Sitting of 4 May 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o St. John's, Newfoundland, Rebuilding; Grants of Land (New South Wales).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Willcox, from Leamington, for the Clergy Relief Bill.—By Mr. Halsey, from Essenden, against, and by Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Not tingham, in favour of, the Marriages Bill—By Mr. Elliot, from the County of Roxburgh, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. James Duff, from Strathbogie, against the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill—By Mr. Heywood, from Havergham Eaves, respecting the Lan cashire County Expenditure By Mr. Cobden, from Heptonstall, for the County Rates and Expenditure Bill.—From the Newmarket Railway Company, respecting Taxation of Railways.—By Sir Henry Meux, from several Places in Hertfordshire, for Agricultural Relief.—From Bath, for Relief to Agriculture in Ireland.—By Mr. Moffatt, from Clifton Dartmouth Hardness, for the Bankrupt and Insolvent Members Bill.—By Sir E. Buxton, from Walton, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—By Mr. Slaney, from London, for the Establishment of Home Colonies.—By Mr. Wyld, from Westminster, for Prohibiting Interment in Towns.—By Mr. Home Drummond, from Perthshire, against the Lunatics (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Cocks, from Croydon, complaining of Grievances affecting the Medical Profession.—By Mr. Tenison, from Leitrim, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Cayley, from the Stokesley Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Offieers.—By Mr. W. Miles, from Shepton Mallet, against the Public Roads (England and North Wales) Bill.—By Mr. Mackenzie, from Peeblesshire, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Farrer, from Darlington, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Viscount Palmerston, from Tiverton, for the formation of Treaties by which International Disputes may be decided by Arbitration.

INTERMENT IN TOWNS.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, that some doubt existed with regard to the answer

1259
given the other night by the Home Secretary to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Bath in reference to burial in towns; and he (Lord D. Stuart) therefore begged leave to request an explicit answer to the question, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure during the present Session, with the view of prohibiting interment in towns?
SIR G. GREYsaid, what he stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Bath was, that a Bill was in course of preparation on the subject of burials in the metropolitan districts. The question of extending the provisions of the measure to other large towns was still under consideration. He could not say when the Bill would be introduced.
LORD D. STUARTwished to know if the Bill would be brought forward during the present Session?
SIR G. GREYcould not state positively, but he had every reason to believe that it would.
Subject at an end.

NAVIGATION LAWS.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade a question which he must be allowed to preface by reading a portion of a speech reported to have been delivered on Tuesday last by Mr. G. F. Young. The following was the statement to which he referred:—
"I now come to the position in which the measure is placed at the present instant. Uncalled for as the measure must be considered, and although it is not only unsupported by, but is in direct opposition to, public opinion, Her Majesty's Government did not hesitate to take the most extraordinary means for the purpose of pressing it through the Legislature; and in confirmation of this statement, I can state a fact to the meeting which will, I think, surprise them not a little. The Provost of Montrose, who had come to London with a deputation to oppose the progress of the Government measure, waited on his representative, Mr. Joseph Hume, and urged on him the palpable inconsistency of his supporting a Bill such as that, which was diametrically opposed to the principles of free trade, of which he had always been a strenuous supporter. Now, what do you think was the reply of Mr. Hume? This occurrence, I may observe, took place yesterday week, the day on which the House of Commons divided on the third reading of the Bill. Mr. Hume said, 'You need not be alarmed. I was with Mr. Labouchere for an hour on Saturday last, and I told him that I, with several of my friends who entertained conscientious scruples upon this question, could not support the third reading of the Bill, as being inconsistent in its provisions with the principles which we have always
1260
held; and the reply I received from Mr. Labouchere was, Do not be alarmed. If you and your friends support the third reading, the Government will next Session bring in a Bill to repeal those very clauses to which you object.'"
The question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether there was any truth in this statement?
MR. LABOUCHEREtrusted, it was unnecessary for him to assure his hon. Friend and the House that the story, so far as it concerned himself, was utterly without foundation. The House would not be surprised at a misapprehension on the subject, when he said that this account of a private conversation between the hon. Member for Montrose and himself, was said to have been repeated by him to the Provost of Montrose, who repeated the same to Mr. George Frederick Young, who in turn repeated it to the meeting. No doubt the truth had somewhat suffered in the transit. He (Mr. Labouchere) had never said anything to the hon. Member for Montrose which could by possibility have been construed into anything like the version given by Mr. George Frederick Young. Mr. Hume was unfortunately unwell, and unable to attend the House; but he had received a note from him, stating that the story was altogether incorrect. The only ground he could imagine for the report was thus: He had had many conversations with Mr. Hume and other Members concerning this Bill, and had been urged by them to take the opportunity of settling the light-dues and other questions; and he had stated his opinion in reply, that this would be a most improper occasion to arrange matters of such magnitude, but at the same time agreeing that, if this measure passed, it would become the duty of Government and Parliament in a succeeding Session to apply themselves to those questions. That, perhaps, might be the foundation for the statement, the accuracy of which he denied altogether.
Subject at an end.

LAND IMPROVEMENT AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose and said, that during the recent protracted debates on the Rate in Aid Bill, the state of Ireland had been so fully discussed that he should not feel it necessary to say much on that subject in prefacing the resolution which he had to submit

1261
to the Committee. He confessed, however, that with a few exceptions, the real state of the country had hardly been sufficiently adverted to. In the anxiety of some hon. Members for certain amendments in the poor-law, the real destitution of a large population in the west of Ireland had almost entirely been lost sight of; whilst, on the other hand, those who were unwilling to consent to further advances to Ireland also lost sight of the immense extent of starvation which existed, and the numbers of people on the verge of famine. He was quite sure that the House would regret it if no attempt was made by it to apply some remedy to this state of things. Believing, therefore, as the Government did, that such was the state of a great part of the west of Ireland—and he referred in his observations almost exclusively to the western districts of that country—it was their duty in the first instance to provide means, either by grant or advance, to prevent the fearful calamity of the starvation of many thousands. The Government, at the commencement of the Session, believing such to be the state of the people in the west of Ireland, took steps to avert the danger, first, by procuring a grant of 50,000 l., and, subsequently, by bringing forward the Rate in Aid Bill, on the credit of which a further advance of 100,000 l. might be obtained. Other measures had already been presented to the House relating to encumbered estates, and to the amendment of the poor-law; and the proposal he was now about to make was for the advance of money for the improvement of the condition of a portion of Ireland, and for the employment of a portion of the Irish people, in a manner which would tend to preclude the necessity of eleemosynary aid, and improve the state of the labouring population, as well as benefit the estates on which they were to be employed. Before, however, going into the details of the proposal he was now about to make, he wished to say a very few words on the present state of Ireland. He entirely differed from those hon. Gentlemen who seemed to conceive that all at once, by legislative measures, the whole state and condition of Ireland might be changed. Nobody acquainted with that country could fail to see that the change required was a total change of the social system—of the habits, and of the ways of acting and thinking, in all classes of the population. That change could not be effected in a
1262
moment, and it could not be effected by the Legislature, though the Legislature might aid in bringing it about; but such a change, produced in course of time, he believed to be essential to the prosperity of the country. At the same time, he thought that no view could be more mistaken than to despair of the amendment of that part of the country to which he referred; and he believed that those who held out the expectation of brighter prospects for it formed a more correct judgment of the state of affairs. No doubt a bitter period had been gone through in the last two or three years, and great suffering still existed in many parts of the country; but bitter as the lesson had been, he believed that the adversity which had been experienced, would prove ultimately to have been the best school for improvement. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware that one of the chief evils in Ireland bad been the number of small tenants living on a bit of ground, and clinging to the land with the greatest obstinacy. All attempts to get rid of that system had hitherto failed; and he confessed he doubted whether anything short of what had happened could have removed that cottier tenantry from the land, and rendered those who owned the land the masters of their own estates. But it was not to be denied that the change which had been effected had been attended with fearful calamities. It was notorious that, till a recent time, the rent of the landlord depended on the number of his tenantry; the landlord depended on the middleman, the middleman on the tenantry, and the tenantry on the potato; and when the potato went, therefore all those classes suffered. He had on a former occasion read a remarkable extract from a communication from a poor-law inspector in Ireland, pointing out the necessary consequences of such a system; and he would now read a quotation from a report made by Captain Kennedy, on the 22nd of January, in reference to the Kilrush union, which conveyed in a short and conclusive manner the nature of the accounts received from many parts of the country. Captain Kennedy said—
"The facile mode by which the landlord or middleman hitherto obtained exorbitant rents, and the labourer or peasant a wretched subsistence, has unfitted each for energetic exertion. The greater portion of this union was essentially a potato country, yielding the most prolific return. The peasant's life was passed in planting his potatoes in spring, digging them up in autumn, and dozing through the winter over the turf fire which

