Sitting of 6 March 1849

MINUTES,
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Petty Sessions; Distraining for Rates.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hume, from the Town of Ross, in the County of Hereford, for Referring War Disputes to Arbitration.—From the South Devon Railway Company, respecting Taxation on Railways,—By Mr. Rumbold, from the Town of Great Yarmouth, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Gas Meters.—By Mr. Saunders Davies, for Including South Wales in the High ways Bills.—By Mr. Gumming Bruce, from Merchants, and Others, of the port of Hopeman (Scotland), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, against the Navigation Bill By Mr. Shafto Adair, from the Guardians of the Ballymena Union, in the County of Antrim, against the Proposed Rate in Aid (Ireland).—From the Board of Guardians of the Cardiff Union, against the Renewal of the Poor Law Union Charges Act—From the Guardians of the Darlington Union, in the Counties of Durham and York, for an Alteration of the Public Roads Bill.—By Mr. Cumming Bruce, from the Presbytery of Nairn, for an Alteration of the Law for Registering Births, & c. (Scotland).—By Mr. Cobden, from Hudders-field, and its Vicinity, for Referring War Disputes to Arbitration.

THE CONVICT MITCHEL.
MR. ROBINSONsaid, that in putting the question of which he had given notice to the First Lord of the Admiralty, his object was to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the rumour that had been extensively circulated, that Mitchel, while on board the Scourge, on his "way to Bermuda, was allowed to mess with the officers of that vessel; and, in other respects, placed on a footing in reference to those officers, which, he being at the time a convict in course of undergoing his sentence, was, if true, highly derogatory to them as officers bearing Her Majesty's commission. The question he wished to ask was, whether any report had been made to the Admiralty by Commander Wingrove, of Her Majesty's sloop Scourge, respecting the treatment of the convict Mitchel on his passage to Bermuda?
SIR F. BARINGfelt obliged to his hon. Friend for the opportunity he had thus afforded him of giving some explanation upon the subject of the rumours to which he had alluded. From a report which he had just received, it appeared that it was quite correct that Mitchel, while on his passage to Bermuda on board the Scourge, dined at the captain's table; but it was not correct that he messed with the officers of the ship. Commander Wingrove, in his report stated, that he gave the order for Mitchel to dine in his (the commander's) cabin, in order that he should be separated from the other officers, who, he thought, ought not to be brought into contact with him. This arrangement was made for the purpose of safe conduct, and also, in some respects, from motives of humanity in reference to the convict's state of health. The Admiral on the station, Lord Dundonald, had made inquiry into the matter,
252
and reported that he was quite satisfied that all that was done was with the view of the safe conduct of the prisoner, and to separate him from the officers of the ship, and not with the view imputed in the rumours which had gone forth.
MR. ROBINSONhad understood, that the order given by the Admiralty to the commander of the Scourge was, to confine Mitchel in a separate cabin, wherein he was to take his meals, and to place a sentry over him. He was sorry to say, that the answer he had just received, showed that that order had been deviated from; and he wished now to be informed whether any notice had been taken of that which certainly appeared to him a direct disobedience of orders on the part of Commander Wingrove, by the Admiralty, or the Admiral of the station.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, the order given to Commander Wingrove was to take every precaution for the safe custody of Mitchel; and, having consideration to the state of his health, to treat him in all respects as a convict. It appeared, the accommodasion the ship afforded did not allow of his having a separate cabin to take his meals in; and the captain, under those circumstances, thought it right to place him where he would be under his own eye, and at the same time separated from the other officers of the ship, with whom he never messed.

THE WAR IN THE PUNJAUB.
LORD J. RUSSELLrose, and spoke as follows; Sir, the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose asked me a question yesterday relating to the affairs of India. I then stated, that Her Majesty's Ministers had tendered certain advice to Her Majesty on that subject; but that until I had received a reply from Her Majesty, I could not answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. I have now to state, that the advice which was by us humbly tendered to Her Majesty was, that Sir Charles James Napier should be appointed Commander-in-Chief of the troops in India. Sir, Her Majesty was pleased most graciously and fully to approve of that appointment; and both the Duke of Wellington, the Commander-in-Chief, and I, have seen Sir Charles James Napier to-day; and I have the satisfaction to state that he is ready to obey Her Majesty's wishes, and to proceed to India in the capacity to which Her Majesty has appointed him. The Court of Directors have not yet met,

253
but I believe that they will meet to-morrow; and, from what I know of their patriotism, I fully expect that they will receive with joy and satisfaction the appointment which Her Majesty has been pleased to make.

MR. BERWICK—THE OFFENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
SIR H. W. BARRON, in referring to this matter, observed that the name of Mr. Berwick had been mentioned in connexion with a Bill which he had introduced last Wednesday. Now, that gentleman felt and thought that the statement which he (Sir H. W. Barron) had made, was, so far as it concerned him, not literally correct. He wished, therefore, to give to the House, in Mr. Berwick's own words, his own version of the whole transaction. Here was his own statement; and certainly in some respects, and at first sight, it was not very flattering to him (Sir H. W. Barron). Still, however, he felt that, as a man of honour and a gentleman, he was bound to give Mr. Berwick's own version of the affair. That was the fair and honourable thing to do. The hon. Baronet then read extracts from the letter, to the following effect:—
"Having seen my name mentioned in connexion with a Bill brought forward by Sir H. W. Barron in the House of Commons, and which it was said that I had suggested and drawn up—I beg to say that such statements were entirely erroneous. I was never consulted by Sir H. W. Barron, nor had I any communication with him on the subject, nor did I suggest and draw up such a Bill—much less hand it to him."
He (Sir H. W. Barron) had to state in reply to this—that every word of it was literally true; and he thought that hon. Members would see that what Mr. Berwick stated was perfectly consistent with his statement in the House. The medium of communication between him and Mr. Berwick was a professional gentleman of twenty-five years' standing as a solicitor—a gentleman well known both in Dublin and the south of Ireland. Therefore he had no personal communication with Mr. Berwick—nothing could be more true than that he had not. He now came to the next point. Mr. Berwick went on to say:—
"A friend of Sir H. W. Barron, with whom I am well acquainted, sent me a most voluminous Bill on the subject—a Bill which appeared to me to be in a very unfinished state. He told me that he wished me as a friend to look over the Bill, as Sir H. W. Barron was to bring the subject forward in the House. I read it through, and, having seen the same gentleman by accident some time
254
afterwards, I told him I thought the measure very objectionable, and in some respects ridiculous."
[Loud laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed a little too soon. It was not his (Sir H. W. Barron's) Bill. He had never road a word of it. Mr. Berwick continued—
"I thought that some of the matters referred to might be made the subject of a new legislative enactment, which would, in all likelihood, be impeded by the introduction of such a Bill as his. On being pressed by him to look over the document again, which he assured me was copied verbatim from the Dublin Police Act, I did road it over, merely to oblige him, but not professionally, nor in the slightest degree undertaking any responsibility, or giving any encouragement thereto."
The Bill had, however, lain in Mr. Berwick's hands for seven or eight weeks, and it was evident that he had directed his attention to it. Let the House remark the following passage in the letter:—
"I drew my pen through at least one half of the penal clauses, and made some trifling alterations in some others, but I did not feel myself called upon, nor, indeed, had I the time or inclination, to model or arrange anew the part which remained, the Bill being plainly in an unfinished state, and evidently requiring further consideration. I did, however, draw one clause, which I thought, and still think, most valuable and most merciful to the poor, giving to magistrates summary jurisdiction in certain cases of larceny; and I either drew or corrected a clause relative to cases of rescue, of which I also approved, and for both of which alone I feel myself responsible. But I never dreamt of being held responsible for the general clauses of a Bill of which, on the whole, I disapproved—which I never believed would be introduced into Parliament, if introduced at all, without being remodelled and submitted to the opinion of counsel; and, certainly, if Sir H. W. Barron had done me the honour of consulting me, I should have given him my opinion of his Bill as freely as I gave it to his friend."
He had had no opportunity of consulting with Mr. Berwick upon the Bill, but he bad certainly understood that Mr. Berwick had authorised the Bill, and that gentleman's statement went to boar out his opinion that the Bill bad been revised and corrected by him. [Cries of "Question!"]
MR. SPEAKERhere interposed, and said, that the hon. Baronet had stated quite enough to explain any personal matter connected with the affair. The hon. Baronet must not comment upon the subject.
SIR H. W. BARRONsaid that he only wished to justify himself in connexion with the Bill.
MR. J. O'CONNELLtrusted that the House would understand that Mr. Berwick disclaimed having had that share in the

255
preparation of the Bill which had been imputed to him.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that in justice to those who had drawn up the Dublin Police Act, he thought it right to state that upon comparison a great discrepancy would be found between the provisions of this Hill and those of the Dublin Police Act. He was also happy to say he had received a communication from the Lord Lieutenant, in which he requested that his testimony might be borne as to Mr. Berwick's great professional talents.
VISCOUNT BERNARDwas also happy to bear testimony to Mr. Berwick's abilities.
SIR H. W. BARRONhad sat upon several juries with Mr. Berwick, and was also in a position to bear testimony to the legal abilities displayed by Mr. Berwick.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEwas sure that his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Waterford had had no personal object to gain in the introduction of this Bill. The hon. Member had stated to him that he intended by his Bill the more speedy detection and punishment of offences, and he (Sir W. Somerville) had stated that he thought that to be a very desirable object. He was glad also to be able to speak to the abilities of Mr. Berwick.
Subject dropped.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND) ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The House then resolved itself into Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
MR. GROGANsaid, that the proposition of the Government was a novel one, because it required that one part of Ireland should be taxed for the support of another part. He thought that the Government were not justified in throwing this burden upon the more fortunate districts without ascertaining whether or not the distressed districts were able to bear the imposition of the tax. They had made out no case for the proposed measure, except that which rested on the tyrant's plea, necessity, which would justify this as well as any other robbery. He also charged the Government with remissness, in not specifying what they thought would be the produce of the rate, and with not coming forward with any statement as to whether this rate would be continued or not. If the request put forward two years ago by the representatives of Ireland, that the English poor-law should be extended to Ireland in all its integrity, had been granted, this rate in and would not have
256
met with so much opposition. The principle of that law, however, was not extended to Ireland in all its integrity. A comparison of the operation of the poor-law in Ireland and England would show that discrepancies existed sufficiently great to account for the discontent which now prevailed in Ireland against tills proposed rate in and. At all events, if the Government resolved to press an English poor-law upon Ireland, lot it really he an English poor-law, whereas the present Irish poor-law differed from the English law in many important particulars; for instance—as to the relative proportions of population and area in the subdivisions of the unions—"parishes" as they were called in England, or "electoral divisions" in Ireland. Why did they not remodel the system of electoral division, and adapt the law to the means of the people? Assimilate the law of Ireland with the law of England, and then there might be a chance of a poor-law succeeding. Give them the English poor-law in its entirety, and he for one was quite prepared to adopt its responsibilities. The arguments, if such they could be called, in favour of this measure, were really scarcely deserving of an answer. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had actually adverted to the exemption of Ireland from the income tax, as if he had not himself proposed it, and upon grounds, it was to be presumed, perfectly proper and adequate. The mention of the income tax reminded him that the rate in and would resemble it no doubt in one respect, namely, in its duration—a duration indefinite, and though not at first limited to a particular period, likely to be perpetually prolonged, and really permanent. Then, as to the argument founded upon the exemption of Ireland from the brick and soap duties, it really was ridiculous; for did not the exemption apply equally to every portion of Ireland? How, therefore, could it be any reason for applying this imposition only to one district? Equally inapplicable was the solitary "precedent" cited in support of the measure—a precedent, indeed, not only inapplicable, but actually telling against the measure in favour of which it was cited. He referred to the Act of the 23rd George III., providing for a special rate for the relief of local distress in Scotland. Let it be observed, the Act alluded to empowered the levying of the rate only in the districts distressed; in no other part of the country. He must remark that if, as the Government

257
professed, the rate were to be levied only for two years, it was impossible, even if it produced the estimated amount of 200,000 l. per annum, that it should realise the sum requisite to relieve the distressed unions from their embarrassments, viz., 600,000 l. But, in truth, nothing like 200,000 l per annum would be realised by the rate. Indeed, it was apparent that neither argument nor estimate could be adduced in support of the measure, and that all the Government had thought of was this, and no more, that they could get no more money from Parliament, and must, therefore, raise it elsewhere. It was impossible to proceed with such a wretched system of expedients, providing nothing for the permanent improvement of the country. Again, it was quite clear that this rate in and could not be available for immediate relief to those distressed unions—the immediate relief would have to be advanced from the Imperial Exchequer. And what security would the people of England have for the repayment of the money? If they were to judge by the unpopularity of this measure, and the manner in which it was received in Ireland, they would have to wait a pretty long time before it would be repaid by means of the rate in and. There had been the grossest mismanagement and wasteful extravagance in past times in many of those distressed unions, for which the poor-law authorities must be held responsible; and had there been a better system of control and management adopted, very different results would have arisen. The Commissioners themselves were at last becoming conscious of this, and instances of reform and economy had taken place under an improved system of inspection. A Mr. D'Arcy had been appointed by the Commissioners to superintend the affairs of the union of Ballyshannon, and when that gentleman went there he found the union reduced to a state of insolvency through mismanagement. Its debt was 1,200 l, the furniture of the house was under an execution, and the local bank had refused to make any advances. By his judicious and intelligent management, however, Mr. D'Arcy has restored the solvency of the union, reduced the weekly cost of the paupers from 1s. 10 d. to 10½d., and lowered the amount of the rates. This was an illustration of the advantage of appointing a sensible man on the board of guardians, instead of superseding the legitimate guardians by paid officials. The poor-law in Ireland had not had fair play; those officers
258
who had been appointed to carry it into operation, had not done their duty; and if the Commissioners had only appointed competent officers, such as Mr. D'Arcy, the substance of the ratepayers would never have been wasted in the manner it had, and the enormous number of the recipients of relief would have been greatly kept under. Mr. D'Arcy was afterwards removed to another insolvent union, which was considered a still more hopeless case than the former one; and the House might judge of the result when he compared the state of the union in the month of January, 1848, the year before Mr. D'Arcy was sent down, with its condition during the corresponding period of 1849, when Mr. D'Arcy was in the management. In January, 1849, the indoor paupers amounted to 11,478—and the outdoor to 13,625, making a total of nearly 25,000 receiving relief; and the expense for the month was only 1,117 l.; whereas in the same month of the year preceding, the indoor inmates were 5,442 (there being no return of the number receiving outdoor relief), and the expenditure, although the relief was enormously augmented in the corresponding month of the following year, was beyond the expenditure of 1849, being no loss than 1,820 l. for one month alone. This would give an idea of what the mismanagement in these unions must have been, and account for a great deal of the distress that had occurred; and so long as the Government could make up the deficiencies arising from its own misconduct, by putting its hands into the pockets of the people of Ulster to better the position of the west and south, so long would no better system for the collection or administration of the funds under the poor-law be introduced. The principle of a maximum rate for Ireland was of the highest importance, because the fear of unlimited rates threw the land out of cultivation, the landlord or the occupier who had any money to expend thinking it better to keep it in his own pocket than allow it to be swallowed up by the rates. He should be happy to see such a plantation introduced into Connaught as the right hon. Member for Tamworth had recommended last night; but at the same time he must say that the project was fraught with great danger of the ruin of the present proprietary. Again, the object of those who might wish to carry out a plantation similar to that in Ulster in the province of Connaught, would be defeated by

259
the imposition of these rates in and, because nobody would think of buying the land, however good the bargain might appear to be, when be remembered that be might, at any future time, be subjected to the same kind of burden as they were now about to impose upon the prudent and active landowners of Ulster to support the improvidence and negligence of proprietors in the west and the south. There was another element in the success of the Ulster plantation, which he would not say was its sole cause, but it was a very great one, and that was the religious element—and whoever would wish to see that plantation similarly thriving would do well to follow the example of Ulster in that respect. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, as a reason why the people of Ulster should submit to this sixpenny rate, had urged that 1,200,000 l. had been advanced from the Consolidated Fund for the erection of workhouses in Ireland. Why, it had been regularly settled at the time the advances were made, that the money should be repaid by instalments. Many places bad regularly and punctually fulfilled their engagements; and were those parties who had paid their instalments of the advance, to be compelled to pay this rate in and because other districts bad not repaid their instalments? Would there be any justice in that? Then, again, those districts that had not repaid their share of the advance, were either unable to do so, or if they were all able to pay, his answer was, "Enforce the payment of the money, and don't make its non-payment a pretext for imposing this rate in and, which, besides, would fall as heavily upon those who bad honourably paid their debts, as it would upon those who either would not or could not pay. "And as for those unions that could not pay this lawful debt by reason of their straitened circumstances, it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that they could bear this additional burden of a sixpenny rate. Allusion had been made to the advances given for the erection of the poor-houses in Ireland. Now with regard to these advances, it had been originally settled that the money should be repaid by instalments; now if it had not been so repaid by some places, it was the result of inability, and in others the fault lay in the negligence of those who ought to collect it. His hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire had alluded to the subject of an enlargement of the area of taxation. The noble Lord had also touched on the
260
same subject, but in a most superficial manner. They would not object to au arrangement of area on the principle of a certain amount of rental in particular localities; but adopting a system of town-land valuation was unjust, because of the unequal size of those different townlands in Ireland. He believed that no plan that could possibly be adopted would so effectually call out the resources of Ireland as a limitation of the area of taxation, for it would most strongly appeal to that feeling of self-interest which was the predominant principle in man's nature. He felt persuaded that without that plan the state of that country could never be better than it was at present. The question of emigration had also been referred to; and partial emigration very possibly was necessary to put the machine in working order, but he did not believe that that emigration should be very extensive. Some partial emigration might be necessary, but only from those districts where distress prevailed. In other parts of Ireland encouragement should be given to agriculture, and measures adopted for the development of the resources of the country; and the labouring population in those ports of the country would, he thought, prove to be under, rather than over, the necessary supply. It was for the House to consider whether, taking things as they stood, it should not pause before it imposed by its vote such a tax as that proposed on the reluctant people of Ireland. The city of Dublin, for instance, had no more connexion with Galway and Mayo, and those other distressed districts, than with any distress that might exist in France; but though the people of Dublin bad neither any connexion with those places, or any control in the management of property in the west of Ireland, they were called upon to contribute to this rate in and to the extent of 16,000 l. or 17,000 l. There was another reason for objection to the proposition, and it was this: that they proposed to charge the north and east of Ireland with this rate in and, though they had not proved to the House that they had exhausted all the resources of the west. He would remind the House that at this very time, when they were called upon to agree to this proposition, it appeared from the papers that in the archdiocese of Tuam, the day was fixed for a general contribution to be made in and of the papal sovereign. The same announcement was made with regard to the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cashel;

