respect to which it was so well entitled.
MR. BATESONprotested against the uncalled for lecture which the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had read him. He (Mr. Bateson) did not say a single word against the members of the society to which the hon. Member for Manchester belonged; and he entertained for them as deep a respect as the right hon. Baronet himself could feel.
MR. HENRYobserved that he had suggested that the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) should be placed upon the Committee, not only because he represented a community which suffered much from the immigration of Irish vagrants, but because he (Mr. Henry) had heard the hon. Gentleman make several remarkable speeches on Irish subjects; and also on account of his being connected with that religious society whose efforts had been productive of so much good during the late urgent season of distress in Ireland.
MR. SCULLYcontended that agricultural Ireland was not fairly or adequately represented in the Committee. He found, from consulting the map, that half of the Irish counties would be unrepresented by the proposed constitution of the Committee.
COLONEL DUNNEwas of opinion that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), was perfectly fitted, both by talents and integrity, to be placed upon the Committee; but his interests were not identified with those of Ireland, while the agricultural districts of that country

637
would not be sufficiently represented—and he should vote for the Amendment.
Mr. HUMEobserved, that this was an English as well as an Irish question. He could not see, therefore, why the hon. Gentlemen to serve should be nominated exclusively from the body of Irish Members. He might take this opportunity of remarking, that during the course of a pretty long experience in Parliament, he had never before heard personal motives attributed to an hon. Gentleman in the discharge of his public duties. He must add that the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Bateson) who had made the charge, had shown great neglect of his duty, in not having brought any accusation against the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) which he had to adduce, at the time the alleged misconduct took place, and while the subject was fresh in the minds of the House. He hoped that no division would take place on the present occasion.
MR. REYNOLDSwould not have taken any part in the debate had he not perceived that it was assuming a very serious aspect. There appeared to him to have been a military attack made on a Gentleman belonging to the Society of Friends. Already had that Gentleman been attacked by three Colonels and a Captain. There was his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington, a Colonel (Colonel Dunne); the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin, ditto; the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Verner); and the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Londonderry, a captain (Mr. Bateson)—[Mr. BATESON: I am no captain.] He believed that, although the hon. Member had parted with his military rank, it still belonged to him. It had been said, "Once a priest, for ever a priest;"—once a lieutenant, for ever a captain. He would not, therefore, willingly rob the hon. Member of a title to which he had still a clear right. Now, it was quite evident that the attack which had been made on the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was prepared; the reading of the extract from Hansard proved that it was not the result of the impulse of the moment, but had been well concocted. He would not say it had been concocted at a club which should be nameless; but he was afraid that the charge made against the hon. Member for Manchester might in one sense be attributed to himself. It was not because the hon. Member was unfit to discharge the duties
638
which would be imposed on him that the hon. Gentleman was objected to. It was because he had happened to sit on his (Mr. Reynolds's) Committee. It was the old story of the grey mare, which was so familiar to every man's ears. The story was this:—A countryman of his (Mr. Reynolds) was indicted at the assizes of Tralee for a certain offence—a felony. It was proved clearly that he was not guilty of the crime imputed to him, notwithstanding which, the jury, without leaving the box, found him guilty. The judge was shocked at the verdict, and he said, "Gentlemen, it has been clearly proved that this man is innocent." "Yes," replied the foreman, "it has been; he is innocent of the crime laid to his charge, but he stole my grey mare last Christmas." So also the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was innocent of the charges brought against him; but he happened not to have put him (Mr. Reynolds) out, and Mr. Gregory in; therefore he was totally unfit to be upon this Poor Law Committee. Now he (Mr. Reynolds) knew something about his fellow-countrymen, and he could safely assure the House that amongst the 553 British Members composing it there was not one man so popular in Ireland as was the hon. Member for Manchester. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Notwithstanding that exclamation, he would repeat the assertion. The hon. Member was regarded in Ireland as the friend of the poor, and as a man pleading for popular liberty. No doubt he had dealt out some hard blows against landlords; but would any man say that some landlords did not deserve them? It was, however, partly because the hon. Member knew how to discriminate between the good and the bad, that he (Mr. Reynolds) wished to see him on the Committee. His appointment would be a just compliment to the Society of Friends; for amongst the useful societies of Ireland, particularly in connexion with distress, he believed the most useful was that to which the hon. Member belonged.
VISCOUNT BERNARDdeeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not themselves proposed a measure on the subject of the Irish Poor Law. The mere appointment of a Committee of Inquiry left the question in uncertainty.
Question put, "That Mr. Bright be one other Member of the said Committee."
The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 74: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Locke, J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bagshaw, J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Baines, M. T.