1263
cost him nothing. His potatoes are now gone, and with them his pig and means of buying clothing. He must now go naked and starve, unless he gets employment or gratuitous relief, The means of the occupiers are, I cannot doubt, much exhausted by paying a potato rent for land that will no longer grow them. Those who have means are, from various causes, averse to lay out the capital necessary to the successful growing of other crops. Of the proprietors there are but few resident—I cannot speak of their means—I only know that there has not been any amount of poor-rate levied in this union seriously to injure them; no more than any man of common humanity ought voluntarily to bestow in disastrous times. That they are, generally speaking, embarrassed, I fear is a melancholy truth, and goes far to account for the existing want of employment and consequent destitution. The destitution in this union is a mighty and fearful reality; it is in vain to strive to falsify or forget its existence; yet no combined effort, and hardly an individual one, is made to alleviate or arrest it. A few philanthropic individuals continue to afford their mite of relief and employment, but their example is not taken. There is a general lack of energy; the better part of the community seem, for the most part, as apathetic as if the country were comparatively prosperous; while demoralisation, disease, and death are spreading like a cancer. I see the masses of the people starving, and the land, which could be made to feed treble the number, lying all but waste. I think an amount of rate sufficient to keep the union for three months between this and harvest could with difficulty be levied. This leads me to the inquiry, what are the precise causes of the destitution existing in this union? Simply, want of employment and wholesale evictions, and the land being left scarce half tilled. Why naturally fine and fertile land should be left undrained and unimproved, when hundreds of labourers can be had for 4d. or 5d. per diem, and many for their food alone, is difficult to understand."
That he believed to be a faithful picture of the state of Ireland, and it was confirmed by various other reports. It was obviously a state which no legislation could possibly remedy. They might indeed facilitate the sale of some of those estates which were so encumbered that the proprietors were without means; but to imagine that any law could relieve the condition of the whole population, was to suppose that to be possible which no law could possibly effect. Obviously what was wanted was the employment of capital by those who were willing to employ it; and, so far as the Government could, they were ready to supply capital to some extent to those who were anxious for it. What he had now referred to was no doubt the dark side of the picture; and he was happy to say that, looking to other parts of the country, there were many symptoms of an amended state of things, which might infuse hope even into the most desponding—symptoms of an amendment appeared to him the most wholesome of all—
1264
of individual energy and individual exertion. He could not give a more striking instance of such exertion than that to which he had formerly referred, of the manner in which the Earl of Lucan had, in Mayo, removed a number of the people by emigration, employed others in throwing together farms, and was introducing an improved system of agriculture. But even in other parts of the country there were many similar instances to be found. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in that remarkable speech which he made some weeks ago, alluded to a gentleman, the brother of the hon. Member for Leicester, who had taken a quantity of waste land in the Clifden union, with the view of cultivating it on the English system. He had also heard that another member of the Society of Friends had taken a large farm, in the same neighbourhood, and he must say that the exertions made by the members of that society were most laudable. Their efforts had been conducted in the most exemplary and praiseworthy manner; and they were deserving of all possible credit not only for their humanity and the interest they had shown in the improvement of that country, but for the practical good sense with which they had always acted. He had also heard that in another of those western counties, three farmers of Norfolk had accepted terms which were beneficial both to the landlord and themselves; and he had heard, from a gentleman in Mayo, that other parties had been in treaty with him for the purpose of introducing an improved system of cultivation. He would now refer to another union which had obtained some celebrity in Ireland—the union of Ballina, which had hitherto been considered to be in the most hopeless condition. The Committee might remember that in one of the papers laid on the table early in the Session, it was stated by Col. Knox Gore, that the extent to which the tenantry had emigrated was so great that a large quantity of the land was lying waste for want of labourers. He found also, in a letter addressed to the Poor Law Commissioners, by Colonel Vaughan Jackson, in January last, the following passage:—
"In the Ballina union I hope the worst is arrived or passed. In the Ballina union, emigration, through money sent from America, has had an important influence in relieving pressure. On one day in November, twenty-nine persons left the parish I lived in for America; on another day, within a short period, nineteen left. In the

1265
winter of 1846–47, masses went to America; they have sent, and are now every day sending, for their friends and kindred. In the Ballina union, arterial and other drainages, and employment given by the gentry, largely assisted the poor."
Such was the opinion of that gentleman in the month of January, when he thought they had at length arrived at the worst. He had received a letter yesterday from Mr. Burke, one of the inspectors in the Ballina district, in respect to this union, the contents of which he was sure would be hoard with great satisfaction by the House:—
"It has been my duty so frequently during the past two years to report, in unfavourable terms, of the prospects of the county of Mayo, and especially of the Ballina union, that I feel peculiar pleasure in being at length able to state to you that, in my opinion, there appear to be some signs of improvement in this district, and that the alarm and despondency which have heretofore paralysed almost all exertion, seems to be giving way to a feeling of hope, which is leading to increased industry and energy. During the last week I have had opportunities of observing the general appearance of the country in this union, and of conversing with persons competent to form a just opinion of the state of affairs, and I have arrived at the conclusion that a spirit of activity prevails throughout the greater portion of it, und that strenuous exertions are being made by all classes to draw out the resources of the soil, and increase the means of support. Much of the land which during the last year remained uncultivated is now under tillage, and anxiety is shown to invest capital and labour in the improvement of land, where before the greatest apathy prevailed. All accounts that I have received agree in representing that more land has been sown with corn than during the past year, and a very considerably larger quantity of potatoes has been planted than is usual at this early season. In several instances I have heard of farmers increasing the size of their holdings, and becoming tenants of unoccupied farms adjoining their own, and, in some cases, land has been taken by persons from a distance, who are investing their capital in its cultivation. I think, also, that I can perceive that a better and more careful mode of husbandry is gradually being introduced, and, calculating upon a certain amount of turnips, and other green crops, being sown at a later period, when the time for their operation shall arrive, I think we may hope to see a very great change for the better in the appearance of the country at the next harvest. These results have been arrived at during a period when money has been peculiarly scarce; and I think it affords just grounds for hope that, if the produce of the crops now planted shall prove ordinarily good, the increase of food and wealth which it will occasion will lead to renewed exertions in the same direction in succeeding years. And these exertions, which have now produced but little corresponding benefit to the labouring classes—for in consequence of the poverty of the small farmers, their agricultural operations have been chiefly executed by themselves or members of their own family—yet hereafter, when their means are increased by the
1266
return of their present labours, the effect will undoubtedly be felt by the labouring classes, whose assistance will be required to carry on the work which has now been commenced."
That was one of the most satisfactory accounts he had yet received from Ireland, for it showed that in one of the worst districts individual exertion had gone far to remedy the existing evils, and the anticipations of a gentleman well acquainted with Ireland of an improved state of things had been fully borne out by subsequent experience. He would here state, with regard to some measures which had been suggested for securing the more efficient administration of the poor-law, that perhaps hon. Gentlemen were not aware that there were at this moment forty-three temporary inspectors employed almost exclusively in the west of Ireland, under whose superintendence the poor-law was administered, without whose application no sums had been advanced, and without whose sanction no money could be applied to the relief of the unions, so that there was every security for the economical distribution of the funds. He wished now to state, that it appeared, from all he had heard, that what was now most necessary was employment for the people. He believed that the time would come when the means of giving that from private resources would be adequate, and he believed that it would be well worth while for this country in the mean time to make limited advances for that purpose, in order to foster the industry of the country, and by setting an example of the wholesome improvement of the land to show what advantages might be derived from pursuing such a course. The first purpose for which he proposed to ask the Committee to consent to an advance of money, would be under the Land Improvement Act, which he believed would provide the most wholesome mode of employing it. In that case the natural relations between master and labourer, and between landlord and tenant, were entirely preserved, and the interference of the Government was as small as possible—merely to see that the money was duly paid according to law, and that the works were properly executed. The landlord employed his own labourers, and the wholesome state of relation between landlord and tenant was maintained unimpaired. He would state very shortly what the effect of that measure had been up to this time. The amount of advances applied for was 3,074,000 l., and the amount