261
and when those people were able to contribute to a fund in and of a foreign prince, it was no reason why persons in another part of Ireland were to contribute to a fund for their and. He had heard an able and talented divine, who participated in the political sentiments of the noble Lord opposite, and whoso opinion, therefore, might have greater weight with Her Majesty's Government, say that the proposition to maintain the ablebodied poor was like feeding a starving dog with a portion of his own tail. They were all distressed in Ireland, and were with difficulty able to maintain their position for the last three years.
MR. CALLAGHANsaid, he readily acquitted the Government of the charge which some hon. Members had brought against them, of an intention to ruin the proprietorial class. He had listened with great attention to the statement of the noble Premier, but it had failed to convince him that the proposed rate in and was the proper method of alleviating the distress. He should have been ready to consent to a general rate on all the property in the kingdom for that purpose. When the union workhouse at Cork was provided, it was thought sufficient to make accommodation for 2,000 paupers; but there was now a demand for accommodation for 7,000; a striking proof that the administration of the poor-law was not placed on a proper footing. From the passing of the Irish poor-law to the present moment, the greatest dissatisfaction had existed. He had done his utmost to allay this discontent, and to ensure the proper administration of the law. He had counselled those who were dissatisfied to lay their grievances plainly in petitions before the House, and not to rely on the recommendations of any Parliamentary Committee, which might sit the whole Session without leading to any good result. In imposing this rate in aid, he thought the annuitants were a class who might very properly have boon called on to contribute: he hoped this point would not escape the attention of the Committee now sitting. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had admitted that this was a burden which might very properly be borne by the empire at large, provided all classes were equally subjected to taxation. It was true Ireland was exempt from the income and assessed taxes; but did any one believe that Ministers would not have imposed these taxes upon Ireland, had there been any chance of their being
262
collected? This being so, the exemption ought not now to be made a pretext for imposing a peculiar burden on the people of Ireland. Attacks were constantly made, both in that House and by the press, against the landlords of Ireland; but many false charges were brought against them. It was said they were unwilling to employ or support the poor on their estates. This was not so. Nearly all the landlords in the south of Ireland, in his neighbourhood, had granted leases for three lives of their lands; consequently it was not they, but the farmers, who should be looked to to employ the labourers. It was not his duty to propose any substitute for the rate in aid; but it was the bounden duty of the Government to take care that the people should not starve. During the period that he had a seat in the House, he remarked that every Government was willing enough to screw up the taxation of Ireland to the level of England. It was not from any love of Ireland that they did not so tax her. But now it seemed they were to be taxed, when the country was in a state of wretchedness that it never was in before. He could not help feeling that a great deal of the misery and destitution of Ireland was to be attributed to the Government of this country. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had quoted a song written in the period of 1798. He would now quote from another composed in the year 1782, which was not inappropriate to the condition of Ireland:—
"Fruitful our soil, where honest men starve,
Empty the mart and shipless the bay;
Out of our wants the oligarchs carve,
Foreigners fatten on our decay.
Disunited,
Therefore blighted,
Ruined and rent by Englishmen's sway."
He did not, however, join in the sentiment expressed in the last line. There was a very general feeling that Ireland was overborne and ruined by this country, and therefore it was the more necessary that this country should be cautious how it increased that feeling.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he felt a difficulty as to the course which he ought to pursue on the present occasion. He did not altogether approve the wording of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford; but, having to choose between it and the proposition of the Government, he felt that he must support that Amendment; not, however, on the ground put forward by Gentlemen from the north of Ireland, that it would be

263
unjust to call on the other parts of Ireland to support the more distressed districts, but on the principle that it was fairer that any contributions in aid should be levied on property in general, rather than on that class of property which was now peculiarly' subject to the poor-rate. He had rather that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford had fixed on a lower figure than 150 l. a year for assessment, and that he had proposed to put the tax on fixed incomes rather than on trades and professions. With regard to the general rating for the poor, he felt quite sure that fixed property—real property in land—was the only feasible source of taxation, He was opposed to a general rating on account of the poor, because he was sure the funds would not be properly administered by local boards. The administration of the money by local boards would be abused unless controlled by a sense of local and fiscal responsibility. The noble Lord at the head of the Government made a distinction between property charged with mortgages and annuities, and property liable to family incumbrances. He confessed he could see no difference between them, although there was a great difference as to the power which Parliament possessed over them. Whether the one was to be made liable to the tax, and the other to escape, was therefore more a question of power than of right. He would vote for the Amendment, in preference to the proposition of the Government; but, supposing the Amendment to be lost, then came the question of the Government by itself. Was he, because he could not get that species of contributions in aid which was most just, to reject that which was offered? Having considered the question free from party bias, be felt bound to take the alternative, and to support the proposition of the Government, liable though it was to considerable exception. The Members of the north of Ireland, if consistent in resisting the proposition, were too late by two years, because they made no objection in 1847, when contributions were raised from imperial sources, to which they, of course, contributed. If the late Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) were now in Parliament, he would have hailed the Members from Ulster and Leinster as converts to his doctrine, which was, that one part of the empire should not support the poverty of the other. Hon. Gentlemen said, they would support this rate in aid, if the present poor-law were amended, and the area of taxation settled. These could
264
hardly be considered objections, because, whether the poor-law was amended or not, the destitution would go on; no arrangement of the area of taxation would cure the existing evils in a moment. Hon. Gentlemen wished to have the area of taxation diminished, and said they would support their own poor. Who were their own poor? How could any one say you are one of my poor? Heaven save them, at least, from a property in poverty! The diminution of the area of taxation, and the support of one's own poor, were spoken of as if the things were identical. But they were perfectly different. Hon. Gentlemen said, they would support their own poor, and at the same time they invoked the English system. But it was a part of the English system that one man was sometimes called to pay for the support of the poor from his neighbour's property. He admitted that the area was more reasonable in England, and that the electoral divisions in Ireland were much too large. The only objection to the diminution of their size was one which he had not heard yet, namely, how they could combine representation with the area. If one member of the board of guardians was to represent two or more rated districts, he would be placed in a most unenviable position, and one of the annoyances which he believed few would like to be subject to. With regard to the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, it was somewhat surprising to sec so cautious a Member as he was, depart from his usual reserve, and give his opinion unasked on so important a subject as the present condition of Ireland, He did not join with those who thought that the right hon. Baronet had any sinister motives in volunteering his suggestions. He was sorry the hon. Member for Cork had referred to the plantation of Ulster in the terms he did, because, whatever motives characterised that proceeding, it was a benefit to Ireland, as was the Cromwellian settlement, accompanied though it was with many things which could not be justified. He looked upon it as a source of great benefit. He did not look to the motives of the settlement. But before that period they heard nothing of Irish trade, or any attempts to improve agriculture. [Mr. FREXCH: Yes, yes!] They never saw before that period what they saw twenty years afterwards—the grazing interest of Ireland rising to such prosperity as to excite a cry in this country for the exclusion of Irish cattle

265
from English ports; and in ton years after wards that beheld the manufacturing interests of this country demanding the suppression of the Irish woollen trade. These were unpleasant retrospects; but he did not think it could be doubted that the facts to which he alluded, in whatever motives they originated, and attended, as they always were, with cruelty to the natives, resulted in improvements, in spite of the atrocities which attended them. Great advantage would be derived from the infusion of fresh capital and blood into the country. He was not insensible to the value of a careful and intelligent expenditure of public money in Ireland; but he felt that one pound spent by a capitalist for his own benefit would be more valuable than two pounds of the public money, and tenfold more valuable than the same amount spent in eleemosynary aid. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth deserved the thanks of Ireland for his bold suggestion; and he hoped it would be taken up by the public mind of his country in the same spirit in which he sincerely believed it was proposed. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman ever made a more useful suggestion, or one that was more likely to result in benefit to the country. He thought the reference that had been made to religious exclusion was quite unnecessary at the time; but the observations of the hon. Member for Dublin proved that it was by no moans unnecessary, for it appeared there were persons still walking on two legs, and with eyes open, who conceived that in the nineteenth century it would be possible to introduce either English or Scotch capital into the country, to be checked and embarrassed in all its operations by the perpetuation of religious distinctions. He did not think that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet was made with a view to party triumph, or as a bid for power; but from the far higher object of doing a benefit to his fellow-countrymen and fellow-subjects; and if carried out by Government in the same spirit in which it was proposed, it would entitle him indeed to be considered a real benefactor to Ireland.
CAPTION JONESwas one of those who were always desirous of supporting the Irish poor-law. At the same time he thought the bounden duty of the Government in the first instance was, to compel those parties who had not paid their rates, but who were able to do so, to contribute
266
to the relief of the poor. That was the only way in which the law could be properly and fairly carried out. It appeared to him that the proposition of the Government was altogether insufficient. It was expected that the rate in aid would produce 250,000 l. His belief was (and he had some knowledge of Ireland), that they could not collect it. The noble Premier had suggested that in Ireland no assessed taxes were paid; but the noble Lord well knew that if assessed taxes were levied in Ireland, the expense of collection would far exceed any amount which could be realised. Again, the noble Lord said, that as the landlords in Ireland had not to pay any income tax, they ought not to object to the sixpenny rate. But upon whom would such a tax fall? Why, upon those who under no circumstances whatever could pay an income tax. He believed his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had heard that many magistrates had declared they would throw up their commissions. And why had such a determination been expressed? Because many of them felt that if the payment of this rate was enforced, they would not be made the responsible parties for enforcing it, and the consequences that must necessarily follow. Among other remedies which had been suggested for the amelioration of the present distressed state of Ireland, there was that of the cultivation of waste lands; but he would warn the Government how they interfered on that subject. With reference to this sixpenny rate, if an attempt was made to collect it, such a proceeding would endanger the whole system of the poor-law. was it to be levied as a distinct rate? Would collectors be sent round to collect it as a distinct rate? But why were they called upon to pay this sixpenny rate? He would ask, had those districts endeavoured to support themselves and their poor? He wanted to know whether their lands were in cultivation? He knew that in the north of Ireland they cultivated, and that the people subsisted on a more expensive food than in the south. The rates there, it was true, were large enough.; but they were quite within the reach of those who had to pay them; and the last time that he heard of the union workhouse in his part of the country, it was not full, yet they had suffered as much in respect to the failure of the potato crop as any other part of Ireland. In the north they had a worse climate and soil than in other parts, and yet

267
they managed to support their poor. His opinion was, that if the people of Ireland had cultivated their lands instead of throwing them out of cultivation, they could have supported their poor, and they ought to have done it. The land of Ireland, if cultivated, was more than sufficient to support the people. Thou as to the Poor Law Commission, he was sorry to say there had been proceedings, as he believed, directly instigated by the Poor Law Commissioners in certain cases. He alluded to those of the appeals made to the quarter-sessions by the Earl of Lucan, the Marquess of Sligo, and the Marquess of Westmeath—all in the county of Cavan. Those appeals had been made, and successfully made, because the parties had been charged rates with which they had not been charged before; and it seemed to him that proper information was not given to the ratepayers by those who collected them. The collectors gave pieces of paper into the hands of the ratepayers, and gave no information when they were asked the meaning of an assessment under certain numbers. The only answer was, you are charged for Nos. 2 or 5, 7 or 8. The noble Lords he had referred to obtained verdicts, and thus a great expense was thrown on the union; and it turned out that demands had been made out which ought never to have boon paid. It seemed to him that every possible technical objection was thrown in the way of those who appealed, at the suggestion of the Poor Law Commissioners. He was satisfied that if this rate were collected, it could not be productive until after the next harvest. With regard to the income tax, he had hoard statements made in that House in which he could not agree. If it was thought that Ireland did not boar her fair share of taxation, let her do so, and let the proceeds go in to the national Exchequer. It had been complained that money which had been advanced to relieve Ireland, had not been repaid; and to this charge he was sorry to say he must plead guilty. He regretted that such should be the case; but he would tell the House this, that if they suffered the time to pass when money ought to be paid in Ireland, they never would get it. To the present proposition of the Government, he felt himself bound in duty to offer a strenuous opposition.
MR. F. FRENCHthought that the proposed rate was objectionable in principle and insufficient in amount, and that it would be attended with consequences which
268
would be most disastrous, not only to Ireland, but eventually to this country. If the House could be prevailed upon to deal with Ireland in the same spirit and in the same manner in which they had dealt with the agricultural and commercial interests of England, or even in the same spirit as that in which the Governments of Holland and Prussia had dealt with their respective subjects, Ireland would not require any such expedient as a rate in aid. The great want of Ireland was want of employment. That supplied, she possessed within herself those elements of prosperity which would be sure to conduct her to comfort and affluence. Ireland was the great difficulty of England, and the stumbling-block of successive Ministries, because the fatal policy had been continually resorted to of prescribing political stimulants as a remedy for social evils. He admonished the present Ministry to take warning by the fate of their predecessors, and at once to introduce measures to develop the resources of Ireland, and give an impetus to the industry of her people. There never was a more favourable period for introducing such measures than the present, for agitation and rebellion were at an end, and there was complete security for life and property all over the island. Registration Bills, Grand Jury Bills, and modifications of the poor-law, would be of little avail. Remedial measures of a comprehensive character ought to be introduced, and the industry of the people should be zealously stimulated. The grant of 50,000 l and the sixpenny rate in aid, which, at the risk of a rebellion in Ulster, might possibly produce 200,000 l., would do no more than keep the people alive for nine or ten weeks longer. As a matter of relief it was valueless—as a precedent it was dangerous in the extreme. The Government, in adopting such an expedient, were pursuing a course similar to that of the old woman who, wanting to cook a hen, and having been given a faggot wherewith to make a fire, burnt one stick after another, and when the last was gone, found her hen as raw as ever; and such would be the case in Ireland when grant and rate in aid shall be expended. Every one admitted that the want of capital was the chief evil under which Ireland laboured; that want of capital was not to be attributed to any want of industry on the part of the people; it was much more to be attributed to the acts of legislation which passed that and the other House of Parliament. The chief trade of Ireland

269
once consisted in the export of cattle; of that she had been deprived by the unjust laws of England. In the middle of the last century Ireland had no debt, and it was nothing but the ill-considered legislation of this country which imposed upon her the burden of pecuniary obligations. At the revolution of 1688 Ireland had a surplus of income over expenditure of 70,800 l. a year, which afterwards increased to half a million a year; the balance of trade was between 600,000 l. and 700,000 l. a year in her favour. In complaining of the injurious effects of English legislation, he was not stating any views of his own, but was proceeding on the authority of Young, and many earlier writers, as well as on that of Pitt, Grenville, and Huskisson. In 1776, Arthur Young writes—
"British legislation on all occasions controlled Irish commerce with a very high hand, universally on the principle of monoply, as if the poverty of Ireland were her wealth."
In 1785, Mr. Pitt declared the system had been to debar Ireland from the use of her own resources, and make her subservient to the interests and opulence of the English people—to suspend in that country the industry and enterprise of man. Mr. Grenville said, that if Ireland did not give her due proportion of assistance to England, it was on account of a barbarous and absurd policy, which debarred her from these advantages that God and nature had given her. In the debates of 1799 he found all the enlightened statesmen admitting that from the narrow policy of Great Britain, the prosperity of Ireland had never been looked on as that of the empire at large. At a much later period Mr. Huskisson stated that the supposed interests of England held in the most rigid subserviency the agriculture, internal industry, manufactures, commerce, and navigation of Ireland. Let them see how those opinions were borne out. On the 9th June, 1698, both Houses of Parliament addressed King William. The Lords, in their Address, stated—
"That the growing manufacture of cloth in Ireland, from the cheapness of all sorts of necessaries of life, as well as the goodness of material for making all manner of cloth, doth invite your subjects of England, with their families and servants, to leave their habitations, and settle there, to the increase of the woollen manufacture in Ireland, which makes your loyal subjects here very apprehensive that the further growth of it may greatly prejudice the said manufacture hero, by which the trade of this nation, and the value of lands, will greatly decrease—wherefore we humbly beseech Your Majesty in the most public
270
and effectual way to declare to your subjects in Ireland, that the growth and increase of the woollen manufacture there hath long and ever will be looked on by your subjects here with great jealousy; and, if not timely remedied, may occasion very strict laws, totally to suppress and prohibit the same."
The Commons' Address was—
"That being very sensible the wealth and power of the kingdom do in a great measure de-pond on the preservation of the woollen manufacture, as much as possible, entire to this realm, think it becomes us, like our ancestors, to be jealous of the increase and establishment of it elsewhere, and to use our utmost endeavour to prevent it: we do therefore implore Your Majesty's protection and favour in this matter, that you will make it your royal care, and enjoin all you employ in Ireland to use their utmost diligence to hinder the exportation of wool from Ireland, except for importation here, and to discourage the woollen manufacture."
The following was the King's answer:—
"I shall do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ireland."
10 and 11 William III., c. 10, prohibits the exportation of wool or woollen manufacture from Ireland to the British colonies, under a penalty of 500 l. for each offence. In the linen trade, which the Parliament of England pledged itself to foster and encourage, as better suited to Ireland than the woollen manufacture, they fared little better, as the 10th Anne, chap. 19, excluded all Irish linens, painted, striped, chequered, printed, stained, or dyed; and, in 1756, a heavy duty was placed on the import of sailcloth made of Irish hemp, thereby throwing this trade into the hands of the Russians and Dutch. It would not be necessary for him to dwell on their thirty embargoes, or the disastrous effects of the penal code. He had stated sufficient to show that the want of capital in Ireland was not fairly attributable to the absence of industry or energy amongst her people. He asked the House to deal with his unfortunate country as they were accustomed to deal with large interests in England, when labouring under temporary embarrassment. Many instances of commercial, agricultural, and colonial difficulty might be cited which were promptly and effectually relieved. He would call their attention to a few of them. In 1811, by the 51st George III., chap. 15, 6,000,000 l. of Exchequer-bills were issued, to be advanced for the assistance of British merchants, bankers, and traders, upon deposit of merchandise or other securities. By the 33rd Clause, advances might be made on the security of real estates in Scotland; and by the 36th Clause, power was given

271
to the Scotch bankers to borrow. The 6th George IV., cap. 94, authorised the Bank of England to make advances to merchants and traders on bills of lading, Indian warrants, dock warrants, warehouse-keepers' certificates, wharfingers' certificates, &c. &c. In 1832, Exchequer-bills to the amount of one million were advanced to owners of estates in Jamaica, Barbadoes, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, and Dominica, which had been injured by hurricanes, to enable such persons to resume the cultivation of such estates. If some similar steps were not taken by Her Majesty's Government to establish confidence, and insure the cultivation of those vast tracts of land now lying waste in Connaught and Munster, there would be a deficiency of food raised in these districts from what would be raised under ordinary circumstances, to the value, at least, of 2,500,000 l Of what value, he would ask, would their 200,000 l. rate in aid be to meet a contingency such as this? As to the manner they had acted with regard to their own agricultural interest, he found, at a period of great distress, in 1822, Viscount Castlereagh stated that Government wee prepared to issue Exchequer-bills to the amount of 4,000,000 l. for the relief of agricultural distress, to the parishes which required it in England. In 1823, the Bank of England were induced to lend money at 4 per cent to the landed proprietors in England; the effect of this was so general, and so efficacious, that the Bank was not called on to advance the sum originally contemplated by them, individuals and public bodies coming forward and offering the money at lower terms than 4 per cent. Mr. Huskisson, who was originally opposed to this course, declared there never was a measure that succeeded better, or conferred greater benefit on the public. Why should not the Government take steps to induce the Bank of Ireland to adopt a similar course? Mr. Freshfield, Solicitor to the Bank of England, in a letter addressed to the late Colonel Conolly, Member for Donegal, decribed the arrangement made by the directors for relieving the landed interest as most advantageous. These regulations were framed to afford accommodation to borrowers in a manner the least expensive. He added—
"Applications were made to the Bank for loans to a considerable extent, and great expedition was used in completing the securities, but so entirely were the anticipations of the benefit of the measure realised, that the Bank did not advance to
272
the extent originally contemplated; but the example being established, and the pressure of the demand for loans removed, other casitalists became competitors, and mortgages taken by the Bank at 4 per cent interest were paid off by those capitalists by means of their advances at a lower rate of interest. The object of the Bank was accomplished. They never sought the measure as. I profitable mode of investment, and they were well satisfied to find the landowner relieved, and to believe that the pressure would not return at any early period. The benefit experienced in England led to frequent inquiries by Irish landholders to know whether similar advances would be made upon Irish security to promote improvements upon property and to pay off encumbrances; but after consideration the directors were advised that, looking to the date of the Act under which they derived their power, it was at least doubtful that they could make advances on mortgage in Ireland, and the directors also considered that the existence of a national bank in Ireland relieved them from any such duty of interference as they had felt obligatory upon them in England."
Mr. Freshfield was of opinion that Ireland suffered much from the want of such a measure as the Bank of England adopted in 1823; and if an example equally liberal were made, the effect would be equally successful, and numerous capitalists, he thought, would be ready to invest largely from the moment it was found that Irish security obtained its due weight and consideration in the opinion of monied men. Now, He (Mr. French) was aware that on the abstract principle there was an objection to the Bank advancing money on security not immediately available; but under the peculiar circumstances of the country there should be a deviation from that principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, might remember that for five years the Bank of England advanced 350,000 l. on the security of the Woods and Forests for the improvement of the streets of London. How had Prussia treated her landed proprietors in the difficulties that arose in 1772? The owners of estates were to hypothecate them to a joint-stock bank, receiving one-half, or two-thirds of the value, which was to be ascertained by an official valuator in notes of not less than 75?. each; for this they were to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent. In the event of any irregularity in the payment of interest, the estates were to be forthwith sold. The experiment was eminently successful, and the Bank was in a short time so flourishing as to be able to reduce its rate of interest to 4 per cent. In 1807, it had advanced 8,000,000 l. sterling. In 1837, they had advanced 12,000,000 l., and were enabled to reduce their interest to 3½ per cent. The Bank charged one per cent