M'Gregor, J.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Bass, T.

Maitland, T.

Bellew, R. M.

Martin, C. W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bernal, R.

Melgund, Visct.

Blewitt, R. J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Moffatt, G.

Boyle, Hon. Col.

Monsell, W.

Brotherton, J.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Brown, W.

Morris, D.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Bunbury, E. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Carter, J. B.

O'Brien, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cobden, R.

Osborne, R.

Craig, W. G.

Paget, Lord A.

Crowder, R. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Devereux, J. T.

Parker, J.

Duncan, G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Duncuft, J.

Peel, Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Peto, S. M.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pilkington, J.

Ellis, J.

Power, N.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rawdon, Col.

Evans, W.

Reynolds, J.

Fagan, W.

Ricardo, O.

Farrer, J.

Rich, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Romilly, Sir J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Fordyce, A. D.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fox, R. M.

Scrope, G. P.

Freestun, Col.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Simeon, J.

Greene, J.

Smith, J. B.

Greene, T.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Spearman, H. J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Stafford, A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stanton, W. H.

Grey, R. W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Sullivan, M.

Hastie, A.

Talfourd, Serj.

Hastie, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Hawes, B.

Thompson, Col.

Hay, Lord J.

Thompson, G.

Hayter, W. G.

Thorneley, T.

Headlam, T. E.

Townshend, Capt.

Heneage, E.

Tufnell, H.

Heyworth, L.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Walter, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Ward, H. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Horsman, E.

Williams, J.

Howard, Lord E.

Wilson, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wilson, M.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hume, J.

Wyvill, M.

Jackson, W.

Young, Sir J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

TELLERS.

Kershaw, J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Henry, A.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt.

Bennet, P.

Barrington, Visct.

Beresford, W.

640

Bernard, Visct.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lockhart, W.

Boldero, H. G.

Lowther, H.

Bourke, R. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brooke, Lord

Macnamara, Maj.

Burghley, Lord

Mandeville, Visct.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Butler, P. S.

Manners, Lord G.

Cobbold, J. C.

Meux, Sir H.

Cocks, T. S.

Moore, G. H.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Napier, J.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Newport, Visct.

Dod, J. W.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Dodd, G.

Nugent, Sir P.

Dunne, F. P.

Renton, J. C.

East, Sir J. B.

Rufford, F.

Floyer, J.

St. George, C.

Fox, S. W. L.

Sandars, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Scully, F.

Goring, C.

Seaham, Visct.

Grace, O. D. J.

Smith, M. T.

Grogan, E.

Somerset, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Halsey, T. P.

Stuart, J.

Hamilton, J. H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Trollope, Sir J.

Herbert, H. A.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Verner, Sir W.

Hildyard, R. C.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Waddington, H. S.

Hood, Sir A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Bateson, T.

Leslie, C. P.

Taylor, T. E.

The name of Mr. Bright was then added to the Committee; and also the name of Mr. Grace.