1267
sanctioned was about half that sum, 1,544,000 l. There had been given up by various proprietors loans to the amount of 112,000 l., and there had been re-sanctioned loans to the amount of 59,000 l., so that sums were now sanctioned and allocated to the amount of 1,491,000 l.—leaving a reserve of about 9,000 l. Of the whole sum there had been issued 548,000 l., and therefore there remained as a fund for the employment of labour during the three or four ensuing years 952,000 l. It was proposed by the vote of that evening to increase that sum by 300,000 l., which would give 1,252,000 l. as the total sum to be employed in that manner. An hn. Gentleman stated some time ago that the distressed counties had derived little or no advantage from that source. The hon. Gentleman found afterwards that he was mistaken, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would now state what those distressed counties—principally the counties west of the Shannon—actually had received. Applications were made by them to the extent of 1,600,000 l.; and loans were sanctioned to the amount of 800,000 l. Moreover, of the actual issue, which amounted to 548,000 l., more than one half, 265,000 l., had actually been issued to those counties. He had stated that the greatest benefits had been derived from the expenditure of money in that way. The inspector of Tipperary, Clare, and King's County reported that—
"In no part of the world is steady employment, even at the lowest rate of remuneration, more highly appreciated than in this district; and the employment provided by the Land Improvement Act is now peculiarly valuable, when the country is in a state of transition between the old vicious system of paying the labourer, not in cash, but by making him a sort of jobbing farmer, working under an oppressive rack-rent, to the more correct arrangement of giving him steady employment and regular payment in money wages. Heretofore the lands were in the hands of the class called "farmers," but who had never expended one shilling in either draining or deepening the soil; they confined their exertions to planting and digging out potatoes, or herding a few head of cattle. Owing to the failure of the potato they became destitute, and numbers would have perished were it not for the employment afforded under the Land Improvement Act. In many instances lands, which three years ago were not worth 2s. 6d an acre, are now good value for 10 s. either for tillage or pasture."
He would read one more extract, because it was a very striking one, relating to the county of Leitrim:—
"Out of a great number which have come within our knowledge, we shall quote one decisive example of the pecuniary advantage derived from
1268
thorough draining. The townland of Gortreas Keagh, in the county of Leitrim, the estate of Mr. James Whyte and Lieutenant-Colonel J. J. Whyte, which contains 175 acres 1 rood 33 perches of arable land, and 12 acres 1 rood 25 perches of bog, making altogether 187 acres 3 roods 18 perches, was, previously to draining, let in small tenements to a number of poor tenants for the sum of 125 l. 12 s. 6d. per annum; the tenants were removed either by emigration or transference to other lands, and subsequently the sum of 805 l. 11 s. 10 d. was expended on improvements, the interest on which, at 6l. 10 s. per cent per annum, amounts to 52 l. 6s. 6d. When the works were completed the lands were re-let at a rent of 206 l. 9s. 1d., being an increase on the original rent of 80 l. 16 s. 7d. per annum, or 10 l. per cent on the outlay."
On this part of the subject he did not think it necessary to state more, to show the advantage to this country of the improvement of Ireland, as well as the advantage to the labourer and the landlord in Ireland from that species of employment. He proposed, therefore, to take for that purpose an advance of 300,000 l., and to place it at the disposal of the loan commissioners for the purpose of being advanced to the landlords, to enable them to improve their estates under the Land Improvement Act. He now came to another purpose for which he proposed that an advance should be made, and that was for the promotion of arterial drainage. Upon this subject there certainly had been no inconsiderable misconception of the intentions of the Government, and as there had been very great disappointment expressed that there had not been an unlimited supply of money from the Exchequer, he would state what the intention of the Government originally was. [Mr. F. FRENCH: We want nothing of the sort.] Not want it? He could only say that every day for the last three weeks he had had applications from Ireland upon the subject. It was not the original intention that it should rest upon the Government to find the funds for river drainage; and, accordingly, up to July, 1847, the advances made by private parties amounted to 127,000 l., and no more than 36,000 l. had been advanced from the public resources. In that year of great distress, it was found that this species of undertaking presented the easiest mode of setting the people to work in the existing circumstances of Ireland, and the sum of 370,000 l. was voted accordingly, it being distinctly stated to be to find employment for that year. Now, very great fault had been found with the conduct and management of the Board of Public Works; but Gentlemen must remember that, in 1847,