273
more interest than the notes bore, which, after defraying the cost of management, was to be applied to the redemption of the estates. Either the Government, or the Bank of Prussia might convert those notes into cash, but this they were not called on to do; in a short time about three-fifths of them found their way into the hands of capitalists, or the coffers of public institutions, or charitable bodies, the remaining two-fifths serving as a very popular paper currency. Notwithstanding the reduction of interest, these securities have been higher, and subject to loss fluctuations in the European market, than that of almost any State securities: 1st May, 1847—Prussian State debt, 3½ per cent. 93—W. Prussian Pland-briefe, 3¼ per cent. 92¾—Posen, 4 per cent, 101—E. Prussian, 3½ per cent, 96—Pomeranian, 3½ per cent, 94—Silesian, 3½ per cent, 96th. Why should not this example be followed? To show the condition of Ireland, and the necessity for Government interference, he would mention a case;—A friend of his, a gentleman possessing an estate worth 4,000 l. a year, owing no money, perfectly unencumbered, 3,500 l. a year of which was in settlement, had one portion of it let to tenants amounting to about 1,500 l, per annum; they left the land on his hands, and went off to America; he saw clearly enough that there would be no use in reletting it, as in all probability the same course would be resorted to by the new tenantry; he, therefore, resolved to take the land into his own hands, and expended a considerable sum of money in laying it down. He required 3,000 l. to stock it; but none in this country, though money can be had at 1 and 2 per cent, would lend a shilling on the security of Irish property. Surely that was a case for Government aid; and be would ask, why should it be refused to Ireland? The advances of money made to Ireland since the Union had often been alluded to in that House. The amount of these advances was 9,000,000 l, of which 7,000,000 l had been repaid; whilst during the same period, 18,000,000 l had been lent to England and Scotland, of which but six millions only had been repaid; and he thought, therefore, there was no very strong ground for complaint against Ireland on this subject. Though he did not wish to disparage what had been done by the British Government for Ireland, he must say that they had done little compared with what had been done by other Governments for their several States. What had the British Government
274
done that could be compared with the system of railways that had been undertaken by nearly all the Continental Governments; or with the extensive drainages, and other public works, carried out by the Government of Holland? To give the House some idea of the magnitude of these works, he would allude to two—the drainage of the Quid Plaas, and that of the Harlaem Meer: the former of these was undertaken by the Government in 1838; the main depth of the water to be pumped out was nearly fourteen feet; its level, eight two-fifths feet below that of high water in the Yssell. To this latter level the whole was raised into a basin, that it might flow away as the water of the river fell. After all the water was pumped out, the superfluous rain or ooze water continues to be raised to a level of upwards of twenty-two feet: this work has for some time been finished, and the reclaimed land sold to private individuals. The Harlaem Meer, which covers an area of seventy square miles, was commenced to be drained by the Government in the year 1840, at a cost of three millions sterling: it is just completed; and there is every probability for supposing that the next thing they will turn their attention to will be the draining of the Zuyder Zee, the estimated cost of which is five millions sterling. A year or two ago the British Government were asked to guarantee a certain percentage upon Irish railways, with a view to the investment of capital in these undertakings: they refused to comply with that request; but the principle has been conceded to Canada, to the West Indies, to the Mauritius, and to other British dependencies. To the St. Andrew and Quebec Railway company, after the opening of the first section of the line, which was expected to take place in the latter part of the present year, a minimum dividend of 6 per cent was guaranteed by an Act of the Legislature of New Brunswick, sanctioned by Her Majesty in Council, which directs for twenty-five years the necessary sum shall be paid out of the public revenue of the province. The East India Company guarantee, as a minimum dividend, 6 per cent to the Great Indian Peninsular railway company. In the West Indies and the Mauritius, 11 and 12 Victoria, c. 130, authorises Her Majesty to guarantee the interest of four per cent, or any loans to a limited extent, for the formation of railways. In New South Wales, the Legislative Council at Sidney resolved, unanimously, that,

275
to secure the construction of railways, it was expedient that Government and the Legislature should hold out some peculiar inducement, and that, in addition to a free grant of the land necessary, a guarantee, for a limited number of years, of 6 per cent be given. He did not ask the House to assist Ireland by votes of public money; for he believed, if that country were fairly treated, her resources were not only sufficient for the support of the people, but to raise her to a level in point of prosperity to England; he did consider it necessary, however, that funds should be provided for the development of those resources; he would raise them by taxation on Irish property, imposed on them on the principle of the income tax. This would give, as a fund, about a million annually; 500,000 l. of which would be more than sufficient for the relief of the poor under a proper system, when the workhouses were made, in food, self-supporting, and outdoor relief, as it must be, abolished; on the remaining 500,000 l. a year, a sum amounting to ten millions might be raised, from which the necessary advances to secure the employment of the ablebodied, by the landed proprietors and tenant farmers, might be made. A complete system of railway communication was necessary for the country; by advances from this fund it would be obtained; from this fund moans could be afforded of carrying out arterial drainage in a proper way; the arterial drainage was now carried on under great disadvantages, and every undertaking of the kind cost the landed proprietors one-third more than was necessary for the; efficient performance of the work. Emigration, to a limited extent, in those spots where a congestion of population has taken place, could be encouraged. He would also recommend that facilities should be provided for the sale of encumbered estates, when the proprietors were unable to hold them; but, he thought, where there was a probability that the owners might be enabled to retain their property, assistance should be liberally afforded them, he did not solicit the assistance of that House in the shape of a rate, not as a matter of eleemosynary bounty; the resources of Ireland were fully adequate to meet her difficulties; and all he wanted of the Government was, that they should assist in the development of these resources. The only statesmanlike schemes that had of late years been projected for the benefit of Ireland, originated at the protectionist side
276
of the House; and the most meritorious amongstt hem was that which had been brought forward by the noble Lord—now, unfortunately, no more—who represented Lynn in the last Session of Parliament. Having the greatest confidence in the ability and good intentions towards Ireland of his noble Friend at the bead of the Government, he implored him at once to adopt an enlightened and liberal policy in his management of that country; there was a prestige in favour of his name and of his principles, which, he trusted, he would not disappoint. This was the crisis of the fate of Ireland. If the present system were continued, the ruin of that country would be inevitable; if it were changed, and a wise one substituted, its regeneration would be the result.
MR. CONOLLYhad some diffidence in addressing the House on this, his first occasion; but the circumstances of the case before them were so peculiar and so important, that he felt he should not be doing his duty to his constituents, or to himself as a lauded proprietor, did he not stand up and give the measure under consideration his most strenuous and determined opposition. He considered the measure unfair, unjust, impolitic, and calculated to produce the worst results. He could very well understand the hon. Members opposite looking on this as a partial question, as a rate in aid, and as a mere temporary expedient. But to him and those who sat near him it bore a widely different character. They, looking at the whole circumstances of the country, contemplated what its fatal results might be, and looked upon it as involving the most dangerous consequences—no less than the revulsion of the whole groundwork of society—no less than the ruin of the country at largo. The measure was encumbered with an illusion which he would endeavour to dispel. Now, when they were called upon to vote a rate in aid, they ought to consider the present state of the unions in Ireland. The number of unions was 131, of which twenty were in a state of bankruptcy, and ten more, if not in a state of actual bankruptcy, were in a state of severe destitution, and totally unable to assist any others. He came then to the 100 unions remaining, which were all that could be looked to as able to afford assistance to the other unions. Out of those 100 unions there were forty unions which were burdened with a heavy debt, and which it would be monstrous to ask to pay the debts incurred

277
by others before they had liquidated their own. He then came to the question, upon how many unions in Ireland was this rate in aid—assuming that it was the justest proposition that ever emanated from the Treasury bench—on how many unions could the rate be levied? He found there were only fifty or sixty unions on which the rate could be levied—he would not say in fairness or justice—but who were in a situation to pay. Now, if he was borne out in this statement by the facts of the case, how could the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department come down to that House and propose a measure for a rate in aid to be levied, as they said, on all the unions in Ireland? There were only fifty or sixty unions utterly free from debt. Surely, then, it was but proper, if these were facts, that the Government should become cognisant of them, so that they might not be guilty of the unfairness of coming down to propose a rate to be levied on all the unions in Ireland, which would only fall on a few. If the produce of the rate had been calculated as the result of taxation on the whole of the unions, and not on the well-situated unions only, the question naturally arose, how was the deficiency to be made up? The result must be made up by an increased rate on those unions which could pay. This rate in aid had no meaning unless it was to be effective to meet the destitution and starvation which prevailed. This rate, then, could only be made effective in one of two ways; either by applying to England for assistance out of her large resources, which he was not prepared for, or to make another rate on solvent Irish unions to meet the deficiency. If this were so, how were Government to raise the sum of money which they calculated would be obtained by the rate, seeing there were only fifty or sixty unions on which the rate could be levied? He pronounced it a delusion and a farce on the face of the noble Lord's proposition, to state that the rate in aid was to be levied on all the unions in Ireland. The fact was, the rate was to be levied on the unions of Ulster and Leinster, to meet the destitution of Munster and Connaught. It was, therefore, a delusion to say it was a rate to be levied on the whole of the Irish unions. The noble Lord had proposed that the rate should last only two years, and the noble Lord said there were circumstances which led him to suppose that, by the time the rate had expired, circumstances would have
278
arisen to render its further continuance unnecessary. Without attempting for a moment to place his judgment in opposition to the noble Lord's, still he must be permitted to allow what he had seen with his own eyes to have weight enough to prevent him from giving in his adhesion to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. He did not think, unless very extraordinary means were taken, that the destitution which now prevailed, and which all deplored, though hon. Members on the other side assumed more credit for humanity to themselves than they conceded to hon. Members on his side of the House, would be terminated in two years. It was impossible to say that the existing distress would be terminated in the short space of two years, unless Government were prepared to come forward with large, and, to use the hackneyed expression, comprehensive measures. Unless Government did this, there were no means under the canopy of heaven by which the evil could be met and mitigated. The noble Lord had given as his reason for believing that the existing distress in the 20 bankrupt unions would be at an end in two years, that—
"There is no reason that I know why that distress should continue for many years longer. My expectation is, that one of two things must infallibly happen, either you will find that by. I, return of good and plentiful harvests there will be sufficient food and employment for the people in the districts in question, and there will be such change of culture, and such an application of capital in those districts, that the people will be placed in a state of comparative comfort, and then you will be relieved from the burden in that manner; or else you will find that the people, perceiving that they have no prospect of a restoration of the food on which they depended, will emigrate to other districts—will emigrate to the more favoured parts of Ireland—will emigrate to Scotland—will emigrate to England, or to our North American and Australian colonies, or to the United States of America."
Now, he believed that neither cultivation of the land, good harvests, nor emigration would get rid of the evils in two years. As to the better cultivation of the land, that required more capital, which the farmers did not possess; and as to emigration, there were no sufficient means at hand. There was another point which had been urged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, namely, the expediency of changing the landed proprietary. But he feared it would be useless to look for a remedy from existing evils in the proposition for changing land into bands more capable of performing the proper functions of landed proprietors. If

279
they were to rely on this as their only chance of doing effectual good, a necessity would arise to which he could not allude without great pain—that the landowners would be obliged to give up their estates to the State. He would ask the Government, he would ask hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House, whether it was likely that any men would part with their estates, to which they were endeared by every tie of humanity, when the fatal necessity arrived, without clinging to every straw, and fighting to the last to keep their property? There would be a dire and desperate struggle; and it was not likely that a rate in aid for two years would settle it, for this reason—there was a great and intolerable delusion palmed on the House and on the country in the form in which that rate had been brought forward. He now came to the main point—for he contended that, as we started on a false basis, so we never could arrive at a correct conclusion—that a rate in aid was unfair and unjust. He would leave other hon. Members to say how far the rate was unfair and unjust in the localities they represented. For himself, with his limited experience, he would confine his remarks to the county which he had the honour to represent. With respect to that county, he repeated, that the tax now sought to be imposed was wholly unjust and unfair. He would prove this by stating the comparative valuation of the county which he represented, with one of those counties which stood pre-eminent in that catalogue of distressed counties through which the rate in aid had been imposed on Ireland. He would compare Donegal, which he represented, with Clare; and he would show that, while Clare was more favourably situated, in most respects, than Donegal, that Clare required the assistance of a rate in aid, while Donegal did not. The valuation for Clare was 310,309 l.: for Donegal, 276,884 l.; so that the valuation was in favour of Clare by the sum of 24,452 l. The population of Clare was 286,394; of Donegal, 296,448; so that Clare had a larger valuation than Donegal, and a less population by 10,054 persons. What reason, what justice, then, could there be in imposing a rate on Donegal to assist the destitution, the mismanagement, and the financial embarrassments of Clare? On every principle of justice he opposed the rate; and he would further proceed to show, that the rate was impolitic, under the present circumstances of the country,
280
as it was unfair and unjust. The country was just rising out of difficulties created by the most unparalleled calamity that ever afflicted any country. At such a time was it proper to come forward to impose a tax which would have the effect of stopping the growing energies, of shackling the spirit of enterprise, and of clogging the main springs of the industry of the country? Were it not an unconstitutional course to allude to political feeling in that House, when a debate was going on, he would say that the imposition of the rate was a dangerous policy. The political feeling of the people in the north of Ireland was likely to be roused. It had been said, that their loyalty would suffer by the attempt to impose this rate. From his intimate knowledge of that part of the kingdom—from the straightforward and honest character of the people of the north of Ireland—he would say, that if their loyalty did suffer from this measure, he should feel no surprise. Nothing, however, but the grossest injustice could affect the loyalty of the people of the north of Ireland. But he was not one of those who thought that the loyalty of the people of Ireland could withstand the test of gross injustice. He did not think the worse of that loyalty which honestly stood forward in opposition to what appeared to be gross and scandalous injustice. The higher the sword was tempered, the more keen its edge, the more beautiful its polish, the more readily it would show a blot, a stain, or an insult. So it was with the loyalty of the north of Ireland—the more pure the spirit of loyalty, the more keenly would it appreciate the slightest injustice. Ireland was now labouring under an accumulated evil of four years' duration, and, he asked, was this a time to apply a temporary expedient? No, that time had gone by. The time had arrived when it became absolutely necessary that Government should adopt some comprehensive measures of legislation calculated to place the country on a sound basis, and enable her to discharge her own liabilities, without appearing at the bar of that House a suppliant for charity. That was a position which he felt to be deprecatory of the dignity of his country. For the reasons he had stated, he considered the measures to be contrary to the well-considered principles of legislation. He believed it would have a baneful influence on the industry of the country; that it would have the effect of corrupting that

281
part of Ireland which had escaped unscathed from the calamity; and that it was a measure which, in the pursuit of a questionable good, would, in all probability, entail a certain and substantial evil. He hoped the observations he had made with respect to the loyalty of the north of Ireland would not fall unheeded on the Treasury bench; for if there was any section of Her Majesty's subjects whoso loyalty and attachment ought to be fostered, and whose interests ought to be protected, it was the inhabitants of the north of Ireland, They had ever remained the sterling friends to British connexion; they had maintained through good and evil fortune a determination to uphold the religion, honour, integrity, and constitution of the country; and all the great institutions handed down by their forefathers they desired to revere and preserve. On behalf of that community he was now speaking, and he warned Her Majesty's Government of the danger of alienating their loyalty by inflicting upon them an imposition so monstrously unjust as the present. He would not detain the House further than by reading the opinion of a talented countryman of his, which struck him as being peculiarly apposite at this moment:—
"This contemplated destruction of property is to be visited upon loyal subjects by the operation of the laws. It is a new thing to find Ministers of the Crown not only exonerating themselves from obligations to which the constitution pledges them, but avowing the determination to make the laws themselves instruments of evil wherever, until now, their influence, in theory at least, has been salutary. It is among the best established maxims of constitutional law that allegiance and protection are reciprocal—that loss of life, liberty, and property is to be ranked among the penalties of transgression—and that obedience to law should have its reward in preservation of life, liberty, and property. The Legislature is now called onto invert this maxim, and lavish rewards on the idle and ill-affected as well as on the helpless, and to heap wrongs and penalties on the deserving proprietors. It is indisputably an imperative duty to save life when it is possible. But although not so important, it is an equally manifest duty to protect property also; and the Minister or the Legislature who, to feed a hungry man in Galway, will reduce a laborious farmer in Antrim to beggary, is teaching a lesson more perilous to the welfare and stability of States than has ever been learned from Chartist or Repealer."
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought the House would have regretted had he, when he first rose, interposed between them and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He was extremely glad to find among them one who had displayed so
282
much of promise as the hon. Gentleman, the more especially as he bore a name not altogether unknown to a large portion of that House. At that late period of the discussion, he would not presume to detain the House at any length. He wished, however, to offer one or two remarks with reference to the debate of last night. He wished to refer in the first place to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork who, he was sorry to say, was not now in his place. The hon. Member had stated that he had accepted the present measure, because there was no other means of preventing starvation in the south and west of Ireland. If any other course had been pointed out for that purpose, the hon. Member said that he would have felt bound to have adopted it. But that was an argument which might be used with reference to any measure, however unjust, which the Government might think fit to propose. The distress had long been known to the Government, and it was not till the eleventh hour that they had come forward with a proposal, declaring that if the House rejected it they had nothing more to offer. The proprietors of Ireland had been taunted with a want of charity. He wished English Members to recollect, although the inhabitants of the north of Ireland disliked the principle of a rate in aid, though they disliked paying, not as had been said for the religion, but for the idleness of Connaught, that no part of the kingdom contributed more largely to relieve the distress of Ireland than the province of Ulster, and more especially Belfast. It was not fair to ask them what alternative they would propose in the present case: for without knowing the opinions of their constituents on this point, it would be presumptuous for them to suggest any proposal in place of that before the House. The reason why he objected to this proposal was not because it would tax the landlords, but because it would be felt severely by the struggling ratepayers and the poorer occupiers of land. He deeply regretted that the religious element should ever have been alluded to in this discussion. Since ever he had had a seat in that House, every vote which he had given on questions affecting his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, had been given with the earnest desire to unite the two great parties in Ireland for the common welfare of the country. It ought to be the great object of any present or any future statesman to endeavour to unite the Protestants and Roman Catholics