ARMY AND ORDNANCE EXPENDITURE.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the appointment of the following Select Committee on the Army and Ordnance:—Lord Seymour, Mr. Secretary at War (Mr. Fox Maule), Mr. Hume, Marquess of Granby, Mr. Walter, Sir W. Molesworth, Lord Charles Wellesley, Sir James Graham, Mr. William Miles, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. John Greene, Mr. Edward Ellice, Mr. Vernon Smith, and Mr. Bankes.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, he wished to move the addition of the following names to the Committee:—General Sir De Lacy Evans, Colonel Lindsay, and Colonel Dunne.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman should give notice of that Motion for to-morrow.
MR. B. OSBORNE: But it is now tomorrow, Sir (it was at that time near two o'clock).
COLONEL PEELsaid he felt hound to complain of the absence of any officer connected

641
with the Ordnance department from the Committee, although that department had of late been the subject of repeated attacks. He should suggest that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Boldero) should be added to the Committee.
CAPTAIN BOLDBROalso complained that there was not a single individual connected with the Ordnance department on the Committee. He thought that that omission was the more objectionable, as the public press had of late contained many attacks on that branch of the public service, and as these attacks were calculated to mislead the public. There was, in fact, a dead set made against the Ordnance department. He proposed that the name of the Clerk of the Ordnance (Colonel Anson) should be added to the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he merely proposed, with a few necessary exceptions, the reappointment of the Committee of last Session. He believed it was not advisable to overload the Committee with professional men, who would be better employed in giving their evidence as witnesses.
MR. NEWDEGATEhoped, that no deference to what happened to be the number selected last year would constrain the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exclude every Member connected with the Ordnance from the Committee. Many attacks had been made upon the Ordnance department since last year; and, besides, the proposed investigation involved science and details that could not be properly judged of by those who had no experience of them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the Committee would proceed with its inquiry into the Army, he could ascertain whether it would be desirable to add to it some Gentleman connected with the Ordnance before the inquiry into that branch of the public service was commenced.
The appointment of the Committee was then agreed to.
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
CONFERENCE. Ingrossing and Inrolment of Bills.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the City of Glasgow, that no Tax may be imposed on British Seamen, for the Relief of Merchant Seamen.—From Nenagh, for an Alteration of the Present System of the Poor Law (Ireland).—From Manchester, for the Abolition of the national Custom of Public Prize-fighting.

INGROSSING, &c., OF BILLS.
A Conference was had with the Commons;—Report made—
"That the Commons had delivered a Paper, stating that they had taken into Consideration the Resolutions communicated to them by this House at the last Conference; and—
"That they propose to amend the First Resolution, by leaving out from the Words '(subject to the Regulation next herein-after mentioned):'
"That they propose to amend the Second Resolution, by leaving out from the Word 'That' to the Words it shall,' and inserting the Words 'when such Bill shall have passed both Houses of Parliament:'
"That they propose to amend the Third Resolution, by leaving out the Words 'proper Officers of each House,' and inserting the Words 'Clerk of the Parliaments, or other proper Officer of the House of Lords:' And also,
"That they agree to the other Resolutions, without Amendment."
Cornmons' Amendments considered and agreed to.

NORTH WALES RAILWAY.
LORD MONTEAGLE, in calling the attention of the House to this subject, said, that he had no personal interest whatever in the matter. The noble Lord then recapitulated the facts as to the orders which were made by the House last Session for the production of the accounts of the company, and the disobedience to those orders which had been shown by the officers of the company. He complained also that the directors of the company had improperly lent a portion of the funds of the North Wales Railway to the Richmond Railway Company. The pretext that the accounts of the company could not be rendered because the company was involved in a Chancery suit, ought not to be received by their Lordships as a sufficient reason. If the principle were admitted that railway companies might refuse to render an account upon the ground of proceedings in Chancery, their Lordships might depend upon it, that whenever a case occurred which they desired to keep from the knowledge of Parliament, a friendly suit in that court would be instituted for the sole purpose of evading inquiry into their affairs. Another motive stated by this company for not furnishing the documents required by the House was, that not being able to dissolve legally, they had been obliged to divide