1269
works were undertaken in many parts of Ireland with a view to affording relief in the manner which was at that time adopted—works which would not have been undertaken but because it was desirable to give general employment in distressed districts. Cases bad occurred in which, in consequence of the improvement of the stream above, the banks of the lower part of a river were flooded. In 1846 it was thought so desirable that works of this description should be undertaken, in order to afford relief, that the then Secretary for Ireland introduced the Summary Proceedings Bill, with a view to facilitate the previous survey, and to allow of works being undertaken without going through the long process of survey theretofore necessary; and the consequence was that an insufficient survey and estimate were sometimes made, in order to avoid delay in providing for the unemployed and destitute labourers, and that upon more careful inquiry it was found that increased expenditure was necessary. But still, when the House heard what was the amount of expense, after all, they would hardly say that it was so very heavy. As to the whole of the engineering staff, it had in no instance exceeded 5 per cent upon the outlay on the works completed. Two or three statements furnished to the Government upon this subject, would best show the result of this river drainage, which was the foundation of all subsequent improvements, for it was impossible for landlords to drain their land properly until there were sufficient outlets. To take, first, a general statement. One of the commissioners reported:—
"A lively and gradually diffused sense of the benefit is evidenced by the tenants opening up their minor drains, spreading the soil from the cuttings on their land as top-dressing, and tilling the reclaimed land. In some cases those low lands which were formerly subject to frequent and destructive floods are already thorough-drained, and fine crops are at present growing on lands which could not formerly be calculated upon as affording even a coarse meadow."
That was the general report. He would now read an account of three drainages which had been quite completed. The first was the Blackwater:—
"Land upon which, previous to the drainage, grass was cut to be used as litter, was let in 1848 at 5l. per Irish acre. Other lands in this district which were used as grazing in the year 1848, after having fed what was considered a full quantity of cattle during the season, yielded so abundant a produce that the cattle was unable to eat it down, and the occupier had it mowed in August, and estimated that he would have a ton and a half of
1270
hay per Irish acre, in addition to feeding his cattle during the season. In addition to the above, there have been wheat, oats, turnips, potatoes, cabbages, and mangoldwurtzel, grown on lands which, a few years ago, were under floods for half the year. For the improvement effected, the proprietors will have to pay about 5s. per acre for 20 years."
The hon. Member for Roscommon could hardly complain of the cost of that. The account of Oranhill district, in the county of Gal way, was as follows:—
"A quantity of flooded land, which was let to tenants at will for 15 l. per annum, and which in the most favourable season previous to the drainage works would not produce more than 30 l., was given up to the landlord from the uncertainty of getting anything off it It now produces 150 l. for the season's grass, and some of the adjoining tenants estimate the produce at 200 l. at least. For the improvements effected, the proprietors will have to pay 5s. 6d. per acre for 22 years. Some of the lands of the district which have been frequently under floods for 10 months in the year, had, amongst other crops in 1848, a crop of white carrots, which the owner valued at 20 l. per Irish acre after all expenses of cultivation were paid."
Let one more case be taken, for it was right, when the House was asked for further funds for this purpose, that they should hear to what extent the funds already advanced had benefited the country, and at how small expense to the landowners. This is the account of the Borrisokane district:—
"The flooded lands of this district have almost all been cultivated before the works were completed, and had crops of oats, rape, potatoes, turnips, golden pleasure cabbages, on them. Two men, holding jointly about 35 acres of land that was in a very bad state previous to the works, stated that the first year's crops of oats and rape would more than pay the entire sum chargeable to their lands, although one-half the lands, subject to floods, was not cultivated. Many of the occupiers admitted that their crops of rape cleared from 15 l. to 25 l. per Irish acre, and this on land that could never, before the drainage works, be cultivated. A portion of this land was valued at 2s. per acre previous to drainage; was taken by lease, after the drainage, at 13 s. per acre; and the tenant then thorough-drained and fenced it, and had turnips and oats on it in September, 1848. The annual sum to be paid for the improvement effected on these lands will be about 5s. per acre for 20 years, when the whole debt will be paid off."
He must say, in spite of all the statements made against the Board of Works for the mode in which they administered these funds, and executed the works, under the extraordinary circumstances of the last two years, he did not think that the expense was such as to frighten proprietors from carrying on these works. He should propose to the House to advance a further sum of money for the carrying on of arte-

1271
rial drainage. He had obtained from the Board of Works an account of the works commenced in the distressed counties in Ireland, those for which the preliminary proceedings had been completed, and a similar return for the remainder of Ireland; and what he proposed was, to advance this year the sum which they reported could be expended upon those works which had been commenced in the distressed counties, and also the sum which would be required this year upon those works in the same counties which had not been commenced, but the preliminary proceedings for which had been completed; and as to the other parts of Ireland, he proposed to advance a sum equal to one half of what could be expended in the year on those works which had been actually commenced. In those parts of Ireland which were not considered distressed districts, there were many works that had been commenced and were now stopped for want of funds, and the stoppage of which works was most prejudicial not only to the country around, but to the works themselves; and at the same time it was not fair that we should be called on to do that which was contrary to the spirit of the Act—supply the whole of the funds. He meant, by "the distressed counties," Mayo, Gal way, Clare, Roscommon, Leitrim, Cork, Cavan, Kerry, Sligo, Limerick, part of Longford, Westmeath, King's County, and Tipperary. The whole sum which he believed could be advantageously expended in the course of this year upon these works amounted in round numbers to about 270,000 l. An Act was passed last Session enabling the Government to reissue sums repaid by counties on account of the relief works, and to that extent it was not necessary to ask Parliament for a vote; the total repayments which had been made to the Paymaster of Civil Services under the various Acts passed since 1846, amounted to 300,000 l., of which' the sum of 100,000 l. was reissuable under last year's Act; a portion of it might be required for completing other works, but he was inclined to think that a very large portion of it might be available for this river drainage. He proposed, therefore, to ask only 200,000 l. for this purpose, which, with the money thus reissuable, would, he believed, more than provide the sum that could be expended this year. These were the votes he had to propose: to add 300,000 l. to the funds at the disposal of the loan commissioners for the purposes of the Land Improvement Act, and to ad-
1272
vance 200,000 l. for the purpose of river drainage, applying to this latter purpose also a further sum reissuable under the Act of last Session. He had intended to apply for a vote for the Great Western Railway, feeling that it was of the utmost importance to facilitate the means of communication in the district; but the state of the arrangements with the parties concerned made it proper to delay this till there had been further communication with them; the intention was postponed, not given up. He had only to add that he believed the introduction of the mode of employment which the proposed measures would encourage, to be one of the most essential steps for the regeneration of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"1. That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the advance of sums, not exceeding in the whole 300,000 l., out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the purposes and under the provisions of any Act in force to facilitate the Improvement of Landed Property in Ireland by the owners thereof.
"2. That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the advance of sums, not exceeding in the whole 200,000 l., out of the said Consolidated Fund, to be applied by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, for making Loans under the provisions of any of the Acts authorising the said Commissioners to make advances for the extension and promotion of Drainage and other works of public utility in Ireland,"
MR. W. O. GOREsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken great credit to himself for the advantages that Ireland had derived from the system of drainage. He (Mr. Gore) held in his hand a return which had been made to him by a surveyor who had measured the length, depth, and breadth of the drainage of some lands of his, which were not very wet, but required some drainage, in the county of Leitrim. The quantity of land drained was 6 acres and 20 perches, and there was a claim made upon him by the Government for this drainage of 200 l. Now, this was a specimen of the excessive advantage that the Government had conferred upon Ireland, and this was what they claimed credit for—200 l. for 6 acres and 20 perches. The drains were 2 feet 6 inches deep, and 1 foot 2 inches over, and the cost amounted to 32 l. 13 s. 1¼d. per acre. He would say no more than that the work was executed by the Government's own officers, and that they had never been interfered with in any way whatever. [The CHANCELLOR of the