283
of Ireland in one common feeling for the general government of the nation. He, therefore, regretted that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the religious distinction of the north and south. It was true the right hon. Baronet afterwards expressed his regret, and retracted his expressions, but they had not been without their effect. The hon. Member for Cork had read a stanza last night from a song not unknown in the north, but he thought it would have been better had he not introduced it. It was said that the present was to be a temporary measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to think so when he spoke the other night, for the only points he dwelt on were the merits of the tax, and the case with which it might be collected. The hon. Member for Cork had conic forward as the champion of the commercial interest of Ireland, in favour of the rate in aid, and claimed for the opinion of that interest the greatest possible support. He hoped the hon. Member did not forget that Belfast was a commercial town—of greater importance, as regarded tonnage, exports and imports, than any other port of Ireland. He hold in his hand returns, which showed that the tonnage at the port of Belfast had more than doubled within the last twelve years; and he could show the extent of the imports and exports of Belfast as compared with other ports in Ireland. He took his figures from the reports of the Railway Board in 1835. He then found that the imports and exports of Belfast amounted to 8,037,231 l.; Cork, 5,651,535 l.; Dublin, 6,095,399 l.; Waterford, 3,095,335 l.; and Limerick, 1,050,407 l.; so that the imports and exports of Belfast exceeded those of Cork by 2,500,000 l.; Waterford, 5,000,000 l.; and Limerick, 7,000,000 l. And the hon. Member for Cork, seemed to have forgotten that Belfast had petitioned against the rate in aid. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had last night read some extracts from the proceedings of a meeting at Belfast. He had interrupted the right hon. Baronet opposite when reading them, and had asked him to refer to the last resolution, which complained of the great influx into the north of Ireland of paupers from England and Scotland. He felt no surprise at the observations which had been made in the course of the debate with regard to the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland. Giving them all the credit to which they were entitled, he
284
thought it unfortunate that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, and the private Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, should both be members of that Commission. He must say he regretted the course which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had taken on this question. It was with the greatest respect he listened to everything that fell from the right hon. Gentleman. When he heard the right hon. Baronet last night express the opinions he did, he felt that opposition on this subject in that House would be useless. Knowing as he did the condition of the farmers in the north of Ireland, struggling as they had been with famine—knowing their great anxiety with reference to the corn question, and their feeling that their interests had been compromised, he was afraid that in the speech of the right hon. Baronet of last night, they would find but additional reason for despair. The right hon. Baronet, not contented with supporting this rate, added—rather unkindly, though he believed not with an unkindly feeling—that he had heard hon. Members propose to extend the income tax to Ireland; that he had no objection to consider the subject after he had got a rate in aid. The prospect before them, therefore, was the imposition of the property tax, in addition to the rate in aid. If they were to be taxed to the fullest extent of their means, they ought to have a Committee to inquire into the whole debt and taxation of Ireland. The proportion of the debt of Ireland at the time of the Union ought to be ascertained. They ought to endeavour to apportion the taxation of the two countries fairly; and if that were done, Ireland would have a fair right to come to the Imperial Parliament for assistance. Ireland ought not to be cast on her own resources. The ties uniting the two countries ought to be real, whether in prosperity or distress, nor ought it to be in the power of any one to say that Ireland was an incumbrance upon this country. The right hon. Baronet had suggested a scheme of improvement; and at all events the country now knew that right hon. Gentleman's scheme of government for Ireland if he ever took office again. At the same time he (Viscount Castlereagh) doubted whether any Chancellor of the Exchequer could be found on that side of the House who would be content to buy large tracts of the west of Ireland upon the chance of selling them again by retail. If these estates were to be sold, it was wrong to set an example of such a system of taxation

285
as that then under consideration. A maximum poor-rate of 7s. was certainly fixed, but there was no security that the buyer of these estates would not he saddled with an unlimited rate in aid. No man under those circumstances would be found hold enough to venture on the purchase. Much had been said in the present debate about the loyalty of Ulster; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had observed that no Member of that House would countenance rebellion—which was an unnecessary remark on the part of that right hon. Gentleman. But while there was no such feeling as disaffection in the breasts of the people of Ulster, there certainly was one of indignation, of disappointment, and of disgust. What course they would pursue he knew not; but he did know that they would be always loyal to this country. The question, however, might be, was repeal disloyalty? He very much feared the consequences of the measure of the Government; but there was one result he was certain of—namely, that though the people of Ulster would protest against what they deemed an unpalatable measure by all the constitutional means in their power, once let it become law they would behave as became loyal and good subjects. The people of Ulster might be relied upon to obey the law, but they would oppose this measure by every constitutional means in their power. The hon. Member for Downpatrick had stated the other night, that if this measure was carried, it was probable that the magistracy of the district would resign. Now he (Viscount Castlereagh) was requested to state that if such resignation took place, it would not be out of any disloyalty, but from their disapprobation of the measure of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHsaid, that Ministers could not complain of a want of variety, boldness, or candour in the alternatives which had been offered by those who resisted their plan. His hon. Friends the Members for the city of Limerick and the county of Cork, said, if money were wanted to feed the poor, it ought to be taken from the revenues of the Established Church. His hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex said, it would be better to sweep away all local control, and to resort altogether to national rating. The hon. Members for Londonderry and for the county of Tipperary asked, with a significance which was not to be mistaken, why could not Connaught support
286
her own poor, as well as the rest of Ireland? which meant, if it were literally explained, that Connaught, being found insolvent, might be left with propriety to her own resources. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and other's on the same side of the House, had asked why the area of taxation should not be lessened, in order that as the proprietors of land in Ireland had generally failed in their duty, every proprietor should be left to take care of his own poor? But perhaps the most extraordinary proposition of all was that of the noble Viscount who had just sat down, entertained also by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that instead of imposing a rate in aid of 300,000 l., the House should equalise the taxation of the two countries, which would entail now burdens upon Ireland to the extent of 1,100,000 l. The noble Viscount also, in reproachful terms, declared that the industry of Ulster should not be called upon to support the idleness of Connaught. As a native of Leinster, he might make a similar objection. But from his own personal observation, he considered that such an objection would, on his part, be both uncharitable and untimely; for it would be to reproach the people of that distressed district with an idleness which was perfectly involuntary. That reproach could not be urged against them before their food had failed, when their usual wages were 4d. or 5d. a day. Men were not fairly tried who had hardly sufficient bread to keep the breath in their nostrils. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire, abandoning the townland scheme, asked for a system of estate rating. Now, if anything like a system of estate rating were adopted, they must either give a settlement co-extensive with the rated area, or they must refuse it. Without a settlement, this proposition would infallibly give a new stimulus to the systematic practice of clearances and wholesale dispossessions already but too prevalent; and it would tend utterly to crush the spirit of the towns, on which, after all, they must depend for progress, civilisation, commerce, and intelligence. But, if they adopted estate rating with a settlement, then what would be the effect? Why, they would have a system of serf hood in Ireland unparalleled in any country of the earth, except Russia. In what condition would labourers and employers then find themselves? Each labourer would have to look to one particular employer; all competition would he

287
gone; and either the landlord would be pauperised, by being compelled to take such an amount of work only as the labourer chose to render, or the workman, by being compelled to take only such pay as his master chose to give him. But he called upon them to consider, as men of whom history must speak hereafter, whether it was not a perilous thing for the landlords of Ireland to come to Parliament and say, "Let us take care of our own." Before the famine fell upon the land, in what position were the poor of Ireland when left to the care of their landlords? When that ghastly reaper came, why stood the crop so thick and ready to fall beneath his sickle? Few landlords ever did their duty to the people of the west—therefore the people were idle—therefore the landlords were embarrassed—and, therefore, they must now abide the fearful result, as far as it could be brought to bear upon them. Everything he had hoard of late from Ireland confirmed him in the impression that the Government would do wrong to tempt new proprietors or new occupiers by promising to forgive past defalcations in the rates. By such a step, they would inflict an obvious penalty upon those who had paid up their rates; and he contended that before another 6d. were levied upon other portions of the kingdom, Connaught ought to be compelled to make good all defalcations, even though recourse should be had to the sale of the fee-simple of the land. He should be sorry, however, to be understood as yielding any degree of assent to the proposal to adhere, without any mitigation, to the existing law—to heap rate upon rate on western property until the entire of the present landlords were extirpated—and then to sell their lands by wholesale at a depreciated value to jobbers in the market. Now, he had two insurmountable objections to this communist scheme. In the first place, it was wholly unjustifiable; and, in the next place, it would be utterly abortive. It was wrong, because they had no moral right, after looking on at the state of things growing up in Connaught, and of which they were warned again and again by competent authority, to turn short upon one particular class of men, and break them on the wheel of excessive taxation. They could not destroy one class of the community without ruining others dependent upon them to a greater or less extent; and in a region like the west of Ireland, where mercantile industry was
288
still so backward, and credit so low, he could not conceive a more fatal measure than driving the entire proprietary class to bankruptcy. Let them remain where they were, but compel them to do their duty. Place on the land as high a contribution to the support of the poor as the land was fairly able to bear, but no more. The good and improving landlord, with the security of a maximum rating, such as had been proposed by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, would then pay his rates. The bad might not, and then he must sell—not his entire estate—not that which in truth belonged to other and innocent parties who had lent their money thereon—but just so much as would discharge the arrears of rates. Mark the difference between this and the scheme of limitless rating. The one drew a palpable line between the evil and the good—the thriftless and the thrifty; the other confounded all together in one common ruin. In the one case we asked men to pay what they could pay; in the other we asked them to pay what we knew they could not. With regard to the phrase of lands "lying waste," he thought he could furnish a profitable illustration to the House. He had spent the greater part of last autumn in the west of Ireland; and on one occasion when passing by the estate of a gentleman of large property in one of the most distressed unions, he observed numerous fields which had evidently before been under tillage, covered with a thin sward. He asked the keeper of the lands how it was that those fields seemed vacant. He was told that the people had been turned off. "Has anybody got them now?" was the next question. "No," was the answer, "they are running into grass; the rates are in arrear, and there is nobody to pay them." Now those lands were obviously in process of gradual recovery from the miserable tillage they had been under; and though called "waste," were evidently becoming more valuable every day. Upon the other side of the road was a dark bog, on which nothing but heath had ever grown; upon that bog people were building twenty-four wretched buts, each having a rood of ground marked out behind it; and he found that these were the dispossessed tenantry, who had been unable to pay the rates, and who were now planted as squatters upon this bog, while the lands which they formerly occupied were recovering their verdure. Now, he asked, were such the lands

289
upon which the rates were to be forgiven? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who professed themselves the peculiar friends of the farmer, assured the House that it was not upon their own accounts, but for the sake of the frieze-coated peasantry, they opposed this measure. He felt the force of that argument strongly, and if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford merely raised the question between placing an income tax upon those who were able to pay it, and imposing a rate in aid upon the occupiers of land, he should vote for the Amendment. But he did not conceive that that was the case; and if they were anxious to relieve the tenant, the ready way of doing so would be to give credit for the sixpenny rate in the rent. He was of opinion that the principle of a property tax might seem fairer in the abstract, and, in any other condition of Ireland, would have been less heavily felt, perhaps, than the rate in aid; and if the amount which the hon. Gentleman sought to levy by an income tax, were only the same as was to be raised by the rate in aid, it would be difficult to resist the proposition. But when it was sought to extend the income tax to personal property, to professional incomes, and to commercial profits, then he thought the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the mercantile interests in Ireland had suffered during the famine as severely as the mercantile interests in England suffered during the panic. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Oh!"] He repeated it; and in proof of what he asserted, he would read an extract showing the decline of the circulation in Ireland during the last three years. In England, the circulation, which fell with the panic, rose again when the panic subsided; but such had not been the case in Ireland. In the first half-year of 1846, the circulation in Bank of Ireland and all other notes, was 7,424,000 l. It gradually fell in the course of the second half of that year to 6,863,000 l. In the second half of the following year, 1847, it sank to 5,306,000 l., and in the second half year of 1848, it had fallen so low as 4,542,000 l.—being a decrease of 40 per cent steadily taking place, and as yet unchecked, in the circulating medium of a country nearly the whole of whose business transactions was conducted in paper money. He contended, therefore, that the mercantile classes of Ireland were not in the condition that increased taxation could be imposed upon them without considerable risk.
290
He knew it was said that until Connaught had paid up all uncollected rates it would be unjust to ask for contributions from the rest of the kingdom. But the fact was, that there was quite as large an amount of uncollected rates in Ulster, which was held up as the only part of Ireland which ever did its duty. It did not follow that because the rates were uncollected, that therefore they were desperate arrears. He believed the practice with reference to the rates was this, that as soon as a rate was struck and put in course of levy, the amount which remained unpaid at the end of the month was set down as in arrear. Arrear in the treasurer's account had no reference to the length of time which any part of the money was due, and consequently furnished no fair test, indeed, no test at all, of the amount of probable or certain defalcation. It was only on an average of years or half years that such a computation could be correctly or justly formed; and if hon. Gentlemen would look into this part of the question, they would find that the proportion of insolvent arrears in this hapless and suffering province was most marvellously small. Upon the important suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He felt very reluctant to trouble the House with any comments; but be thought the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the idea of a plantation in Connaught similar to that which had taken place in Ulster, during the seventeenth century, had omitted one circumstance which contributed mainly to the present state of things. When Ulster was planted, the Government of England took care, not merely to send gentlemen of condition to take possession of the forfeited lands, but provided, by a system of tenures, for the creation of a middle class, to whose existence in that country much of its present prosperity was owing. If the right hon. Baronet, in addition to the valuable suggestions which he had thrown out, would adopt the principle of the tenures of Ulster, and if he would also consent that arrears of rates, instead of being forgiven, should be made payable out of the fee-simple of the land, he would pass a real incumbered estates Bill far more efficacious than that which they had passed last year, because they would find purchasers for portions of the land already existing in the country. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department

291
seemed to say that the Incumbered Estates Bill had failed to work, from the conditions imposed on it by the Court of Chancery, in Ireland. His belief was that it had failed to work in Ireland because the Bill was incapable of working. If they were going to have a change of owners in the west of Ireland, begin with the class who were already in the country, and who were ready to become purchasers. They would have many competitors of this class. They would have no longer an answer such as was given by a Suffolk farmer, whom he met in the county of Mayo, and who had gone there with the intention of taking a farm. He said that there were two insuperable objections: the rates were unlimited, and the wages too low. This was his meaning: he had been farming a long time; he began in England at 1s. 6d. a day; he made nothing of it; he never made money till he gave half-a-crown a day, and he added that those persons who took 6d. were utterly incapable of giving in return the sort of work which he wanted done. As an Irishman, he asked hen. Gentlemen, before they came to this vote, whether it was not better to give up the pauper policy which they had been obliged to pursue in the House and out of it, and to tell their country that at last they resolved on making a strurggle together, one for another; and if it was not possible to go through the struggle without assistance, at least they would come to England with better grace for further contributions. As regarded what had been done by the House, he would say that he voted for the grant of 50,000 l., as he knew other Gentlemen did, with a sense of the deepest personal and political humiliation. He confessed that he felt it a most ungrateful duty to perform, but he was told there was no other way of keeping thousands of his fellow-creatures alive. He should, however, think it the greatest blessing to his country, and the greatest obligation which could be conferred on himself, as a man, never to be asked to vote for a similar grant. Did any man who had observed the feeling of England, reflected in the public press and in Parliament, seriously mean to say that the Minister could hope to get adequate votes for the purpose? They might deplore—he owned, for one, that he deeply deplored—the growing feelings of national repulsion and distrust that had arisen between the two countries. The causes they all too well knew. You have in England (continued the hon. Gentleman) taken
292
the unworthy manner in which your generosity to us was met by a reckless few in Ireland, for the feeling of the whole of our people. Of such ingratitude I believe there are thousands who are heartily ashamed; and in such unworthy sentiments the mass of the people, I am certain, never participated. On the other hand, it is impossible for an Irishman of spirit or of honour not to feel deeply and bitterly the indiscriminate reproach and scorn of which our country has often been the object. Your gifts were splendid when our exigency was great; but we have been rather too frequently reminded of them, and not un-frequently in terms as contemptuous and offensive as words could possibly convey. Do not mistake me. I do not underrate the value or the virtue of the dole; what I deplore is, that it should so often have been asked for, and that with so great occasion. But I do wish to see Ireland daring to look her misery in the face. We have heard it said, that if Irish property be held accountable for Irish poverty, a new cry will be raised for repeal. Do Gentlemen mean for a repeal of the union between Connaught and Ulster? Why, what folly and madness is this? Can you really suppose that the Minister will be brought to believe in such empty, ill-timed, and, I must say, most un-national and anti-national threats? Repeal may be right or it may be wrong. I am not one of those who have spoken lightly of the injustice it seeks to remedy; and I do not scruple to say that I think a great change must take place in the legislative policy pursued towards Ireland before the desire for repeal can be expected to die away. But I say to my countrymen who think a repeal of the Union essential to the welfare of Ireland—whether they be the Protestants of the north, or the Catholics of the south—you have no right to hope for success in any such demand unless you first learn the duty of bearing one another's burdens, and the dignity of habitual self-sustainment in suffering and trial; for, in my opinion, there is no nationality worth having except the nationality that is founded upon self-respect.
SIR A. BROOKE, in explanation, denied that he had made any sweeping accusations against the landed proprietors in any part of Ireland. He had confined his observations to the proprietors in those districts which were now labouring under such extreme destitution; and he had qualified his remarks by stating that among

293
them there were instances of landlords having exerted all their energies to support the people.
The EARL of LINCOLN: Recollecting that at the adjournment of the House, at an early hour this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Grogan) announced that nearly every Irish Member in the House wished to speak upon this question, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in the observations it is my desire to make. At the same time, as up to the present hour none but Irish Members have addressed the House this evening, I hope it will not be considered out of place, or at all impertinent, if one British Member rises now to speak upon a topic which I, at least, feel must be interesting to us all, not merely as affecting Ireland, but as affecting the kingdom at large. And in endeavouring to be brief, I shall confine myself entirely to the observations which I wish to address to the question immediately before the House—namely, the adaptation, or non-adaptation, of the rate in aid for the purposes indicated by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. I am aware of the disadvantage under which I place myself by not entering into other topics which, under more advantageous circumstances as regards time, might with great propriety be introduced into the discussion, and without which, I admit, the question cannot be altogether fairly or adequately argued. I am aware that I must deprive myself also of the advantage of touching upon many of those topics which have been so ably and eloquently touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, in a speech which I am sure all the House must have been delighted to hear; not, perhaps, as bearing upon the practical subject which is immediately before the House, but as relative to the important questions of amending the poor-law, and improving the social condition of the people of Ireland generally. I admit. Sir, that during the many years I have now had the honour of a seat in this House, I do not recollect any occasion upon which I felt greater difficulty as to the decision I should arrive at, or as to the vote I should give, than upon the question now before the House; not so much from any doubt as to the principle of the measure, or from feeling any hesitation of opinion as to the merits of the plan proposed by the noble Lord, but because I feel that in the peculiar circumstances in which the two countries have been relatively
294
placed, and in the position in which we, the House of Commons, find ourselves at the particular moment when this project is first propounded to us, we are obliged to come to a decision upon the abstract question, ay or no, whether the rate in aid shall be voted, without entertaining other questions affecting the poor-law and the social condition of Ireland—questions which I feel it would have been desirable to have considered at the same time. I think that in discussing the question of the rate in aid, I may at once fairly start with a proposition of the necessity for affording extraneous aid to certain unions in the west of Ireland which have been indicated by the Government. I admit, with the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House, it is impossible to leave the bankruptcy of Connaught to support and extricate itself. I admit it is impossible to speak of Connanght being left only to its own resources. I admit we are not now placed in a position which entitles us to consider, in an abstract point of view, the situation of that country. We are now called upon to decide that extraneous aid must, from some source or other, be afforded. That, I take it, will not be denied. I think I may also take for granted the admission, almost universally made by Irish Members who have spoken in this debate, that that aid must come from Ireland. Two questions alone will then remain, namely, whether this aid must come from part or the whole of Ireland; and, in whichever way you decide that question, how shall this aid he most advantageously and most lightly raised? As regards the first of these questions, I think it can easily be proved, that if this aid is to be derived from Ireland at all, it must be obtained from the whole country. I agree very much with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that as regarded a permanent system, it would be most desirable that these unions should be rendered liable in their fee-simple for rates, and thus be self-supporting until their whole means were exhausted. This is the principle acknowledged in the poor-law as it at present stands, though I know it may not be carried into actual operation. Certainly, as regards the present emergency, it must be impossible to derive that aid from the individual unions. I believe it would be equally impossible for any number of the neighbouring unions to afford sufficient aid. I believe that in some cases the counties could not afford it, and in Connaught