561
the money among the proprietors. The justification, therefore, for not obeying their Lordships' orders was actually that they had violated the law. Their own wrong-doing was pleaded as an excuse for disobeying that House. Under the circumstances, he was desirous of urging upon the House to support its own authority. Let their Lordships remember that railway companies were created by Act of Parliament, that Parliament had given them enormous powers, and that if Parliament did not exercise some controlling power over their proceedings, the safety of public life and public property would be endangered. In pressing this matter on their Lordships' consideration, he begged it might be expressly understood that he had no individual object in view, his only desire being to bring under the consideration of Parliament the present state of the law with relation to the security of railway property and the public interest therein. He had introduced a Bill in the course of the last Session, having reference to the auditing of the accounts of railway companies, which had received the entire sanction of their Lordships. The Bill, however, had failed in another place; and he would leave it to their Lordships and to the country to say whether the circumstances of the last year had not afforded fair ground for believing that the Bill would have boon attended with satisfactory results. In the course of last year some of the largest railway companies were obliged to publish balance sheets of their accounts, in order to set their affairs right with the public; but were not those statements merely certificates of character drawn up by their own officers? How much better would it not have been, and how much more satisfactory, to have had those accounts publicly audited. This appropriation of money, originally subscribed to make a railway in North Wales, to the costruction of a railway in Surrey, showed the necessity of providing a remedy to meet the abuses which had crept into the present law. The question now at issue resolved itself into two—namely, whether a contempt of that House had been committed; and second, the unsatisfactory state of the present law. He thought he had made out a case, with relation to these accounts, to show that there were abuses under the existing state of the law. This being admitted, it behoved their Lordships to see how far the law required to be altered, to prevent, as in the present case,
562
fraudulent concealment of facts and contempt of their Lordships' House. Though he was far from having abandoned the question of contempt, he should at present take no steps with regard to the individuals who had been in attendance at the bar (Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Marriner), but propose a Committee to consider how far it was expedient to provide by law for a better audit of railway accounts. To that Committee he should propose to refer the accounts of the North Wales Railway Company, as part of their duties, with instructions to report thereon; and he should take no steps, as affecting the individuals in question, until the House saw, by the report, the exact state in which the accounts were found.
LORD BROUGHAMhad a strong opinion with respect to the question of contempt now involved; however, he thought it would be better first to get the accounts, and after the inquiry, which he presumed would not be long, they could enter on the question of privilege. While he was on his legs he would trespass on their Lordships' attention for a few moments while he alluded to a subject, connected with the safety of the public, which had been brought under the notice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that day. The case was one in which many of the most eminent engineers were examined touching the merits of a newly patented axletree for railway carriages. The axle was called Hardy's Patent Axle; and the members of the Council, under whose notice it had been brought, were of opinion, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the success of the improvement which it effected over the common or ordinary axle. The axle had been subjected to a weight of 150 tons; and although the carriage to which it was attached was propelled at the rate of sixty miles per hour, the axle, so far from breaking suddenly, as ordinary axles did, bent into a circular shape, without a single fracture affecting the mass. Mr. Stephenson, who was examined upon the subject, approved of it highly, and stated, that out of fifty common axles subject to the same power only two were unbroken. Moreover, the patent axle could be supplied 30 per cent cheaper than the common description, which proved its superiority in another respect. The experiments which had been made were of so satisfactory a character, and the improvement so well calculated to promote the public safety, that he considered himself

563
justified in bringing the subject under their Lordships' consideration.
The MAEQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to express his approval of the course proposed by Lord Monteagle.
The EARL of MINTOobserved, that, with reference to the North Wales Railway Company, there had been a clear case established against them of contempt of their Lordships' House; and, under those circumstances, he thought it would be well, in the first place, to deal with the party guilty.
Order for the attendance of William Chadwick and John Marriner at the bar of the House this day discharged:—Ordered, that the said William Chadwick and John Marriner attend at the bar of this House en Thursday next, at Five o'clock.
House adjourned until To-morrow.