1273
EXCHEQUER: Was that under the Land Improvement Act?] It was under the Drainage Act.
MR. F. FRENCHthought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fairly dealt with this question. No one felt more alive than himself (Mr. French) to the advantages derivable from a judicious system of drainage; but he would appeal to the House whether this plan of the Government, which would involve an outlay of at least 52. per acre, could be otherwise than ruinous to those who should be so foolish as to accept a loan from the Government for the purpose of land improvement. He would undertake to prove that 30 l. out of every 100 l. advanced for arterial drainage was lost to the landowner by the mismanagement and unfairness of the Board of Works. He could set forth many instances in which landowners, after having applied for advances, refused to accept them in consequence of the extraordinary and extravagant estimates of the Board of Works, to whom the Act assigned the entire control over and expenditure of the money advanced. There was one instance in which a landowner who applied for an advance of money, was told by the Board of Works that their lowest estimate to effect his object was 1,800 l. He refused to accept it, and subsequently effected himself, by means of a private loan of 800 l., greater improvements than were contemplated by the Board of Works for a cost of 1,800 l. He (Mr. French) could quote many similar instances. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the commencement of his speech, admitted that the landlords of Ireland were bankrupt, and that the tenants were starving, and yet he now came forward with a proposition which was calculated to still further depress rather than benefit Ireland. That country had been going from bad to worse for many years, and all the plans of improvement which the Government could suggest were injudicious loans and rates in aid, which directly counteracted the development of Ireland's resources. If England had been treated as Ireland had been by English statesmen—if a heavy incubus had been placed upon England in the time of Henry VIII.—could any one pretend to say that England's prospects would not have been blighted like those of Ireland? England would never have been the country she now was if her statesmen had dealt with her as Ireland was now being dealt with
1274
by the British Parliament. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had boasted of the many letters which he had received from the west of Ireland, couched, as he represented, in glowing terms, as to the future prospects of that part of the country. But he (Mr. French) could not find in the extracts read from those letters anything more than vague expressions as to the writer's "hopes of reviving prosperity." He would tell his right hon. Friend that he laid too much stress on those hopes, for they were founded only on the chance of an abundant potato crop. The people of Ireland had risked everything on the potato; and if that root failed them this year and the next, the famine would be tenfold more severe than Ireland had experienced during the last few years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of works executed by the Government commissioners at Borrisokane; and he (Mr. French) wished to call his attention to this fact. The estimates of the Government commissioners for those works amounted to 3,486 l., but 6,612 l. had been already expended, and 500 l. more was required to finish them. He sincerely wished that he could, on the part of himself and of Ireland, thank the right hon. Gentleman for the measures which he had introduced for the amelioration of Ireland; but justice compelled him to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that Ireland was being ruined by their policy; and that they had utterly failed in their duty in not proposing some great and comprehensive measure, calculated to grapple with the evils. The measures which they had proposed only placed additional burdens upon the landlord and tenant classes, which it was impossible for them to bear. The state to which the country had been reduced was almost beyond belief. A Roman Catholic dignitary writes—
"To attempt anything like a true description of the universal misery that prevails, would be futile; I have no heart to do it, nor can I say I know one hundredth part of the misery that exists, or the number of deaths that are daily and hourly taking place—one of my curates gave the same morning the last sacrament to thirty-seven persons in the auxiliary poorhouse, and remarks, 'I have four curates.' "
Another clergyman writes—
"Awful as was the destitution of the poor for the last three years, comparatively speaking, their state was good to what it is at the present time; to form a correct estimate you should witness the squalid misery and wasted forms of our starving and half-naked poor. All persons are

1275
disgusted with the puerile and bungling policy pursued by the present Government relative to the affairs of Ireland."
Mr. Brett, the county surveyor of Mayo, states that the infants and children" seem almost like animals of a lower class; they are wasted and wan." He states, the entire county of Mayo to he in a state of insolvency—that the unencumbered properties are not only unable to give employment, but suffering great privations themselves. Would this state of affairs be allowed to continue in England? And why had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer assisted those gentlemen on the same principle they had at various times, by the public credit, supported and got through their difficulties the commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of England? Had he attended to the representations made to him on this subject, a famine, which he (Mr. French) feared was inevitable in 1850, would have been avoided. The hon. Gentleman then quoted at considerable length, from a pamphlet recently published by Mr. Eneas M'Donnell, on the present condition of the land, &c, of Ireland, from which it appeared, that in a district in the county of Mayo, not less than 50,000 acres of available land had become entirely waste during the last two or three years, because the proprietors, encumbered or free, had no means of cultivating it. Had such a case occurred in England, Parliament would immediately have furnished the proprietors with ample means for the cultivation of the soil and the employment of the tenantry. The whole county of Mayo was in a state of hopeless insolvency, and, in a little time, every one who had the means would fly from that scene of desolation. But if the Government afforded sufficient means, there were still abundant natural resources for the support of a dense population. There was an inexhaustible supply of fish upon the coast; turbots, that would feed ten or twelve people, could be purchased for 6d.; but in consequence of the want of means of conveyance to a distant market, the fisheries were of little service to people of that district. In order to give them some idea of the afflicting condition of Mayo, he might mention that a gentleman, one of the largest landed proprietors of that county, had recently traversed districts, on which, twelve years ago, might be seen flocks to the value of 200,000 l. The same district now presented a wild scene, on which not a living creature
1276
could be seen. Even one of the commissioners of the Government reported that Ireland now presented scenes on which no humane man could look unmoved. But, as that commissioner had reported, there were still sufficient resources in Ireland to give ample support to her people, if encouragement was afforded to the development of those resources. He (Mr. French), was of the same opinion. All Ireland required was not loans, but that England would take off her heavy hand from her, and permit her unrestricted to develop her great natural capacities. There were now vast districts in Ireland in which no tenants could be procured for the cultivation of the land; and notices of surrender were continually pouring into the hands of the landlords. Mr. Kincaid, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the Lords, states that he has in Roscommon, Sligo, and Mayo, several thousands of acres of the best grass land, upon which there is no arrear of rates due, and yet for which it is impossible to obtain tenants. The tillage farms are invariably thrown on his hands in a very deteriorated condition, full of weeds and exhausted. The House of Barrington and Co. have 400,000 l. worth of property on sale, and are unable to find a single purchaser. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kincaid thought the class of magistrates and grand jurors would be utterly swept out of the country. The Catholic clergy themselves had began to despair of the country, and within the last few days, the Rev. Mr. Maher, a priest, residing in Carlow, in one of the best districts in Ireland, had announced his intention of leading a monster emigration, and had declared that his brethren were ready to co-operate in similar projects. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that this Government drainage scheme was nothing more than a most prejudicial delusion. The loan commissioners were the sole judges as to the proper sum to be expended on the improvement of the land, in respect of which a loan might be asked. To them was given the entire and exclusive control of the expenditure of the loan; and they had exceeded their own estimates, by as much as 3,000 l. in an estimate for 8,000 l. It must also be recollected that one-half the proprietors of a district could compel the other half to concur in the obtaining of an arterial drainage loan, and to pay their quota of whatever sums the Board of Works might require—their lands within a mile of the works being liable for the costs