295
not even the particular province. At any rate, assuming the possibility that they could, I do not see any great advantage in adopting either the county or the province. I think, then, it is necessary that this aid should come from the whole of Ireland. And here, Sir, following the sentiment of my noble Friend the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh), let me express my regret that, in the course of this discussion, so much should have been made of what is called the Ulster question. I was delighted to hear him say it was important to dismiss all religious questions from the consideration of this subject. If they have been at all introduced, I believe it was through inadvertence alone; and I am sure that those who referred to them did not intend to put them forward as arguments for or against this measure. But, apart from any religious questions, I do not believe that this is an Ulster question alone. I believe that Leinster is more interested in it than Ulster, and Munster more than either of them. Before, however, I go further, I must say I cannot agree with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the safe and solid ground for determining upon the taxation of Ireland for this purpose is, as having the object of introducing an equivalent taxation to that of England. I say at once, that whilst I am favourable to the taxation of Ireland for this purpose, I do not support it upon the ground of finding an equivalent taxation to that of this country, for I am decidedly of opinion that equivalent taxation is not a sound principle upon which to proceed. I believe it is not a sound principle with regard to general taxation; but here you are introducing it, not as a question of general taxation, but as balancing local taxation against general taxation. I believe the only sound principle would be equal taxation, and that, if equal taxation were adopted, as regards all the three countries, undoubtedly there would exist a state of things when Ireland, or part of Ireland, would be intitled to draw upon the imperial exchequer, to make good any deficiencies that might arise from any extraordinary misfortune to render aid requisite. I repeat, that in my opinion the principle of equivalent taxation is not a sound principle, even if you could prove it to be real; but I think I can show without much difficulty that, in the present instance at least, there is no reality in the equivalent whatever, particularly if I were to touch upon some points put forward by
296
the noble Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other evening, as I understood him, that he adopted this measure upon the sole ground that it was temporary. The noble Lord, however, went further, for he not only asserted that the measure was temporary, but he expressed a confident opinion that the emergency for which it was proposed was temporary also. Undoubtedly, if we pass this measure for two years, as far as the expedient is concerned, it will be temporary; but I cannot admit that the occasion for which it is required is, by any means, likely to be temporary. Upon the contrary, I believe that by passing it we shall be adopting a temporary expedient to meet not only a permanent but an increasing evil. I certainly should rejoice if I could take so sanguine a view as the noble Lord, and, like him, believe that any measure such as this, passed for two years, would solve the difficult problem of Ireland. The noble Lord gave several instances as reasons why he thought this measure was likely to be temporary. He said, for example, that all precedents indicated that where distress had arisen from causes over which the Legislature bad no control, prosperity returned after the interval of a short period; and the noble Lord instanced those who had lived by the collection of kelp in the western isles of Scotland, the woollen manufactures in the south of England, and several places where various branches of manufacture had subsisted and flourished for a time. Now, I maintain that in every one of those instances the noble Lord was in error. As regards the Western Isles of Scotland, the Government cannot have forgotten that at the time we were dealing with this difficulty of Ireland, two years ago, there was distress in their localities from the self-same cause—the accumulation of inhabitants in consequence of the facilities for procuring food, which the country originally afforded, and that we were called upon to give assistance from the public exchequer. That that assistance was not so great as that rendered to Ireland, arose, not from the distress being less, but because there existed in those localities greater means among the landed proprietors, and, I am bound to say, the greatest willingness to meet, even to the extent of their fortunes and property, the demands which that distress made upon them. And, certainly, the noble Lord

297
cannot think that distress has been temporary; on the contrary, it has been permanent, and it exists to this day. As regards the accumulation of inhabitants consequent upon the woollen trade in the south of England, I can point out to the noble Lord a parish in Wiltshire, where the rates are at this moment 12 s. 6d. in the pound. I can point out instances where they are even more, and that solely and entirely in consequence of the number of people originally brought there by the work afforded by the woollen manufacture, which, having now departed into Yorkshire and Lancashire, has left the people dependent upon the parish. Turn also to Spital-fields. Why, the normal state of Spital-fields is distress. In each and all of these cases to which the noble Lord made reference, it is impossible to speak of the distress as being temporary. The noble Lord, upon these views, held out to us the expectation that, after the expiration of the two years for which the proposition is made, his hopes would be realised. He contemplated that one of two things would happen—either that there would be such a revival of the potato, and consequently renewal of the ordinary food of the people, as would entirely remove all distress, or such an emigration of the inhabitants from Ireland, principally to England, that the distressed districts would not be burdened. As regards the first of these hopes, I presume the noble Lord must have pointed not only to the revival of the potato crop, but also of the conacre system, without which it would be impossible for the poor population to subsist themselves, even if potatoes were abundant, as they have no means of purchasing food. I believe there is nobody connected with England who will not bear me out in saying, however ungrateful it may appear to depreciate one of the greatest blessings of Providence, that an extensive revival of the potato, if attended with a revival of conacre, would be a great calamity. The other alternative would be as great a calamity as regards England and Scotland. For what does the noble Lord contemplate by it? Does he not contemplate that the ablebodied must flock over to Liverpool and Glasgow, and swamp the unwholesome cellars and fœtid alleys of those cities, bringing pestilence and fever with them, thus injuring themselves as well as those to whom they come, whilst they leave their wives and children to be supported in Ireland? It is impossible, therefore, upon such considerations,
298
to look upon this as a merely temporary measure, however temporary it may appear as an expedient. Although I do not now ask the noble Lord for any great or comprehensive measure for the improvement of Ireland, I do regret that at the time he brought this proposition forward, as a temporary expedient, he has not been enabled to explain by what plans he proposes to meet the evil, which is great and increasing, at the expiration of the two years. Meet the difficulty either by a rate in aid or an income tax—the remedy, I fear, is but an expedient. But the noble Lord states that this is not only a temporary measure, but that it will also be small in amount. He contemplated that the rate in aid would produce 250,000 l. If the amount is so small, I very much fear whether it will prove sufficient for the purpose. I confess, so far as I can form an opinion, after perusing the documents laid upon the table this Session, I have come to the conclusion that 250,000 l. can, under no circumstances, be sufficient. I dwell upon this part of the question especially, because, in my opinion, it is somewhat of an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House, when he pointed out the superior excellence of the rate in aid as compared with an income tax, upon account of its small-ness. But if the rate in aid should not be sufficient, as I anticipate, one of two things must certainly happen. You must either meet the deficiency by further grants from the Exchequer, and thereby depart from the principle you are now anxious to establish, that Ireland should provide for her own poor, or you must come again to Parliament, and ask Parliament to increase this sixpenny rate into one of a shilling. I should deprecate this course as much as I do the other. No doubt exaggerated apprehensions are entertained in many parts of Ireland as to the consequences of the rate in aid; but they think, in many places, if they once consent to a sixpenny rate, that if more is required, a ready facility will be afforded for that purpose to any Minister who is anxious to avoid the great difficulty of legislating in a spirit comprehensive in its bearings upon the interests of the united empire. Sixpence, they say, therefore, would not be the maximum. I said, at the commencement of my observations, that the principle of equivalent taxation was violated in this instance, because you could not make the equivalent real. What is it for which you

299
propose this as au equivalent? For the assessed taxes and the income tax. But this is a special tax which you now propose to put on Ireland—a special tax upon one single class—and that single class, the very class which in this country is exempt from those taxes for which it is proposed as an equivalent. I repeat, therefore, that your principle of equivalent taxation altogether fails. It may perhaps he to some extent an equivalent as regards the incidence of taxation upon the two countries, but as regards individuals and classes, it is none whatever. The maxim has been laid down, and it is a very proper one, that the property of Ireland should support the poverty of Ireland. That is an aphorism which must be generally admitted if properly interpreted. The property of Ireland, I imagine, is twofold—personal and real. Who, in this case, do you propose to tax? Why, those who have suffered most during two years of distress; and you propose to exempt those who have not borne any large share of the cost of the misfortunes of those two years. Now, I am quite ready to admit that the commercial classes have participated in the poverty and suffering of Ireland; and indeed it would be at variance with every sound view of political economy to maintain that they could have been exempted; but undoubtedly, so far as this question of taxation goes, the land has been taxed very heavily, while the commercial interests have, only to a comparatively small degree, participated in the burden. But in comparing the merits of a rate in aid with those of an income tax, we must look to the difference as regards the persons who are to pay cither one or the other. In the case of an income tax, those who pay it upon a nominal income make deductions in proportion to the amount of the fixed payments they have to pay out of that income. But there can be no such deductions made in the case of a poor-rate. In the one instance you appear to pay upon your clear receipts; in the other you pay, not out of your property, but, on the contrary, you may have to pay, in this instance, a rate of 6d. in the pound, out of perhaps no income at all. Now, admitting that it is right that Ireland should be called upon to pay, in some shape or other, but denying the doctrine of the noble Lord, that it is the exemption of Ireland from some taxes which England pays which justifies the present measure, I have to explain why I am willing to agree with
300
the principle, although I deny the grounds on which its justification is based. I think, then, that the principle is justified solely by the propinquity of those who have to pay to those who have to receive. That is the reason why the former should be submitted to this rate in aid, or to its substitute, an income tax. For, if this state of increasing pauperism be allowed to continue, the time cannot be far distant when the prosperous districts will be affected, and those who are now exempt will be involved in one common ruin. But, then, this leads me to another consideration; and I conceive that the proposition of the Government involves another faulty principle. If you call upon certain prosperous portions of Ireland to pay for the distressed districts, you ought to prove that that tax will tend to remove pauperism. It will be no satisfaction to those who are to pay the rates, nor can they admit the justification to which I have referred, if they consider that the money has been spent, not in removing pauperism, but in feeding paupers. And, besides, I think you must—and here is another objection to the plan—I think you must, in cases of this kind, when dealing with the feelings of the people, humour their perhaps exaggerated apprehensions, and not depend too entirely upon your own dry reasoning powers, and assume that they will not be influenced by fears in which you may not participate. I apprehend that it will tend to unsettle the minds of many of the smaller farmers in Ireland; that it will make them apprehensive that attempts may be made to increase the rate; that it will tend to decrease the application of capital to the soil; and that these apprehensions will tend to promote that species of emigration from Ireland which has been going on already to some extent—not a healthy emigration, but one arising from the fear of those who possess capital to cultivate the land at home—fear not of the present state of matters, but apprehensions of what is to come. The Government cannot be ignorant that their plan does met with very considerable opposition, not merely from the provinces of Ulster and Leinster, but even from the distressed districts, who will not be the payers, but the recipients of the rate. I yesterday evening presented a petition from the union of Carrickmacross against the rate, and when I mention one statistical fact connected with that locality, the House will perceive whether the union in

301
question can be classed amongst those which are prosperous. The number of inhabitants in the union is 39,000, and that of the acres in the union 37,000. I leave the House to judge of the condition of such a district. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary dealt yesterday at considerable length upon the question of valuation. In this respect also I think that the plan of the Government is very faulty. To impose fairly a rate of the kind, there ought to be a uniform valuation of property in Ireland. I do not ground this statement on my own opinion—I make it upon that of a most competent authority—Mr. Griffith, who asserts that a uniform valuation is absolutely necessary. I know that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite told us that the valuation was not uniform in the counties of England. I am aware that such is the case, and a great grievance it is. But the case is not so strong in England as it will be in Ireland; because, in the former, the money raised by the counties is expended in the counties, while the inequality itself is by no means so great as that which exists in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was also in error in saying that the present poor-law valuation was applicable for county purposes. Such is not the case. An old townland valuation is used for these purposes. And here I may be allowed to refer to the evidence of Mr. Griffith, not to mere viva voce evidence in cross-examination, but to a paper deliberately put in before the Committee. In that paper Mr. Griffith says—
"It is generally admitted that the poor-law valuation of Ireland is not relative in regard to the actual value placed on the lands and tenements of one part of a single union as compared with another; and having been made by a number of unconnected individuals, each of whom interpreted the Act according to his own views, as might be expected, considerable discrepancies occur between the proportionate value which one union, taken as a whole, bears to another; and, besides, in many unions the guardians have had revisions made of the original poor-law valuation, with a view to its being reduced, although such original valuation was confessedly below the then average letting value of the lands of the union."
Now this is the valuation on which this rate in aid is to be levied. Mr. Griffith goes on—
"If we compare the gross amount of the present townland valuation of the several poor-law unions contained in five of the northern counties—viz., Londonderry, Antrim, Down, Armagh, and Tyrone, with the poor-law valuation of the same unions, though considerable discrepancies arise in regard to some unions, we find that to bring up the townland valuation to the poor-law valuation,
302
(which is supposed to represent the letting value, though it is under the mark), we must add about one third, or 6s. 8d. in the pound."
Mr. Griffith continues—
"Then, if we refer to the union of Newtownards, in the county of Down, we find that the poor-law valuation is higher than the general valuation by one half, or 10 s. in the pound, while in another, as Larne, it is not more than is. 2d, in the pound higher; but the average of the whole win give an addition of about 6s. 8d. in the pound. If, in the same manner we compare the gross amounts of the two valuations of the unions of the following counties—viz.: Donegal, Cavan, Louth, Westmeath, Kildare, Queen's County, Wicklow, Fermanagh, Monaghan, Longford, Meath, King's County, Carlow, and Wexford—we find that on an average the townland valuation is about one fourth, or 5s. in the pound, under the poor-law. And, again, if we take six of the western counties—viz., Sligo, Roscommon, Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, and Clare—where the people are very poor, and agriculture is in a very backward state—we find that the townland valuation is, on an average, only Is. 6d in the pound under the poor-law valuation; but, in the province of Connaught, the poor-law valuation is very low as compared to actual rents, in some cases, not one half, and is, on an average, about 3s. Cd. in the pound under the poor-law valuation of the province of Leinster, and 5s. in the pound under that of the principal counties of the province of Ulster. So much for the inequality of the rates of valuation."
Having thus stated his opinion on the subject, Mr. Griffith is asked the following questions:—
"You conceive, then, that no general rate could be imposed, taking the poor-law valuation as the basis for that general rate?—I think, as the basis of a general rate, it would be unjust, on account of the inequality.
"A general rate, therefore, taken upon the townland valuation, which was based on circumstances which have varied, would not now be a just and equal rate?—The variatious have been chiefly in the west, but the valuation itself is relatively, within itself, the same as it was at the time it was made.
"At the time it was made, circumstances being then as they were, it may have been just and equal; but if the circumstances in any large district in Ireland should have materially changed, the relative justice of that valuation is destroyed, is it not?—Certainly, as far as the change has taken place in one place, and not in another.
"Have not changes taken place since in that valuation to a great extent over the large area which was embraced in that valuation?—They have."
The noble Lord continued. To be sure, there is a valuation being made under Government auspices—there is a townland valuation; but in five counties it does not exist at all. In Tipperary, Waterford, and Cork, it cannot be finished until the close of the present year; in Limerick and in Kerry generally, it cannot be finished until next year; while in some portions of Cork and Kerry it cannot be finished until the year 1851. But, after all, I fear that

303
a townland valuation will be inapplicable, on account of its want of divisibility. Indeed I believe that the only sound valuation would be a tenement valuation. Well, an Act passed in 1846, enabling the Government to complete an uniform tenement valuation. But such a valuation is deficient in five counties, and it is complete only in one, and even there appeals are still being heard and decided upon the question. The result is, that you have only this faulty poor-law valuation to go by, and I have shown the extreme inequality of its pressure. For example, in Belfast the difference in the poor-law valuation above the townland valuation is 20 s. 8d. in the pound—while in the union of Castleblaney it is 3s. 5d. in the pound below the townland valuation. Now, Sir, I have endeavoured, after having given the subject my best consideration, to set before the House the objections which I entertain to the plan of Her Majesty's Government. I stated at the outset, that I felt it was necessary, for reasons which I assigned, that Ireland should be called upon to pay her duo share; and if we stood now as we stood at the commencement of the debate, I even believe I should have given my vote for this faulty proposal of Government in default of a better. Unconnected as I am with Ireland, I should not have felt myself called upon, as an independent Member of the House, to have framed and moved an amendment. But a proposal has been made which I think far more fair and more just than that of the noble Lord—a proposal for an income tax on the income and property of Ireland. That proposal has been made by an Irish Member, and one who is now sitting on the poor Law Committee. Such a scheme would, I think, be far more equitable, both as regards those who are to pay and those who are to receive, while it would be infinitely less mischievous to the remaining portion of the people than the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I may be told, that although this course may be the more just, there are difficulties in the way of its accomplishment. It may be said that there is no machinery for this purpose. I am aware of the difficulty of finding adequate machinery in Ireland, and that the English machinery cannot be adopted in some portions of Ireland. But when I consider what exertions were made two years ago in instituting machinery in Ireland for carrying on the relief works, I do not think that these difficulties
304
are insuperable. I think if one of the courses proposed is sound, and the other vicious, it will be better to try this new machinery than adopt the vicious system. When I recollect the machinery established for the relief works in 1846 and 1847, and looking at the experience which the Government must have with respect to that machinery, I cannot help looking for some simplification of the machinery in operation. Then arises the question of time with respect to this proposal. Undoubtedly, if the noble Lord had proposed his resolutions to the House as he proposed them to the Committee, he might have turned round upon me as to the question of time. But I think I can assist the noble Lord in getting the income tax within a shorter period than this rate in aid. The noble Lord does not now propose a special rate, but a sixpenny rate, that shall be raised with the other rates connected with the system of the poor-laws. If I understand his resolutions aright, the consequence will be, that no rates will be collected until the autumn of this year. I think the abandonment of the resolution, as laid before the Committee, was judicious, and I think it bettor to defer the collection of it until the other rates are collected. Now, I think there is in reference to time a strong argument why an income tax should be adopted instead of this rate in aid. I have shown that the rate in aid cannot be collected until the autumn, whilst an income tax could be assessed from the 5th April. [Mr. J. WILSON expressed dissent.] The hon. Gentleman nay smile, but I repeat that an income tax is retrospective, whilst the rate in aid is prospective. Now, Sir, I began by stating that equal taxation should be the principle upon which we should proceed, and that if it were possible to attain equal taxation, it would be most desirable. I admit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford (Major Blackall) does not come up to that principle; but as the proposal to impose an income tax is an approach towards equality, and as I think a rate in aid is in principle vicious, whilst an income tax, on the other hand, is in principle judicious, I am inclined to vote for that proposal. Feeling that it is desirable that Ireland should be made to contribute in some shape or other for the relief of the distress in these unfortunate unions, but feeling at the same time that the rate in aid as proposed will be fraught with considerable evil, and that it would affect not only the present but the

305
future comparative prosperity of many parts of the country; and believing, moreover, that the end in view will be more perfectly and more speedily attained, and upon a sounder and more just principle, by the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford, I shall vote with him, at the same time giving notice that in the event of that Motion being carried, I should be prepared when we go into Committee to assimilate the income tax for Ireland to that of England, by making it 7d. and not 6d. in the pound.
COLONEL DUNNEconsidered that it was impossible to address the House without referring to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He was gratified with that speech, for the right hon. Baronet spoke with justice and with kindness of the landlords of Ireland, and had used language with regard to them which was unusual on his (Colonel Dunne's) side of the House, and that was, too, very different in its tone from that adopted by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. There was, however, one part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet in which he did not agree. The right hon. Baronet had said that there were two questions before the House. The first, was there any necessity for extraordinary aid? The second, what was the source from which that aid should be derived? They all agreed as to the necessity; and then the whole question was, where was the aid to come from? Whether it was fair for Ireland to pay for the impoverished unions, or whether should the whole empire pay for these unions? It was said that Ireland should pay this sum, because she did not contribute an equal proportion to the taxation of the empire. Now, this was not a subject which should be permitted to rest as it was; it ought to be investigated by a Committee of the House, and he would suggest that until that Committee gave in its report, the proposition for an income tax ought to be suspended. Ireland, at the time of the Union, was to pay two-seventeenths of the whole tax, that was the 1s. 7½d. He believed that if the whole of the taxation of the country—if they reckoned the poor-rate, and the county cess, and the customs, and the income tax paid by Irishmen in England—then, he said, if they reckoned that, it would be found that their payments from Ireland was as one to eight—then they would find that the valuation of the property
306
of Ireland was as to the property of England about one-seventh. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the plantation of Ulster in the reign of James I. Now, in the history of injustice—and every page in the history of Ireland was a page in the history of injustice—he knew of none which showed more injustice than the original plantation of Ulster in the reign of James I. Whether the results were good or bad, there was no excuse for that wrong which was based upon a mock rebellion and a letter dropped in the Castle of Dublin, There were then 511,456 acres confiscated. It was said that the rights of Irishmen were then respected. Why then were but 7,437 acres given to Irishmen, and the rest to adventurers from England? Such an incident as that was neither a justification nor a precedent for the plantation of Connaught. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that the poor-law had worked well in many parts of Ireland. But comparing the anticipations formed of that measure with the results, the latter would not be found to be very favourable. A Commission was appointed to consider and report upon the working of the amended poor-law. Of those who gave testimony, Mr. Cornewall Lewis had said that the system of outdoor relief would be found to prove most ruinous; Mr. Senior expressed the same opinion. Mr. Gulston had stated that anything approaching to outdoor relief in Ireland had an injurious effect; and Mr. Twisleton echoed this opinion. In 1846 the noble Lord had stated that he thought a poor-law of the kind would aggravate the poverty of Ireland, and this had now proved to be the case, for property was now crumbling under the operation of this measure. With respect to the sources from which this money was to be derived, how could districts like Scariff, in which the rates were 20 s. in the pound, bear an additional tax? He was perfectly convinced there was but one remedy for Ireland, and that was a sweeping alteration in the poor-laws. The country could not go on with the present expensive system, and until it should have been altered totally, all these grants of money would be of no avail in effecting permanent good. The Government had determined that the work done by the poor should not be reproductive, and until they adopted the system of productive labour, these grants would be entirely useless. Another point to be kept in view, in reference to this question, was the attendant expense. The

307
returns for the last half-year showed, out of an expenditure of 700,000 l. odd, a charge of 189,000 l for staff and other expenses consequent on the present system. [" Divide, divide! "] He had intended to present a few details to the House in support of his views; but seeing the evident desire on the part of the House to bring the debate to a termination, he would conclude by expressing his conviction that the proposed measure would prove most injurious to Ireland, and that the Irish Members had nothing left but to look to themselves if they wished to escape from their present prostrate condition.
MR. MUNTZrose amidst cries of "Divide!" and for some time the hon. Member could not get a hearing; at length he joined in the cry, and said, "Divide, divide!" Yes, Sir, it is all very fine to cry, "Divide, divide!" but if we vote; for the measure of the noble Lord we shall divide our property with the Irish, and never see it again, for what was the plan but another grant like the last under a new name; and he wished to know out of what fund these continued grants for Irish distress were to be repaid? Some of the Irish grants had not been repaid. Would this be repaid? Before they agreed to those grants, they ought to take into consideration the present condition of England. Were they to be for ever called upon to pay, pay, pay away the public monies to Ireland without any comprehensive measure being propounded to prevent the distress which those payments were intended to relieve? In 1846 he ventured to ask Her Majesty's Government what was the reason that there were millions of acres of land uncultivated in Ireland, whilst millions of the Irish people were unemployed? That question remained still to be answered, and Ireland still remained wretched, and was likely to sink deeper and deeper every year. What now was the reason that countless loads of produce were poured into England from all parts of the world, while Ireland remained uncultivated? Why did not that produce come from Ireland? Could not she produce what England wanted? Would nobody answer those questions? Some hon. Gentleman said, that the cause of the present distress in Ireland was the potato rot; that had been for three years the assigned cause; but what said the reports from Ireland? The report read by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth on the previous night said, that even if the potatoes were fully restored, Ireland
308
would be still in misery. That report also said, that it was not bog or waste but good land that was not cultivated. Well, then, what was the cause of all this? The Irish said they wanted capital, and no doubt they did; but capital would not go anywhere except there was a certainty of remuneration. But what remuneration could be expected from the employment of capital in Irish agriculture? The present price of produce held out no hopes of remuneration for the employment of capital in Ireland; and was it likely to improve, or the contrary? The right hon. Baronet, in proposing his plan for the relief of Ireland, said he quite despaired of that country. Now, that was the first time that the right hon. Baronet did despair of the state of Ireland. [A laugh.] The right hon. Baronet might laugh; but he doubted whether those laughed who received no rent for their land, or those who obtained no victuals. But he (the right hon. Baronet) had proposed an extraordinary plan of relief, He had suggested that the Government should interfere with the right of property—that the Government should, in fact, force the owners of property in a certain portion of Ireland to part with its possession; and having so got possession of it, should dispose of it to other parties. There was an old saying, that anybody might take a horse to water; but could you make him drink? The Government might take possession of this land; but who would buy it from them? He doubted very much whether they would find any purchasers. For his own part, he would not have land in Ireland if they made him a present of it, binding him to hold it and pay its liabilities. Ireland was poor, because she had no commerce; she depended entirely on the sale of her agricultural produce. During the last thirty years she had sent that produce to the protected markets of this country. It was a notorious fact, that for the last thirty years the average price of wheat was 60 s., and even with wheat at that price Ireland with difficulty crawled on; but now, when wheat was at 40 s., what was to become of her? Was there anybody in that House clever enough to answer that question? Every individual, if it were his own case, would be able to answer. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken that night had attributed the evils of Ireland to its reduced state of monetary circulation. It had fallen, he said, from 9,000,000 l. to 5,000,000 l. But if prices were low, so

309
also must the circulation be low; it was a natural consequence. When he stated some facts the other night—and they were facts he defied any one to contradict—as to the utter impossibility of this country, under present circumstances, competing with the produce of foreigners—he was said to have made a protection speech. He denied that it was a protection speech; he said nothing in favour of protection. He had merely stated facts, on which other men had put their own constructions. He not only denied that he had said anything in favour of protection, but he had always disclaimed the sort of protection advocated by the agricultural Members. Those hon. Gentlemen talked of the corn laws giving them permanent protection; where was their "permanent protection" in 1822 and 1835? Did not they, even with their system of protection in full force, call for a Committee on agricultural distress? Did they call that "permanent protection?" He was an advocate of universal, not individual, protection. He was an enemy to that sort of protection which protected a few at the expense of the many—which fed the few while the many starved. He was in favour of such universal protection as would protect the industry and labour of the united kingdom against the cheap labour of foreigners; such universal protection alone was justifiable, and the time was come when that sort of protection ought to be afforded to the people of this country. Until that protection was given, he would not give a farthing for land in Ireland. And now he asked them how long it would be before England was in the same condition? Some years ago he ventured to say that the handwriting was upon the wall—that coming events cast their shadows before them—that their estates would be taken from them and given to others—and that was the state of things now. They had now got their free trade, and he would tell them that free trade upon sound principles was an excellent system. But he denied that the country was in a condition to act upon free-trade principles. The present system was calculated to bring general ruin, not only upon Ireland but upon England also, unless other legislation accompanied free trade. With respect to the vote immediately before the House, he believed that it was an unjust proposition. As he was of opinion that all poor-rates ought to be national, he would vote for the Amendment, which inclined to that opinion, and was, at all events, much more just
310
than the proposition of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. MOOREwas prepared to support the measure, not because he thought it the best measure which could be proposed, or because he thought it oven a good measure. It might be the worst possible measure which could be devised, but still it was the only measure which had been proposed for the relief of a starving population. In 1847, when Ministers came forward with a proposition, they all remembered the conduct of a noble Lord whose loss they all deplored. He did not content himself, like those who opposed the rate in aid, with cavilling at the proposals of others, but himself propounded substantial measures for the relief of a starving people. He stood there as the representative of a large class of helpless creatures, who had no hope but in God's mercy; and in the discharge of that duty which he had thus taken upon himself, he called upon the House of Commons to stand between the perishing people and those who boldly and unscrupulously contemplated their destruction. There was a meeting of some of the Irish Members a few days ago, when they agreed to a resolution condemnatory of the proposed tax, on the ground that it was unjust in principle, and would prove injurious in its operation; and they declared their determination to oppose its enactment by every means which the constitution allowed. In this same resolution there was not one word mentioned in regard to the distress of the suffering people. These same Irish Members had also a meeting in the year 1847, at the Rotunda in Dublin, when they agreed to a resolution declaring that, before and beyond all other considerations, was the salvation of the lives of the starving people, and in calling upon the Government as their most solemn duty to adopt such measures as would effectually afford the necessary supply of food to keep the people alive whatever amount of money might be sacrificed to attain such an end. He quoted these two resolutions for the purpose of contrasting the spirit that characterised each of them, and of showing the peculiar consistency that marked their proceedings. He should give his hearty support to the proposition of the noble Lord.
MR. ST. GEORGEsaid, that although he represented Galway, he felt that he could not support the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought that the Government should be prepared

311
with a measure of a different character altogether. It was, in his opinion, most unjust to visit the misfortunes with which one portion of Ireland was afflicted upon the other portion, where, in consequence of the adoption of a better system of management, these evils had been avoided. He demanded that the whole property of the country should be rated to the poor.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: I will not, at this late hour (half-past Twelve), trouble the House with many observations, but there were some remarks made by the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk, bearing immediately on the point at issue, which, I think, require some explanation on my part. Let me say, in the first place, that I think the great majority of this House have decided on two points: one, that there ought to be some aid given to the distressed, starving people in the western unions of Ireland; and, secondly, that that aid ought to come, not from the Treasury of the united kingdom, but from some tax in aid from Ireland. The question, therefore, remains whether that shall be done in one of two ways; one would be by raising the taxes of Ireland with respect to those imposts which are not now imposed on that country, and then to vote the produce, whatever it might be, arising from such additional taxation. The other would be to have a special tax or rate for the purpose. The noble Earl says I propose this rate as an equivalent for a tax to which Ireland is not now subject. I certainly did not mean to state it, and I therefore wish to say, if I expressed myself obscurely before, that I did not propose it as any equivalent for any tax not now imposed on Ireland; but, as I have stated, as you must take one of these two courses, the rate I proposed, besides having other advantages, has this advantage, or it is thought to be an advantage in the eyes of all Irish Members, that the raising the taxation of Ireland to a level with that of England would impose a much heavier tax on Ireland than I propose, and that this rate would therefore be a lighter burden. The noble Earl argues, however, that besides other defects which other hon. Members have pointed out in the proposition I have made, there is one consideration which he seems to think is almost fatal, and that is the imperfection of the valuation. Now, Mr. Griffith, before he gave his evidence in Committee, prepared a paper which is almost identical with that to which the noble Earl referred, and so far from proving that the
312
poor-law valuation is defective, although all general valuations must be so to some extent, he speaks of the townland valuation going upon a principle which is not the principle usually adhered to, and which I think a correct one in valuation. He says he made no reference to local rents, and in the next place that he reckoned what was the nature of the land—what was the market price of produce at the nearest market, and then he reckoned what that land would be worth. He says—and here are evidently two sources of error—that he did not make any reference to local rents or the taxes upon the land, or what land with a house upon it might let for to-morrow, and a hundred persons would be ready to take it; but that, because he did not consider that a correct valuation, he would not, and reckoned it according to an arbitrary test of his own. Again, he says he took the valuation of price at a mistaken estimate, and 6s. 8d. in the pound below what it ought to have been. So that it appears to me, that without proving the poor-law valuation to be incorrect, he only proves that his own valuation is capricious. With respect to the poor-law valuation, it is undoubtedly true, as he stated, that two different valuations are adopted in different parts of the country, and that in some parts the valuation has been made lower than in others; but, so far as I have compared it with the town-land valuation, it proves that both in the north and west of Ireland the poor-law valuation works very well. Certainly, as regards the valuation of land with houses on it, his authority does not go against it. Then the noble Earl objects to this rate in aid, because it will be a burden on an interest already exceedingly burdened. No doubt that is the case, but at the same time it is property which both in England and Ireland has been made by law subject to the support of the poor. There is, however, the further question, whether it is proper to obtain this sum by any such rate, or by a property and income tax. The noble Earl says, if we were to obtain it by a property and income tax, we should obtain it much sooner. But the noble Earl does not remember that the property tax, if levied in Ireland, would not mean that in April next the tax would be payable, but that only from that time property would be liable to it; therefore only in October would it be payable, and according to the practice of England, at least, this sum would not be received in the

313
Exchequer until January. But then there is this difficulty, which I stated at the commencement of the debate, that if you were to impose a property and income tax it would require a considerable time and arrangement before it could be brought into action, and it would be impossible for any one to say what would be the probable produce. If the noble Earl should succeed in his wish, and if, on the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, a representative of Ireland, the House should say they thought it fit that Ireland should be subject, from this time, to an income and property tax, I shall be very ready to bow to their decision; only warning him, that if he thinks this temporary tax for two years may very possibly be continued, the property and income tax, so far from being possibly continued, would be certainly continued. At this late hour of the night I will not enter into the proposition raised by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which I heard with great interest. If that question came into consideration under the vote we have now to give, I should certainly make some observations upon it. I will only say now, it is not from want of consideration that I omit to notice it. The right hon. Baronet, from his great talent and experience, proposing any scheme by which he thinks the greater part of Ireland might be rendered more prosperous and more likely to maintain its inhabitants for the future, deserves from this House the highest respect. I will not say with regard to his plan that I think the circumstances of the present time similar to those in which the settlement of Ulster in the time of James I took place. They appear to me to be different; but whether the application of a similar policy now would be likely to answer the same purpose is a question I do not wish to enter into, but only to notice it, to show that I am not insensible to the value of any proposition which the right hon. Baronet makes to this House. I leave the question to the House. I explained in my opening speech what I thought were the grounds for this proposition of a rate in aid. If we carry it, we shall have obtained the means of sustaining the starving people of Ireland. If the noble Earl succeeds in his proposition, those hon. Members who are in favour of an income tax in Ireland will have the satisfaction of seeing their object attained.
The Committee divided on the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out
314
stand part of the question: "—Ayes 237; Noes 164: Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Ewart, W.

Adair, R. A. S.

Fagan, W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Fergus, J.

Anson, Visct.

Ferguson, Col.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Armstrong, R. B.

Forster, M.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Fox, W. J.

Freestun, Col.

Ashley, Lord

Glyn, G. C.

Bagshaw, J.

Goddard, A. L.

Baines, M. T.

Graham, rt hon. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Grenfell, C. W.

Bass, M. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bellew, R. M.

Grey, R. W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Grosvenor, Earl

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Guest, Sir J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Harcourt, G. G.

Blandford, Marq. of

Harris, R.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hastie, A.

Brackley, Visct.

Hastie, A.

Bright, J.

Hawes, B.

Brockman, E. D.

Hay, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Brown, H.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Brown, W.

Henry, A.

Browne, R. D.

Heyworth, L.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hindley, C.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Butler, P. S.

Hodges, T. T.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Cardwell, E.

Hollond, R.

Carter, J. B.

Hope, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Hope, H. T.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Howard, Lord E.

Chaplin, W. J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Charteris, hon. F.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Clay, J.

Howard, P. H.

Clay, Sir W.

Hume, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Jackson, W.

Cobden, R.

Jervis, Sir J.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Keating, R.

Copeland, Ald.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Kershaw, J.

Craig, W. G.

Kildare, Marq. of

Crowder, R. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Currie, R.

Langston, J. H.

Dashwood, G. H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Lewis, G. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Douro, Marq. of

Loch, J.

Drummond, H.

Locke, J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Lushington, C.

Duff, G. S.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Duncan, Visct.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Duncan, G.

M'Gregor, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Dundas, Sir D.

Maitland, T.

Dunne, F. P.

Mangles, R. D.

Ebrington, Visct.

Marshall, W.

Ellice, E.

Martin, C. W.

Ellis, J.

Masterman, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Matheson, A.

Enfield, Visct.

Matheson, Col.

Euston, Earl of

Melgund, Visct.

Evans, W.

Milner, W. M. E.

315

Milnes, R. M.

Seymer, H. K.

Mitchell, T. A.

Seymour, Lord

Moore, G. H.

Shafto, R. D.

Morison, Sir W.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Morris, D.

Sheridan, R. B.

Mowatt, F.

Shirley, E. J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Norreys, Lord

Smith, M. T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Smith, J. B.

O'Connell, J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Ogle, S. G. H.

Spearman, H. J.

Ord, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Oswald, A.

Stanton, W. H.

Owen, Sir J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Paget, Lord A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Paget, Lord C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Paget, Lord G.

Tancred, H. W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Tennent, R. J.

Parker, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Pearson, C.

Thompson, Col.

Pechell, Capt.

Thompson, G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Thornley, T.

Pool, Col.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Peel, F.

Towneley, J.

Perfect, R.

Townley, R. G.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Townshend, Capt.

Pigott, F.

Trelawny, J. S.

Pilkington, J.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Pinney, W.

Vane, Lord H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Verney, Sir H.

Power, N.

Villiers, hon. C.

Powlett, Lord W.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Price, Sir R.

Walter, J.

Pryse, P.

Ward, H. G.

Reid, Col.

Watkins, Col. L.

Reynolds, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Ricardo, O.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Rice, E. R.

Westhead, J. P.

Rich, H.

Wilcox, B. M.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Williams, J.

Roche, E. P.

Willyams, H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Rumbold, C. E.

Wilson, J.

Russell, Lord. J.

Wilson, M.

Russell, F. C. H.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Wood, W. P.

Salwey, Col.

Wyld, J.

Sandars, G.

Wyvill, M.

Sandars, G.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, W.

Tufnell, H.

Seaham, Visct.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Brooke, Lord

Adare, Visct.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Adderley, C. B.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Alexander, N.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Bunbury, W. M.

Arkwright, G.

Burghley, Lord

Bagge, W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Bankes, G.

Callaghan, D.

Baring, T.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Barrington, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Bonnet, P.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Beresford, W.

Cayley, E. S.

Bernard, Visct.

Chandos, Marq. of

Blake, M. J.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Boldero, H. G.

Christy, S.

Bourke, R. S.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Bowles, Adm.

Clive, H. B.

Bremridge, R.

Cobbold, J. C.

Brisco, M.

Cocks, T. S.

Broadley, H.

Cole, hon. H. A.

316

Coles, H. B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Conolly, T.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Meux, Sir H.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Davies, D. A. S.

Miles, W.

Dod, J. W.

Milton, Visct.

Dodd, G.

Monsell, W.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Moody, C. A.

Dundas, G.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Du Pre, C. G.

Morgan, O.

Edwards, H.

Mullings, J. R.

Fagan, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Napier, J.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Neeld, J.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fortescue, C.

Newport, Visct.

Fox, R. M.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Fox, S. W. L.

Nugent, Sir B.

Frewen, C. H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Fuller, A. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Galway, Visct.

O'Connor, F.

Gaskell, J. M.

O'Flaherty, A

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Packe, C. W.

Gore, W. R. O.

Pigot, Sir R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Plumptre, J. P.

Grace, O. D. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Greene, J.

Richards, R.

Gwyn, H

St. George, C.

Hagitt, F. R.

Scott, hon. F.

Halford, Sir H

Scrope, G. P.

Hamilton, G. A.

Scully, F.

Hamilton, J. H.

Simeon, J.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Smyth, J. G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Spooner, R.

Henley, J. W.

Stafford, A.

Herbert, H. A.

Stanley, E.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Stuart, H.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Stuart, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sullivan, M.

Hill, Lord E.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Hood, Sir A.

Talbot, J. H.

Horsman, E.

Taylor, T. E.

Howard, Sir R.

Tenison, E. K.

Jermyn, Earl

Thesiger, Sir F.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Thompson, Ald.

Jones, Capt.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Ker, R.

Turner, G. J.

Knight, F. W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Lennard, T. B.

Verner, Sir W.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Vesey, hon. T.

Leslie, C. P.

Vivian, J. E.

Lewisham, Visct.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Waddington, H. S.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Walpole, S. H.

Leckhart, W.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Lopes, Sir R.

West, F. R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wodehouse, E.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Macnamara, Maj.

Young, Sir J.

Meagher, T.

Mahon, Visct.

TELLERS.

Mandeville, Visct.

Blackall, Maj.

March, Earl of

Grogan, E.