1277
equally with those immediately benefited. In the transaction, the Board of Works were the designers and executors, the contractors and the auditors; they planned the work to be done, and appointed their own officers to do it, and had despotic power to enforce the payment of charges the most exorbitant and unnecessary. In addition to these objections, it was his opinion that the gentry had received a lesson which would prevent them from availing themselves of the proposed loans. They had found that their only effort was to sink the proprietors deeper into embarrassments; and it appeared from the evidence of Mr. Hamilton, and was, indeed, notorious, that lands drained and improved, could not be let. "I have spent 15 l. an acre," said Mr. Hamilton, "upon land, and much of it is lying totally unproductive." In conclusion, he protested against a continuation of the tinkering loan policy, which but held up Ireland to public view as a perpetual beggar. She could live upon her own resources, if she was permitted freely to use them: that she was not so permitted was the fact, and would be proved by going into the account of taxation between the two kingdoms. The noble Viscount the Member for Downshire had demonstrated the state of that account; and he trusted it would be held in mind, that in doing so he had shown that while England paid to the State 3s. in the pound, on a value of 100,000,000 l., Ireland was forced to pay 8s. on a depreciated value that now is little over 9,000,000 l. By going a little further, it would appear that on the whole revenue of the empire, England paid 52,000,000 l. on a value of 250,000,000 l., while Ireland contributed 5,000,000 l. on a value of 20,000,000 l. As to the railroad proposition, he would only now say, that the loan proposed was contrary to the principles laid down by the Government; and, as they proposed it, would be of no manner of use.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that he was not going to offer any observations either in opposition to or in approval of the proposition made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but there were a few points on which he thought it desirable that some explanation should be offered. He should like, in the first place, to know whether the Irish Members concurred in what had been said by his right hon. Friend, that those who opposed these advances proposed by the Government, lost sight of the state of Ireland. He confessed
1278
that he had himself expressed his opposition to any renewal of the 50,000 l. loan; and one of the consequences of the opposition which the Government met with on that occasion was, that his right hon. Friend found out that the money could be provided in another way. He wished to know from his right hon. Friend whether the instalment on the money hitherto advanced under the Land Improvement Act had been regularly repaid; and if not, whether the provisions of the Act to enforce repayment had been put in force? He understood his right hon. Friend to say that double the sum granted had been applied for; but from the return moved for by his right hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, it appeared that the amount as yet expended showed by no means so large an expenditure as that statement of the right hon. Gentleman would imply. He wished to know, also, what opportunities would be given to the House for discussing this proposition after due consideration.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to be allowed to explain, in answer to the questions put by his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, that he had not stated that those gentlemen who voted against the 50,000 l. had done so in disregard of the sufferings of the Irish people; but what he said was, that the real condition of the people had been a good deal lost sight of throughout the whole debate. They were now in this awkward position—that the 50,000 l. had been already expended, and every day that he did not hear of some fearful additional calamity he considered as a day gained. His right hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that he had stated the whole fund applicable for land improvement as being exhausted. He had stated that 900,000 l. and upwards, out of the 1,500,000 l., had been issued, and that the remainder, or 548,000 l., had been allocated, with the exception of a small sum, for future years. That sum having been allocated for the completion of works on hand, it was obvious that no portion of it could be applied to the giving of employment during the present year, and that additional funds should be provided if the House wished to give any increased aid to the employment of labour this year. His right hon. Friend appeared to think that there was some discrepancy between his statement and the return moved for by the hon. Member for Waterford; but such was not the case. What he had said on this

1279
point was this: the total amount of applications for advances under the Land 3Improvement Act was 3,074,000 l Of these, advances to the amount of 1,544,000 l. were sanctioned, out of which 112,000 l. had been given up. But of that, 59,000 l. had been reappropriated or resanctioned, leaving only 9,000 l. unallocated, and yet at the disposal of the Government. His right hon. Friend wished to know how far the rent charges had been paid. The rent charges on account of advances due on the 10th of October last were 4,989 l., and of this sum 4,935 l. had been paid, leaving only a balance of 53 l. still payable. Out of the charges due on the 5th of April, somewhat about 2,000 l. had been paid in immediately on becoming due; but as the returns had to be made out within a few days after the 5th of April, no general result could have been expected. In reply to the last question of his right hon. Friend, he had only to say that as it would be necessary for him to bring in a Bill after the resolutions were agreed to, ample opportunity would be afforded for discussing the subject in detail.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, no person could doubt the advantage of arterial drainage, but the question to be considered was whether this measure was calculated to give any very extensive relief to destitution. He believed that it tended to have that effect; but he was convinced that every measure of this kind that they could adopt, would be thwarted while they retained the present large area of taxation. It was said that they underrated the grievances of Ireland; but what they complained of was that Her Majesty's Government did not themselves appreciate the magnitude of the evil with which they had to grapple. In the union with which he was connected, they had raised 40,000 l., out of a valuation of 85,000 l., for the relief of the poor. They had now 3,000 in the workhouse, and in the auxiliary workhouse, and there were 7,000 or 8,000 additional receiving outdoor relief, and a great portion of this vast pauperism was owing to the present area of taxation being so large and unwieldy. In his own union the Poor Law Commissioners were invited to exert their power to effect that object—the people there telling them that if it were done, that union would not want advances of money, because great numbers of persons would be immediately induced to come forward and meet the crisis. It had been alleged against the Irish Members that they had
1280
but one panacea for all the evils of Ireland. It was not true that they relied upon a single remedy to meet those evils; still it was perfectly consistent with common sense that when they knew there was one great principle at the bottom of those evils, and which was the cause of the failure of the poor-law in many districts of that country, where, but for the operation of that principle, it would be successful—it was, he repeated, but common sense for the Irish Members to endeavour to impress upon the House that by reducing the area of taxation that principle would be destroyed, and the evils it entailed upon the country would consequently be removed.
MR. AGLIONBYhoped that there might be some opportunity afforded to hon. Members for making themselves acquainted with facts before the vote now proposed, and the Bill to sanction it, should have passed that House. The question of Irish distress was every day becoming more painful, in consequence of the extreme differences of opinion that existed respecting it. There was one thing which he should certainly like to know before the end of the Session, and that was—what was the subject which the Irish Members really did agree upon? The English Members did agree upon a great many subjects, though he would not say that they were of one opinion in respect to this vote; but the extrordinary thing to him was, that the Irish Members did not even agree upon the single question as to receiving the public money. Apparently they did not, though he doubted whether, notwithstanding they spoke against it, they would not in substance be quite willing to accept it. They had one hon. Member taunting the Government with throwing away the public money without doing any good; another Member saying "No money will do us good; give us good laws, and take away your poor-law; "while a third exclaimed, "We don't want your money, but give us something that shall afford employment to the people, and save them from starvation." But what was that something? He strongly suspected that when they came to a division, not one Irish Member would be found to vote against it. He himself should certainly speak against it, although he should vote for it. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had justly said that the prominent feature in the present case ought with all of them to be the miserable, wretched, starving, and dying condition of the people of Ireland.

1281
That was the foundation of these grants; and that alone was the reason why Her Majesty's Government called upon the English Members to support them. Thus appealed to, there was not, he trusted, any English Member who would refuse this aid. He wished, however, that money could be better applied, and that those who had the application of it could be relieved from the obloquy of wasting and throwing it away. He had no confidence in the Board of Works, than which a more expensive or wasteful board had never existed in the united kingdom. He had the authority of the hon. Member for Shropshire for stating that drainage which had cost the Board 32 l. per acre, might have been done by the landlord at 5l. the acre. Why should not the thing be managed in Ireland as it was in England, the money given to the landlord, while the work was inspected by a Government superintendent?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought a little explanation would save a great deal of discussion; he would therefore inform his hon. Friend that the two Acts under which he proposed to advance this money were the Land Improvement Act, and the River Drainage Act. Under the first, the works were performed by the landlord, and inspected by the Government officer. Under the latter the Board performed the work, as the rivers going through many estates rendered it difficult by any other means. It had been found impossible to procure agreement among the proprietors as to the apportionment of the work, and therefore the Board had been obliged to undertake it. The observations of the hon. Member for Shropshire applied to neither one Act nor the other, but to works which had been undertaken simply for relief purposes under what was called Mr. Labouchere's Act.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the question he had asked the right hon. Gentleman was, how the money was to be applied; whether it was to be applied by the Board of Works? to which an answer in the affirmative was returned. Had a distinction been made upon that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the mode of application, he (Mr. Aglionby) should not have advanced the observations which he did; but upon this he had distinctly come to the conclusion that he never would invest any power in the hands of the Board of Works in Ireland. And he would tell the House the reason. They were all
1282
aware of a case in which English money had been subscribed and laid out in the sister country; and, with respect to that case, there was a complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. A company had provided money to the extent of 15,000 l., but the Irish Members had repudiated sums from an independent source, and therefore they ought not to be given any Government advance. The company had for its object the Lough Corrib drainage. A tender of evidence had been made to the right hon. Gentleman, with the view of showing that he had been entirely misinformed relative to the company in question, and that he had been acting under a misconception; but if report were true, he had refused to listen to the testimony. The Lough Corrib drainage was intended, as he said before, to be carried out by an English company. ["Question!"] He was speaking to the question—an Irish question.
MR. J. O'CONNELLrose to order. The drainage of Lough Corrib had been debated on a former occasion, when a private Bill was before the House.
MR. AGLIONBYcontended that he was speaking to the question, if he succeeded in showing that the Irish might have money from other sources, and that they refused it. His point was this—that, when they refused money offered to them, they had no right to come to the House and say they would take it from the Legislature. He believed it would be shown to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that what he had been informed about the Lough Corrib Company was untrue. It was believed that they had not proceeded with their works. The fact, however, was, that although they were prevented for some time by circumstances over which they had no control from being able to carry on their operations, it was a mistake to suppose that the 15,000 l. had all been laid out in law expenses. Most of it had been expended in hard cash upon Irish labourers, who were in the habit of assembling in the marketplace on a Saturday evening to receive their wages; and this expenditure would have gone on until the Board of Works stepped in and came to issue with the company. He hoped this subject would again be discussed, and that the conduct of the Board of Works would not escape investigation.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a direct charge had been