MR. REYNOLDSthen rose and proposed a resolution to the effect that annuities, salaries, rent charges, &c., should be chargeable for the rate, He thought it only just and reasonable that the fund for the relief of the destitute in Ireland should be augmented by extending the rate to these sources of income. It was only right that Ireland should have the benefit of the

317
3 per cent income tax paid into the Consolidated Fund from incomes derived from property in that country. When Ireland was thrown on her own resources it was but just to give her the benefit of all these resources. The hon. Member for Lancashire struck a balance of 200,000,000 l. against Ireland. If he (Mr. Reynolds) were to enter upon the calculation of the national accounts between the two countries he might strike it the other way. But admitting that the figures were correct, and that they owed this 200,000,00 l., he doubted whether it would ever be paid. He ought to have said that he had no doubt at all on the subject, unless they happened to be made a present of an electoral division in California.
The CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member whether he proposed to move his Amendment as a substantive Motion, or as an addition to the original Motion to which the House had just agreed.
MR. REYNOLDS: I intended it to be added to the resolution. ["No, no!"]
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean it to be added to the resolution?
MR. REYNOLDS: Whichever is most consistent.
LORD J. RUSSELLthought it would be better to take the original resolution as it stood. Afterwards the hon. Gentleman might move to impose the tax on other kinds of property.
The CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Member consent to have his proposition put in that way?
MR. E. B. ROCHEwould suggest to his hon. Friend to put his Amendment as a separate resolution, because he (Mr. Roche), being anxious to vote for the original resolution, and also for that of his hon. Friend, would not otherwise be able to do so. They were, in fact, two separate and distinct resolutions, and ought to be put separately and distinctly. It might suit hon. Members opposite to refuse relief to the people of Ireland by confusing those two propositions; but he would first ask his hon. Friend to vote in favour of a rate in aid as proposed by the Government, and then, if he thought that rate could be improved by his own resolution, to put that resolution to the House.
MR. SPOONERindignantly repudiated the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that his side of the House wished to refuse aid to Ireland; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Dublin
318
would insist on his right to put his resolution in the shape of an addition to the original resolution. He (Mr. Spooner) should vote against the original resolution if put by itself, but for it, if this addition were made to it. He trusted, then, that the hon. Member would assort his right, and prove his sincerity, by adding his proposition to the original resolution.
MR. STAFFORDhere observed, that they had divided on the question "that the Speaker leave the chair," had spent two nights besides on this question, and had, that night, been defeated on the main question by a large majority. Therefore, whilst he would not abandon his opposition to the Bill to be founded on the resolution that had been passed, he did, nevertheless, think it more respectful to the House, and but due to the Government, not to take any further part on that occasion in opposition to the original proposition.
MR. REYNOLDSassured the hon. Member for Warwickshire that there was no necessity for him to call upon him to prove his sincerity, for he would not propose any Motion in that House, and particularly at so late an hour, about which he was not perfectly sincere. He begged to move that the words he had proposed, therefore, be added to the original resolution.
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words—
"That for the purpose of augmenting the fund proposed to be raised by a rate in aid of sixpence in the pound from all property rated to the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland for the next two years, the same rate should be charged upon all salaries paid to Government officers, being not loss than 150 l. per annum, and upon all income derived from the public funds, and that all monies derived from the tax at present collected in England on income derived from Ireland, be for the next two years applied to the same fund."
Question put, "That those words he there added." The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 212: Majority 161.

List of the AYES.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Fox, R. M.

Bennet, P.

Gore, W. R. O.

Bunbury, W. M.

Grace, O. D. J.

Burroughes, W. M.

Greene, J.

Callaghan, D.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Christy, S.

Henley, J. W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Hervey, Lord A.

Cobbold, J. C.

Hood, Sir A.

Dod, J. W.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Dodd, G.

Keating, R.

Duncan, Visct.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Fagan, W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J.W.

Miles, W.

319

Moore, G. H.

Scott, hon. F.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Scully, F.

Muntz, G. F.

Sullivan, M.

Newdegate, C. N.

Tenison, E. T.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Nugent, Sir P.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

O'Connor, F.

Wawn, J. T.

O'Flaherty, A.

Wodehouse, E.

Packe, C. W.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Phillips, Sir G. R.

TELLERS.

Power, N.

Reynolds, J.

Roche, E. B.

Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Dundas, Sir D.

Adair, R. A. S.

Ebrington, Visct.

Anson, hon. Col.

Edwards, H.

Anson, Visct.

Ellice, E.

Armstrong, R. B.

Ellis, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Enfield, Visct.

Ashley, Lord

Euston, Earl of

Bagshaw, J.

Evans, W.

Baines, M. T.

Ewart, W.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Fergus, J.

Baring, T.

Ferguson, Col.

Bass, M. T.

Fordyce, A. D.

Bellow, R. M.

Forster, M.

Berkeley, Hon. Capt.

Fox, W. J.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Freestun, Col.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Glyn, G. C.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Goddard, A. L.

Blake, M. J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bowles, Adm.

Grenfell, C. W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Brackley, Visct.

Grey, R. W.

Bright, J.

Grosvenor, Earl

Brockman, E. D.

Guest, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Brown, H.

Harris, R.

Brown, W.

Hastie, A.

Browne, R. D.

Hastie, A.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hawes, B.

Bunbury, E. H.

Hay, Lord J.

Butler, P. S.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Henry, A.

Cardwell, E.

Heyworth, L.

Carter, J. B.

Hindley, C.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Cayley, E. S.

Hodges, T. T.

Charteris, hon. F.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Clay, J.

Hollond, R.

Clay, Sir W.

Hope, Sir J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hope, H. T.

Cobden, R.

Howard, Lord E.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Copeland, Ald.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Howard, P. H.

Craig, W. G.

Hume, J.

Crowder, R. B.

Jackson, W.

Currie, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Dashwood, G. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Jones, Capt.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Kershaw, J.

Douro, Marq. of

Kildare, Marq. of

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Duff, G. S.

Langston, J. H.

Duncan, G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Dundas, Adm.

Lemon, Sir C.

320

Lennard, T. B.

Salwey, Col.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Sandars, G.

Lewis, G. C.

Sandars, J.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Scholefield, W.

Loch, J.

Seymer, H. K.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Seymour, Lord

M'Gregor, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Maitland, T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Mangles, R. D.

Smith, M. T.

Marshall, W.

Smith, J. B.

Martin, C. W.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Masterman, J.

Spearman, H. J.

Matheson, A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Matheson, Col.

Stanton, W. H.

Melgund, Visct.

Stuart, Lord D.

Milner, W. M. E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Milnes, R. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Morris, D.

Tennent, R. J.

Mowatt, F.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Thompson, Col.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Thompson, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Thornely, T.

Owen, Sir J.

Towneley, J.

Paget, Lord A.

Townley, R. G.

Paget, Lord C.

Townshend, Capt.

Paget, Lord G.

Trelawny, J. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Turner, G. J.

Parker, J.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Pearson, C.

Vane, Lord H.

Pechell, Capt.

Verney, Sir H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Peel, Col.

Ward, H. G.

Peel, F.

Watkins, Col. L.

Pigott, F.

Westhead, J. P.

Pilkington, J.

Willcox, B. M.

Pinney, W.

Williams, J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Willyams, H.

Price, Sir R.

Williamson, Sir H.

Pryse, P.

Wilson, J.

Ricardo, O.

Wilson, M.

Rice, E. R.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Rich, H.

Wood, W. P.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Wyld, J.

Romilly, Sir J.

Wyvill, M.

Rumbold, C. E.

Young, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

TELLRES.

Russell, F. C. H.

Tufnell, H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Hill, Lord M.

Main Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 34: Majority 172.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Adair, R. A. S.

Brackley, Visct.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bright, J.

Anson, Visct.

Brockman, E. D.

Armstrong, R. B.

Brotherton, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Brown, W.

Bunbury, E. H.

Ashley, Lord

Butler, P. S.

Bagshaw, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Baines, M. T.

Cardwell, E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Carew, W. H. P.

Baring, T.

Carter, J. B.

Bass, M. T.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Charteris, hon. F.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Clay, J.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Clay, Sir W.

321

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Cobden, R.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Copeland, Ald.

M'Gregor, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Craig, W. G.

Maitland, T.

Crowder, R. B.

Mangles, R. D.

Currie, R.

Marshall, W.

Dashwood, G. H.

Martin, C. W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Masterman, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.

Matheson, A.

Dodd, J. W.

Matheson, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Melgund, Visct.

Douro, Marq. of

Milner, W. M. E.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncan, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Moore, G. H.

Dundas, Sir D.

Morris, D.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mowatt, F.

Edwards, H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Ellice, E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ellis, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connor, F.

Euston, Earl of

Ogle, S. C. H.

Evans, W.

Owen, Sir J.

Fagan, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Fergus, J.

Paget, Lord C.

Ferguson, Col.

Paget, Lord G.

Fordyce, A. D.

Palmerston, Visct.

Forster, M.

Parker, J.

Fox, W. J.

Pearson, C.

Freestun, Col.

Pechell, Capt.

Glyn, G. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Goddard, A. L.

Peel, Col.

Grace, O. D. J.

Peel, F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pigott, F.

Grenfell, C. W.

Pilkington, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pinney, W.

Grey, R. W.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Grosvenor, Earl

Power, N.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Price, Sir R.

Harris, R.

Pryse, P.

Hastie, A.

Reynolds, J.

Hastie, A.

Ricardo, O.

Hawes, B.

Rice, E. R.

Hay, Lord J.

Rich, H.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Roche, E. B.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Romilly, Sir J.

Henley, J. W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Henry, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Heyworth, L.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hindley, C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Salwey, Col.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Sandars, G.

Hodges, T. T.

Sandars, J.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Scholefield, W.

Hollond, R.

Seymer, H. K.

Hope, H. T.

Seymour, Lord

Howard, Lord E.

Shafto, R. D.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Smith, M. T.

Howard, F. H.

Smith, J. B.

Jackson, W.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Jermyn, Earl

Spearman, H. J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Stanton, W. H.

Kershaw, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Kildare, Marq. of

Stuart, Lord J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Tancred, H. W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Thompson, Col.

Lewis, G. C.

Thompson, G.

322

Thornely, T.

Westhead, J. P.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Willcox, B. M.

Towneley, J.

Williams, J.

Townshend, Capt.

Willyams, H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Williamson, Sir H

Turner, G. J.

Wilson, J.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Wilson, M.

Vane, Lord H.

Wodehouse, E.

Verney, Sir H.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Wood, W. P.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Wyld, J.

Ward, H. G.

Wyvill, M.

Watkins, Col. L.

TELLERS.

Wawn, J. T.

Tufnell, H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bagge, W.

Howard, Sir R.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Bennet, P.

Keating, R.

Blake, M. J.

Lennard, T. B.

Bunbury, W. M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Callaghan, D.

Newry and Morne, Visc.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Nugent, Sir P.

Clements, hon. C. S.

O'Flaherty, A.

Crawford, W. S.

St. George, C.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Scully, F.

Dodd, G.

Simeon, J.

Fagan, J.

Sullivan, M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tenison, E. K.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Tennent, R. J.

Gore, W. R. O.

Greene, J.

TELLERS.

Gwyn, H.

Fox, R. M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Dunne, Col.

Resolution to be reported.
House resumed.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Reported.—Commons In-closure.
3a Relief of Distress (Ireland); Vice-Guardians of Unions (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Durham, from Monmouth, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution—By the Duke of Richmond, from Leicestershire and Scarsdale, for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By the Earl of Lucan, from Louth, against the Imposition of a Rate in Aid of certain Distressed Unions in Ireland—By the Earl Fortescue, from the Parish of Sidmouth, for the Repeal of the Law of Settlement, and for the Establishment of a National Rate.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
The Earl of LUCAN and the Earl of RODEN having presented petitions from Louth and Longford against the imposition of a rate on the whole of Ireland for the support of paupers in certain distressed unions,
The EARL of WICKLOWcould not avoid addressing a few words to their Lordships upon the subject. The petition, referring, as it did, to a Bill then before the other House, might have been objected to by their Lordships upon a point of form.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it could not be refused, because it was of a general nature.
The EARL of WICKLOW: It was incumbent upon noble Lords from Ireland, who felt deeply the injustice of the plan proposed by the Government, to protest against it, and to call upon Ministers to reconsider the subject, and see whether some other mode could not be devised more just in its principle, more satisfactory to the feelings of the country, and better calculated to effect the object it professed to have in view. He believed it was necessary that they should accede to the proposition that, for a time, the whole property

235
of Ireland should be taxed for the relief of the present distress. Such a tax, so applied for a time, would not he by any means so unconstitutional as the levy of the proposed rate in and. What was there to prevent Her Majesty's Ministers from doing at once what they must do in the course of a year or two? For no one considered that a renewal of the income tax could take place without including Ireland; and why not, then, at once proceed to levy it, instead of the unconstitutional and offensive sixpenny rate in and? The plan might be this—that the income tax should be levied at once; but, for two years to come, it should be appropriated to the relief of the distressed parts of Ireland. If that were proposed, Parliament would, without any doubt, accede to it. He did not mean to say that the income tax in Ireland should be solely for the support of the poor, but that the temporary relief having been afforded from it for two years, it should then be used for general State purposes, as in England. There was another mode which might be adopted. An advance of 1,200,000 l. had been made from the Treasury, by way of loan, for the building of union workhouses in Ireland. Very little of it had been as yet repaid. Let it be put absolutely in course of collection within three years; but instead of carrying it into the Treasury, let it be given to relieve the pressing distress of the impoverished districts. The amount would be greater than—it would at all events he as much as—the Government expected to derive from the sixpenny rate in aid; and he begged them to observe how much more agreeable it would be to the people; for it was a debt which should be repaid, and the repayment of it would at once acquit the charge, and supply the wants of the poor. Either of these two modes would produce the sum of money required by Her Majesty's Government, without exciting the indignation and alarming the apprehensions of the people of Ireland. For it was no such thing as a movement of Ulster, or of Leinster, or of Munster; it was a general movement of the people of Ire-laud against the injustice of the proposed measure.
Petitions read, and referred to the Select Committee on the Irish Poor Law.

SICILY.
LORD STANLEY: I rise, my Lords, to put to Her Majesty's Government the question of which I gave notice yesterday,
236
respecting the report that Her Majesty's Government had allowed the contractor for supplying arms to withdraw such arms from the Government stores, for the purpose of supplying them to the insurgents in Sicily; and, in doing so, I can assure both them and your Lordships that it is far from my wish, cither myself to enter upon, or to load the House into a general discussion upon the affairs of Sicily during the last twelve months. And I do not want your Lordships to pass any opinion even upon the partial transaction to which I wish to call attention at present. I wish merely to ask Her Majesty's Government for information as to a transaction which, if the reports which have reached me be true, seems to me, to say the least of it, one of very questionable character. This, my Lords, is the position of the matter, if I am rightly informed on the subject, arising out of our intervention in. the affairs of Sicily. When, of two contending Powers, one was a friendly Sovereign, and the other some of his subjects who had revolted from him, the position that we should maintain should be one of strict and inviolate neutrality; and such was the case in Sicily. An armistice had been enforced upon those two contending parties—upon the King of Sicily upon the one hand, and upon the Provisional Government appointed by his revolted subjects upon the other; and Her Majesty's Government, whilst they enforced this suspension of arms, professed their determination to maintain an absolute and inviolate neutrality. Now, my Lords, an armistice so imposed, an armistice of indefinite duration, was in my opinion itself a violation of this professed impartiality; for it was in fact peculiarly well adapted to the views of the insurgents; and the longer it was enforced the greater would be the assistance it would afford them, because they had thereby the more time to provide themselves with arms, ammunition, and warlike stores, and the better opportunity of paying for them by means of forced contributions exacted from the wealthy proprietors in Sicily, who adhered with unflinching-loyalty to their Sovereign. To make the matter perfectly clear, I will state to your Lordships the exact nature of the report on which I found my question. I have been told that a contractor in this country had engaged to supply a quantity of arms to the Sicilian insurgents, to be used for the purposes of civil war against their King, our ally—that this contractor had

237
also entered into engagements to supply Her Majesty's Government with a quantity of arms for the use of the military force—that he had supplied a certain amount of arms which were deposited in Her Majesty's stores, placed there in fulfilment of this contract with the British Government. I have been told further, that as the period for the fulfilment of his contract with the Sicilians approached, he found he was incapacitated from supplying the contract with the insurgent Government, except through the intervention and with the assistance of Her Majesty's Government, and that in consequence he made an application to the Board of Ordnance for permission to withdraw from the Queen's stores a certain amount of these arms, placed there for the Queen's service, that he might supply these arms to parties who were at the time engaged in open hostilities—though it was at the time of an armistice—against a Sovereign in alliance with Her Majesty. I have been further informed that, on receipt of this application, the Board of Ordnance naturally demurred to comply, except on the authority of the Executive Government—that application was accordingly made by the contractor to Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and that Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with a full knowledge of the purpose to which those arms were to be applied, did consent that these arms should be withdrawn from the Government stores, where they were deposited, that they should be restored to the hands of the contractor, and through the medium of the contractor were furnished to the insurgent Government of Sicily. I believe that the facts of the case will be found to be not inconsistent with what I have stated, and I ask the question rather as a matter of form, though I shall be exceedingly glad if I have been mistaken in the substance; but I state these facts with the more confidence, because, if I am not misinformed, a similar question was put a few days ago to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, when his answer confirmed the statement I have now made. I do not know whether any guarantee, security, promise, or expectation of any kind has been held out by the British Government to bear a portion of the expense of these arms; but whether that be so or not—if the facts be as I have stated—though I ask none of your Lordships for an expression of your opinion—but if the facts be
238
so, then I say that it appears to me that the facilities afforded by Her Majesty's Government, by permitting the withdrawal of arms furnished for Her Majesty's service from the public stores, to enable the contractor to fulfil his contract with the Sicilian insurgents—that this is, to say the least of it, a proceeding of a very questionable character, and is, in my judgment, inconsistent with a strict and impartial neutrality. I now wish to hear from Her Majesty's Government, whether the facts be as I have stated, as I believe them so to be, though I shall rejoice if I am mistaken; but I ask now for information, and I shall reserve the expression of my opinion to that period, which cannot now be far distant, when, on receipt of the answer of the King of the Two Sicilies to the ultimatum which, it is understood, has been sent him from this country, the negotiations on the general question must be drawing to a close, and no further impediments can exist towards laying before your Lordships all the materials for a full and fair discussion of this question.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid: I shall follow the example of the noble Lord in reserving the expression of my opinion upon these proceedings until we have an opportunity for a discussion of the whole question. Unquestionably there is a foundation for the question which the noble Lord has asked; and I conceive that I shall act rightly in stating accurately, for the information of the House, what actually took place. It certainly is the case that a contractor, who was habitually the contractor for arms to Her Majesty's Government, did, in the autumn of last year—I believe previous to the negotiation of the armistice, though I do not know that to be the fact—make an application to the Board of Ordnance to be allowed to take back certain guns which he had made for Her Majesty's service; and did it for the purpose of fulfilling another contract which he had entered into, to supply arms for the use of the Sicilian Government existing at that time. The Board of Ordnance did make an application upon the subject; and, undoubtedly, it did happen that the Foreign Department did afford facilities—that they did allow the contractor to take back the guns. I am quite ready to admit also, that when this transaction came to be known to Her Majesty's Government, although they could not look upon it as amounting to a direct interference with the contest then going on between Naples and