1283
advanced against him of having refused to receive information, and of thereby having committed an injustice. He wished his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth had taken the trouble to make some inquiry, and ascertained the real facts of the case, before he advanced a charge of the kind. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) went down into Yorkshire during the recess, he stated to a gentleman from the Lough Corrib Company, who had called upon him, that, as there was a legal question pending in the Irish courts respecting the company and the Board of Works, it was desirable to have that question settled before any legislation upon the subject took place. The gentleman then showed him a letter from the company to the effect that it was improper to introduce the Lough Corrib Bill pending the legal inquiry. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) observed in reply that he was glad the company took the same view as he did himself upon that subject. The gentleman having then requested that no unnecessary delay should take place in settling the question in the courts of law, a promise was given him that his request should be complied with, and a letter in accordance with the promise was immediately written to the Board of Works.
MR. AGLIONBYadmitted that he owed an apology to the right hon. Gentleman for not having, in common courtesy, informed him previously of what he had heard. He dared say he might have misunderstood the parties; but they certainly showed him some documents with the view of proving that the right hon. Gentleman had been misinformed as to the expenditure of their money in nothing besides law proceedings; and when he asked one of them in the lobby of the House whether a deputation had been sent to explain matters, the reply was that information had been declined.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmight have told them that he did not see any advantage in going into the merits of the question until the proceedings in the courts of law had terminated.
VISCOUNT BERNARDexpressed his gratitude to the Government for their conduct upon the present occasion, and said that they would have the grateful thanks of thousands, whose condition would be improved by the works that were to be carried on under the proposed arrangement. The noble Viscount then proceeded to quote, at considerable length, letters from
1284
various correspondents, clerical and lay, in the western districts of the county of Cork, showing the dreadful state of the destitution to which the people were reduced, and said that his object in rising was chiefly to point out to the Government the great difficulties they would have to contend with. It was the want of co-operation amongst the landed proprietors. That want of cooperation and agreement amongst themselves it was which rendered the former Drainage Acts inoperative; and the only way in which the difficulty could be surmounted, would be by the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtaining a compulsory enactment, which should enable the Government to lay out the works to be done, and to have them done, no matter who dissented. It would be impossible to get proprietors to agree upon a system of arterial drainage, for example—many persons would be prevented from draining into the upper part of a river by the opposition which they would receive from those whoso property lay lower down, and the only way in which the matter could be settled would be by a general and compulsory system. But the best mode of employment for the labouring population, and the system which would conduce most to the general welfare of the country, was the making of railways. They would open up the resources of the country, and enable the fisheries to be carried on profitably. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he hoped yet to see Ireland prosperous and happy. But to bring about the condition of prosperity, it was necessary to give the country a strong stimulus to carry it through its transition state. As to the effect upon the united kingdom of loans for public purposes, he (Viscount Bernard) begged to say that every such advance of public money had been attended with an increase to the revenue of the country. Even the labour-rate did not seem to have failed in producing some benefit.
MR. GROGANsaid, he might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House upon this, that amidst the dismal accounts which were daily received from Ireland, a bright spot at last appeared. He gave Her Majesty's Government credit for this at least, that they had taken the affairs of Ireland into serious consideration. There were many measures which might prove beneficial to the country; they formed, indeed, a part of the scheme of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth,

1285
but it would redound to their credit if they were carried out. He gave Her Majesty's Government credit for good intentions and honesty of purpose. Now, though the Government under these measures had the power to sell estates, they must find purchasers for them. But they could not find purchasers for these estates—they could not find purchasers unless they altered the whole system of management in Ireland. So long as the present system of poor-law was permitted to he worked in Ireland, so long would all legislation be in vain in respect to the improvement or sale of lands.
MR. TRELAWNYmust oppose the proposition for advancing British money for the purpose indicated by the resolution. He altogether deprecated the system of going on advancing sum after sum, and think that they were benefiting Ireland by so doing. The Irish Members, he thought, had not exhibited any particular sagacity in saying anything about the matter to-night. They ought to have taken their cake in silence; but the present system was one which would not be long continued. Since he had been a Member of that House, upwards of 10,000,000 l. had been advanced in Irish loans. Now, either the productiveness of the soil must be brought up to the amount of the population, or the amount of the population must be brought down to the standard of the productiveness of the soil. The policy adopted by Government, however, was by no means suited for bringing about either the one or the other of these consummations. If he had any hope that this would be the last grant that would be demanded, he would be ready to accede to it; but there appeared to be no chance of anything of the kind. The pressure of the famine was over now, and if the sum of 5,000,000 l. would clear us at once and for ever of Irish liabilities, he would be ready to vote for granting it; but the case seemed altogether hopeless. There was a reaction against free trade going on in many parts of the country—a reaction which was caused by the distress produced amongst the people by continued Irish grants; and he feared that if they were to go on exhausting their energies in this manner, a powerful argument against free trade would be the result of their proceedings. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating it to be his intention to divide the House on the resolution.
MR. STAFFORDobserved, that the
1286
objections of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken to the grant, seemed to be based upon certain objections which it was stated were made to our recent free-trade policy. The fact was, that the hon. Gentleman had to choose between preserving the lives of the Irish, and advancing his own system of economic philosophy, and he had not hesitated about sacrificing the one for the promotion of the other. The hon. Gentleman had assured the House that the Irish famine was over. [MR. TRELAWNY explained that he had referred to the potato famine.] What was the meaning of the potato famine being over? Had the potatoes come back to Ireland? He found that the hon. Gentleman was as incorrect in his facts as in the theory which he sought to found upon them. He (Mr. Stafford) denied that the Irish Members had exhibited anything like importunity in reference to this grant. He contended that the advance, received as it was conditionally, and without much expression of gratitude, showed that the present measure had not been very eagerly sought after by the Irish Members. An hon. Gentleman had stated that it was his intention to divide the House on the resolution. Now, in one point of view, he (Mr. Stafford) certainly saw much to disapprove in the policy at present being pursued. He saw great risk in making Ireland so great a debtor to the imperial treasury. If they were to sum up all which Ireland now owed, and all it was likely she would owe, he thought the House would agree with him that it became a serious question how far they had acted wisely in plunging one portion of the British dominions so deeply in debt to the imperial treasury; as it was probable that Ireland would soon be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember, when he charged Irish Members with offering obstructions to the passing of remedial measures for Ireland, that it was only by making long speeches that they had been enabled to pump up any measures of relief. The hon. and learned Member for Cocker-mouth, a year or two ago, had taunted the Irish Members with not having made up their minds as to what measures were necessary for Ireland. Now, looking at the Votes of last year, it would be found that on the 28th of February, 1848, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, the Irish Members were unanimous in expressing a strong and earnest remonstrance to the Government for a Com-