239
Sicily, yet it did appear to be so liable to misconstruction, as an indirect interference, that it was the deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that it was matter of regret that permission had not been withheld; and, in pursuance of that feeling of duty which ought to hind Powers, and especially such a country as this, in its conduct towards the comparatively less powerful country of Naples, it was felt that this country ought to be beforehand in taking the opportunity to tender explanation and satisfaction so far as was in our power; and, accordingly, at the commencement of the present year, Mr. Temple was fully authorised, if any complaint was made to him, fully to explain to the Neapolitan Government the nature, the amount, and the conditions of the transaction; to add, that it took place wholly from inadvertence; and to add, farther, the most positive and distinct assurance that measures had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such an inadvertency. It is not material to state, what in point of fact is the case, that those guns, both from their number and from the mode in which they are known to have been employed afterwards—having been placed in garrison, not used in the field—have not been of much service to the Sicilians; but it is right to say, that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department has represented to the Neapolitan Government that we are ready to give the fullest and most explicit explanation of the whole transaction, coupled with our regret at what has taken place.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to know whether the noble Marquess, by the use of the phrase "Sicilian Government," did not mean the Neapolitan Government?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I mean the Government, dc facto, in Sicily.
LORD BROUGHAM: The Sicilian Government is the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies; and the insurgents there have no more right to call themselves the Sicilian Government, than Smith O'Brien's committee had a right to call themselves the English Government.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had abstained from every thing which bore upon the relations existing between this country and Sicily—the noble Marquess who followed him had exercised the same forbearance; and he would follow the same example, though he might state that he certainly entertained a very strong opinion with respect to the obligations incurred by
240
us through the part we took in the establishment of the constitution granted to Sicily in 1813. He wished only to say one word with regard to the meaning which be attached to the terra "insurgent," which his noble Friend who spoke last, and his noble Friend who put the question, had applied to the existing Government of Sicily. He understood them to use that word in its literal meaning—not in any bad sense; he accepted it as meaning that, in point of fact, they had risen against the Government. Previously to 1813 the Sicilians had a constitution de jure, which unfortunately did not exist de facto, and they were in the same position, with regard to that constitution which the people of England were in with respect to their constitution before William III. came over to secure the liberties of this country. In 1813, they had a new constitution—that constitution was established under the auspices, with the influence, and through the power of this country. In 1816, without their own consent, the King of the Two Sicilies put an end to the constitution, and united Sicily and Naples under the same Government. The people of Sicily were, at the present moment, undoubtedly in opposition to their Sovereign—that was to say, they were insurgents, as the barons and the people of England were against their Sovereign, King John; they were insurgents, as the people of this country were against James II. They desired to re-establish a constitution to which they were as much entitled at this moment as the people of England were to their rights under Magna Charta previous to the signature of that treaty, or as the people of England were to the rights that were afterwards secured to them by the revolution. He would say no more. He should be very happy to give his opinion when the question was brought before the House; and he trusted that the opinion then expressed by Parliament might be consistent with the honour of this country.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I had no intention to disturb your Lordships by a single word; but, after what has fallen from the noble Lord, I must say that I think the question for us to decide is, not what the rights of the Sicilians may be, or what right the Sicilians may have to rise against their Sovereign, but whether this country has preserved an honourable course of policy and a true neutrality. I think it is quite unnecessary to give any opinion upon what the grievances of the Sicilians

241
may be, or what may be the course which they think proper to take for the redress of their grievances; but of this I am quite certain—that if we have guaranteed to the Sicilians the maintenance of their rights, it is our duty to assist them. If, on the other hand, we have given no such guarantee, I maintain that it is dishonourable and disgraceful to us to affect a neutrality which we do not strictly and honourably observe. I am unwilling to enter upon the question which has been raised; but as my noble Friend who spoke last, and the noble Lord who put the question, have both deferred the discussion to another day, I fully concur with them; and I admit the difficulty which any Government in this country must have to prevent remonstrances being made by foreign Powers on matters which constitute an apparent deviation from neutrality. I fully admit that difficulty. So long as arms and ammunition may be lawfully sold here to other countries, it is difficult to make foreign States understand that this Government has no means to prevent such transactions. I know by experience that such is the case. But the transaction referred to by my noble Friend is one of an entirely different nature, where the Government itself took part in it, and must, of course, be liable to any observations which may be made upon their conduct. However, after what we have been told by the noble Marquess, I feel that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the objectionable nature of the transaction, and, consequently, I have no further observations to make upon that head. But I could not help, after what fell from the noble Lord near me, stating these few words to your Lordships.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, having stated to your Lordships on the first day of the Session my views upon this subject, I shall now only make one or two observations. My Lords, the King of the Two Sicilies, commonly called the King of Naples, but recognised by the title of the King of the Two Sicilies, when he signed the Act of Accession, in accordance with the Treaty of Vienna, inserted in that Act of Accession certain conditions on which he accepted the sovereignty, which conditions included his title of King of the Two Sicilies, and also specified the manner in which the government of the island of Sicily should be carried on. This is a part of the Treaty of Vienna; and I say, my Lords, that this country, which accepted the Act of Accession on the part of the
242
King of the Two Sicilies, is as much bound by the conditions stated in that Act, as she is by any other article in the Treaty of Vienna. Now, it is perfectly true that this country is not bound to enforce execution of the provisions of that article, or of any other article in the Treaty of Vienna with regard to other Powers. That which the Sovereigns of this country do when they give a guarantee for the execution of any one point in these treaties is, to bind themselves not to depart either from the letter or the spirit of these treaties. They do not bind themselves to enforce the execution by others on either side, but they bind themselves not to depart from the treaty. In this instance, when the King of Naples took upon himself the assumption of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, he bound himself that he would never be guilty of any breach of the article contained in his Act of Accession; but if he did not act accordingly, if there was, in consequence, a trial of arras between him and the Sicilians, or any other Power, of course we are bound to remain neutral during the contest. We ought not to interfere in the affairs of Sicily against the provisions of the article contained in the Act of Accession which was introduced into the Treaty of Vienna. I say, therefore, my Lords, I hope that Parliament will find, after all the papers on this subject have been laid before them, that no step has been taken which can be construed into a breach of one of the provisions of the Act of Accession, which I take to form a part of the Treaty of Vienna.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite, he was anxious to set himself right with their Lordships. Though he had been employed, and most anxiously employed, in endeavouring to bring about an accommodation between the King of Naples and his Sicilian subjects, and though he had been most anxious to maintain, if it were possible, the union between the two Crowns, yet he never did consent to treat with Sicily on any footing which could suppose them to be in unlawful insurrection against their Sovereign; but on the footing of men who were in point of fact engaged in the assertion of rights to which they had every possible claim. On those terms and on that footing alone he consented to mediate between the two parties. He had stated to the Neapolitan Government, that he conceived the Sicilian Government possessed an absolute right to

243
the constitution of 1812 as the constitution by which they were then entitled to be governed; but, at the same time, he was anxious to employ the good offices of England to induce them to accept of any reasonable concessions which the Government might be disposed to offer. But he could not allow it to pass as a matter of course that the Sicilians were to be treated as being in rebellion against their lawful Sovereign at the time, when he believed them to be fully entitled to all they claimed. There were other considerations equally obligatory which attached to this country; but that was a subject which could only be properly discussed when all the papers were before their Lordships.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, before the papers were discussed, he wished his noble Friend would take an opportunity to read two or three times over the Treaty of Vienna, as he seemed to have forgotten part of it. He hoped his noble Friend (Lord Minto) would refresh his memory upon the subject; and, if he had not a copy at home, he would take the liberty of sending him one. Also, he wished his noble Friend would just mention, when the debate did come on, whether he considered the King of the Two Sicilies to be King of the Two Sicilies or only one of them—King of Naples—because he and his noble Friend (Lord Ellenborough) appeared to put a different construction on the treaty. He appeared to consider the constitution of 1812 just as Louis XIV. considered James II. as the King upon the Throne of England; and, though a period of thirty years had elapsed, and William III., Queen Anne, and George I. hold firm possession of it, yet in the eyes of the King of France the King of England was not on the Throne of England, but was the person whom we denominated the Pretender. So the noble Earl appeared to regard the Sicilian constitution which had been pulled down in 1816, and had never since found ony one that could raise it up again.
The EARL of MINTOwould say one word in reply. He certainly had read—and it was neither a long nor a difficult task—the Treaty of Vienna. That which related to this matter was wholly comprised in one article—the 104th—and there was not another word in the treaty touching the question. That article went no farther than this. It provided for the restoration of the King to his Neapolitan dominions, and it recognised him by the
244
style and title—nothing more than this—by the style and title of King of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies; and also, which perhaps the noble and learned Lord was not aware of, it recognised his title of King of Jerusalem.
LORD BROUGHAM: But you did not go to Jerusalem?
The EARL of MINTO: No, he did not go to Jerusalem. He might add, there were other treaties, with which the noble Lord did not appear to be acquainted, that related to the history of the period.

MORTALITY IN IRISH GAOLS.
LORD MONTEAGLErose to move for certain Irish criminal returns, and returns showing the mortality in the prisons of Ireland during each of the last five years. He said, the object of his return was to show that the mortality in the Irish prisons had been augmented, in the three years 1845–6–7, from 131 to 1,315; and while the commitments to prison had augmented 2 to 1, the mortality augmented 16 to 1. He doubted whether so frightful a result had ever before been exhibited; and in the report of the prison inspectors of Ireland, this increase of mortality was to a great degree attributed to the decrease of transportation. To affirm that Parliament was unwarranted in repealing the punishment of transportation, or the Government justified in suspending its infliction, was impossible if the prisons were brought into such a condition by the alteration of the law or the practice, that within three years the deaths in prisons, including the untried as well as the convicted, the debtor as well as the criminal, should have augmented tenfold—this was a state of things which ought not for one moment to be allowed. The following were the words of the report of the Inspectors General of Prisons on this point:—
"The fourth cause of the great pressure has boon the unfortunate necessity which occurred simultancously with the distress, of discontinuing transportation to Van Diemen's Land. This had inevitably resulted in the Government being compelled to leave large numbers of persons under rule of transportation in the county gaols. This necessity will be at once admitted when we state, that at the commencement of the year 1847, there was not accommodation for a single prisoner sentenced to transportation at the disposal of Government; Smithfield prison, the only one previously available, requiring to be entirely remodelled, in order to render it fit for the confinement of prisoners for lengthened periods. During the year 1847, the number of prisoners sentenced to transportation actually increased fourfold—the average of male prisoners transported during the

245
preceding seven years being only 618, while, including 200 left at the termination of the year 1846, the number has within the last year amounted to 2,350 convicts, up to the 14th February, 1848."
He felt justified, therefore, in saying that it was imprudent—to use no stronger word—to discontinue or greatly to reduce transportation to the colonies, until some measure had been devised and adopted which was calculated to serve as a substitute. The last return for which he would move was, the number of prisoners sentenced to transportation, and imprisoned for the same period. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had on a former night most unjustly and erroneously attributed this to a settled design of the Irish magistrates, by the corrupt and oppressive use of authority, to provide emigration for these paupers at the public expense. This was a serious charge coming from one who for a period, however short, stood, as Lord Chancellor, at the head of the Irish magistracy. He would not weaken the force of the triumphant reply given by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) to this most unwarrantable accusation. But he would remind those who had not heard that conclusive refutation, that the charge, though aimed at the Irish justice of the peace, in reality fell on Lord Clarendon, whose duty it would have been, if the charge were well founded, to have protected the Queen's subjects from this injustice. It was hardly necessary for him, likewise, to add that these sentences were not pronounced by these magistrates at all, but by independent judges, the assistant barristers appointed by the Crown. But his learned Friend was wholly uninformed of the facts of the case. The pressure of distress was the great cause of the increase of crime. In truth as well as in poetry, the turpis egestus and the malesuada fames were closely united. The great augmentation of crime in Ireland within a certain period had arisen under the severe pressure of the distress which prevailed in that country, and this was apparent from the character of the offences committed. The great part of the more serious offences consisted of sheep stealing and cattle stealing. God forbid that he should seek to excuse or to palliate that or any other crime! but he merely mentioned what was an undoubted fact, to be easily explained by the state of famine and of abject poverty which so generally prevailed. With regard to the working of the Vagrancy Act, the report states—
246
"This law, passed last Session, compels magistrates to commit to gaol all persons found begging, whereby an immense mass of destitution, filth, and disease is forced into prisons, never in their original construction calculated to receive. It must be borne in mind that, in addition to the want of absolute room in the prisons, the supplies of bedding and clothing are limited to the average wants of each county, and that the present distress for funds in all the counties of Ireland precludes the possibility of those supplies being enlarged to any extent at all capable of meeting the present demand. The immediate evil then is, that numbers of these wretched creatures so committed are obliged to be on straw in the passages and day-rooms of the prisons, without a possibility of washing or exchanging their own filthy rags for proper apparel. The effect of such a state of things as this upon the health and lives of the other unfortunate inmates of the prison, requires no comment. Upon the necessity of passing this Act, or the propriety of the mode of punishment adopted under it, it is not our place to offer any opinion; but of its effect upon the condition of the gaols we are painfully conscious."
If Parliament made an alteration in the criminal law of the country, they were bound to look before them, and to see that there were means to carry such alteration into effect. If they passed laws against mendicancy and vagrancy, they should inquire first whether those laws could be executed. That, however, had not been done in the present case. As to these alterations in the transportation system adopted by Her Majesty's present Government he had only to add, that he was sure the noble Lord (Earl Grey) would have abandoned them fifty times over rather than have adopted the course which he had pursued, if he knew the calamitous effects which would have followed. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the returns in the words of his notice.
EARL GREYsaid, that it might be for the convenience of the House if he at once followed his noble Friend, and stated what the facts really were. Of course, he could have no objection to the returns that were applied for being granted; but with respect to the inference which his noble Friend had drawn, that the increase of mortality in the prisons in Ireland was owing to a change of policy with regard to transportation, he should admit that the whole argument would be irresistible, were it not that it was open to the slight objection of resting on no foundation whatever—that what were put forward as facts were not facts at all. The inspectors of prisons in Ireland had got into a bad habit, which sometimes existed in that country, of imagining facts, and then arguing on that foundation alone, without

247
taking any trouble to ascertain what the real facts of the case were. Their Lordships had just heard it stated, on the authority of those inspectors, that transportation from Ireland had been done away with. Now, with regard to female convicts, their Lordships were aware that no change had taken place; and as to the male convicts, he held in his hand a return of the number of convicts that had been sent from Ireland for the five years ending in 1845, and for the three years that had since elapsed. He found that the average number of convicts sent from Ireland in the five years between 1841 and 1845 inclusive, was 538, while the average number for the years 1846–7–8 was 562, being an increase of 24 on the former period; in the last named year, 1848, the number of convicts removed from Ireland was no less than 855. The real fact was, that the overcrowding of the gaols in Ireland was owing, not to the convicts having been kept at home, but, as the noble Lord had stated, to the great distress which prevailed in the country. The number of convictions in Ireland had increased to a most frightful extent; and he could not avoid adding his opinion, that the sentence of transportation had been latterly passed in Ireland in rather an indiscriminate manner. He found that up to 1845 the average number of male persons sentenced to transportation in Ireland was less than 545, while in 1847 the number was 1,870, and in 1848 it amounted, he believed, to nearly 1,900. At the last quarter-sessions in Ireland, independent of the assizes, the number sentenced to transportation, for one quarter of a year, was greater than the average annual number up to 1845, for both quarter-sessions and assizes. It was obvious that so enormous an increase in the number of convicts could not but place Government in a most difficult position, seeing that no adequate provision existed for their reception in the colonies. He should be sorry to censure the gentry of Ireland, but he could not, consistently with his duty, avoid expressing his conviction, founded on these returns, that the grand jurors of Ireland had not exercised the powers entrusted to them by the Legislature, of increasing the prison accommodation under their charge. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), who had paid much attention to this subject, would bear him out in the statement, that it was, of all things, most important, in maintaining a proper system
248
of prison discipline, that the accommodation should be fully proportionate to the demand to be made upon it. The grand juries possessed powers of increasing, either permanently or temporarily, the gaol accommodation in their several districts. These powers were exercised by the magistracy in this country by making provision, from time to time, for necessary additions to the gaols; and in conferring that power upon the grand juries in Ireland, the Parliament had done all that could be required of it. As to the Vagrancy Act, he could not but believe that it would be a useful practice to cheek the demoralising practice of vagrancy in Ireland, as well as in this country. Her Majesty's Government had done all in their power to meet the existing evils. He need scarcely remind their Lordships that their predecessors in office had discovered, in 1846, that from the want of accommodation in Van Diemen's Land and Norfolk Island, the only two settlements to which convicts from Ireland had been sent, the most fearful state of things existed, which rendered it absolutely necessary to suspend the sending of convicts there for some time. Every exertion was made to provide accommodation elsewhere. Sevaral depôts had been formed in Ireland, at Spike Island, at Portland, Gibraltar, and elsewhere, and accommodation was thus afforded for no less than 1,400 convicts within the last two years. He regretted, as deeply as the noble Lord could do, the calamitous results which followed the overcrowding of the prisons in Ireland; but, at the same time, their Lordships would see, that in this question of transportation, it was absolutely necessary to proceed with caution. As he had stated the other night, he believed that transportation, when attended with proper precautions, was a most invaluable system of punishment; but if they sent abroad an unlimited number of convicts, without having proper accommodation provided for them, they should make up their minds to discontinue the system altogether. He was quite convinced that it was impossible to relieve the prisons of Ireland by sending such largo masses of convicts abroad, while they had no accommodation for their reception. At the same time, the Government were doing everything in their power to extend that accommodation as much as possible. At Bermuda the depot on dry land was progressing very rapidly. At Portland, too, they were providing large

249
accommodation, and though this was intended for English convicts, it would have the effect of enabling a large number of Irish convicts to be received elsewhere. But, in addition to these considerations, they had the fact that a great proportion of the Irish convicts were utterly unfit for transportation, and the Lord Lieutenant had felt it necessary to issue instructions that no convicts should be forwarded for transportation who were not certified as fit to endure the voyage. This was found to be necessary in the case of a vessel that had been sent from Ireland with convicts, in 1847, to Bermuda; the Governor had reported that the constitutions of the prisoners had been so completely broken down by the previous famine, that they were unable to bear even that short voyage; and there was little doubt that if they had been sent the long voyage to Australia, the mortality would have been frightful.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, it was very inconvenient, that whenever an Irish Peer made a statement in their Lordships' House, another got up immediately afterwards to contradict it; but this system of contradicting assertions was carried still farther in the noble Earl's comments on the report of the Irish inspectors of prisons, He was loth to take for granted any statement that came from Ireland; but certainly if the gaols were in such a state as had been represented by the noble Lord, it was the duty of the Government to institute some inquiries on the subject. He could not understand how magistrates could commit persons to gaols when fever was rife, and still it would appear that many of the convicts were fitter for an hospital than a prison. He should only further say, that the number of Irish labourers wandering about this country was really alarming. They went in bands to the cottages, and, while the husband was away at his work, forced the wife to give up the food she had prepared for him and her children. He hoped that by some means an alteration would soon be effected in so deplorable a state of things.
LORD MONTEAGLEreplied: He begged altogether to protest against the discredit most unjustly thrown on the Inspector General's reports, by the Secretary for the Colonies. The report from which he had quoted had been lying on the table since last year. He had then stated the facts precisely as he had done to-night; he had at that time called the attention of the Secretary of State to the frightful
250
statement the report contained. Its truth had not been for a moment controverted. From that time to the present these statements were before the Government, without any commentary or correction having appeared, and without the censure or dismissal of those public officers, who were now charged by a Minister of the Crown with the offence of falsifying public documents presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty. Every fact on which he had relied was set forth in the report. As to the charges made by the noble Lord against the Irish grand juries, it was certainly the first time that he had ever heard those bodies charged with an indisposition to spend the public money. And he begged to add, in proof of what they had done in this respect, that the expenditure on account of prisons for the last few years was nearly double what it had been previously. He then spoke in the presence of two noble Lords who had filled the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Stanley and Lord St. Germans), and he would appeal to them whether the prisons of Ireland had not been during their tenures of office as regularly and efficiently conducted as any similar establishment in any part of the empire?
EARL GREY begged to explain: He had not stated that the prisons' inspectors of Ireland had reported what was not true in point of fact as to the removal of the convicts to Van Diemen's Land having been discontinued, which they all knew was not the fact; but what he had stated was, that the argument of the noble Lord, based upon their report, that the existing evil was caused by the change of policy with regard to transportation, and the discontinuance of the removal of convicts from Ireland, was unfounded, inasmuch as a greater number of convicts had been sent out of Ireland during the last three years than in any former period. He might add that the whole subject was under the earnest consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and of the Lord Lieutenant, and one of the results was, the recent discharge of a large number of prisoners, whose period of imprisonment had been nearly completed.—Motion agreed to.
House adjourned to Thursday next.