1287
mittee to inquire into the operation of that poor-law which they then found was working so badly. He regretted to have found the name of the hon. Member for Tavistock amongst the majority of English Members on that occasion; and he thought it came with an ill grace from those who had voted with the majority to taunt Irish Members with a want of unanimity. [Mr. AGLIONBY: I voted with you.] Yes, and exhibited, in conjunction with his constituents, who did not seem able to make up their minds on the subject, much greater discord than could be charged against the Irish Members. The hon. Member had spoken one way and voted another, showing a tendency to hyper Hibernianism of which the Irish might be declared, on that question, to be free.
SIR H. W. BARRONindignantly repudiated the attacks which Gentlemen of the free-trade school were in the habit of making against Ireland. Free-traders in that House said, that neither grants nor loans should on any account be made by the British Parliament for Irish purposes. He trusted that the Irish Members would not forget that sentiment. To exhibit the ignorance of the Gentlemen of the free-trade school on this question, he quoted from a return which had been placed on the table of the House within the last ten days, showing that during the last few years nearly 8,000,000 l. had been granted by Parliament for various public purposes in England. The money had been expended in the making of canals, bridges, harbours, docks, roads, breakwaters, and on other objects. He could not refrain from reminding the House of this fact, when there seemed to be a disposition to deny a paltry sum to the relief of the necessities of Ireland. Ireland was as badly off at this moment as she had ever been: the famine of the last three years not only dragged down the poor, but the rich also. He had received accounts from that country within the last few days which exhibited Ireland as being in the most destitute condition. Mr. Villiers Stuart, a gentleman not unknown in that House, writing as chairman of the Garrick-on-Suir union, stated, that in the course of a single day 194 paupers over and above the usual number had applied for relief. A letter from the Mayor of Waterford stated that at the time it was written there were in the workhouse of Tipperary 579 ablebodied men. The sum of 500,000 l., now proposed to be voted, would fall far short of the neces-
1288
sities of the case. The Board of Works in Ireland had applied for 3,000,000 l.; the Government had allocated only 1,500,000 l. To call the sum now to be granted a gift, was to miscall it. No loan had ever been better secured. Similar loans had been made to England and Scotland when the occasion had not been nearly so urgent. He begged to offer a suggestion or two to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the distribution of this loan. He should certainly recommend its being divided into sums in no instance exceeding 1,000 l., and being spread over as large a surface as possible. And considering, also, the great want of employment at present felt in Ireland—the large masses of ablebodied paupers at this time in the poorhouses, he would recommend that the parties borrowing the money should be compelled to disburse it within a period of twelve months. He could not agree with the censure which had been cast upon the Board of Works in Ireland. Bearing in mind the extent of the labour imposed on them, he thought they had carried out the drainage expenditure in that country with as much economy as could be expected. Having freely opposed the Government when he thought that they were not by their measures advancing the interests of Ireland—having, for instance, opposed them in the rate-in-aid question—it was with pleasure that he could express his opinion that the step they were now taking was one in the right direction. This loan on credit, while it would not injure the public resources of this country, would confer an immediate benefit upon Ireland, and indirectly improve the resources of the empire at large.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he would address the Committee for two or three minutes, and upon only two or three points. Giving the Government credit for their proposition, and admitting that some good might result from it, he, nevertheless, thought that they had overlooked one or two important features in the present condition of Ireland. The first step the Government should take should be to stop the wasting of life, which, in defiance of the poor-law, was now going on. The people could not subsist on one pound of yellow meal per diem for each pauper. Such a scale of relief ought to be raised; and if the Government found it necessary to raise additional sums for that purpose, they should brave public disapprobation, if such existed, and come forward boldly and ask for the money. He also thought

1289
it of importance to secure the tenantry of Ireland in the enjoyment of the fair fruits of their labour. If that were done, that class of persons would cease to think of emigrating to America. His appeal to the Government at this moment, however, was for food for the present, and security for the future.
MR. REYNOLDSfelt bound to state that he heard the plan of the Government with feelings of unmixed satisfaction. The well-toned and equally well-timed speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was certain, would be well received on the other side of the Channel. The money to be advanced was to be expended in the employment of labour, and he had expected that Irish Members generally would have hailed the plan as one likely to benefit the country. Though they might regret that the grant was not larger, they must rejoice that the national exchequer was not to be for ever hermetically scaled against the distress of Ireland. He had that day heard the clerk of the Limerick union examined before the Irish Poor Law Committee, and the details he gave were most harrowing. He stated that numbers of ablebodied men in the workhouse had previously offered to work at twopence per day. He (Mr. Reynolds) rejoiced to learn that the subject of an advance to the Gal-way railway was still under consideration. The other remedial measures would be incomplete, unless the means were given for improving the internal communication in the west of Ireland. He had had some experience of arterial drainage in Galway; the suspension of certain works there had been most injurious, and it was essential that they should be resumed as early as possible. In making the grant now proposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be certain, not only of its repayment, but of the interest being regularly paid. An hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Shropshire, had complained of his having had to pay 200 l. for the drainage of six acres of land; but, if he had done so, it was his own fault, for he might have employed his own hands, the Board of Works merely sending an inspector to see that the work was properly executed.
The votes of 300,00 l. and 200,000 l. were severally agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

MARRIAGES BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that he was ready to proceed with the debate; at the same time he was aware that there had been some misunderstanding between himself and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford and others that the discussion should not be taken after nine o'clock. [It was then twenty minutes past nine.] While he should be unwilling to depart from that understanding, he was, on the other hand, prepared to go on with the debate.
SIR R. H. INGLISadmitted that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buteshire had not risen in his place to tell him that the debate would not be resumed after nine o'clock; but he had informed him, in that kind of intercourse which took place between Members holding opposite opinions on a question, that he would not bring on the question after nine o'clock. Of course he did not conceive he had violated any confidence in communicating such an intimation to others; and others had gone away. He admitted the hon. and learned Gentleman might urge the resumption of the discussion if it could terminate that night. But did any hon. Member believe it would terminate? [An Hon. MEMBER: Yes.] An hon. Member said "yes;" but such, he was sure, would not be the response of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for he himself would probably occupy at least two hours. From the number anxious to speak, it would be imposssible to dispose of the question tonight. The Government proposed to postpone other public business of importance, although there was no chance of the debate on this question being concluded tonight. He should resist the proposition.
MR. STUART WORTLEYtrusted that he had not been guilty of the slightest breach of faith to the hon. Baronet. He had hoped that the debate would have been resumed before nine. They had been trembling in the balance, in the hope that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would not have detained the House after that time; and as the hour had only been exceeded by twenty minutes, he trusted he should not be acting unfairly, if, in deference to what appeared to be the feeling of the House, he proposed to go on with the debate.
LORD J. RUSSELLexpressed his willingness to postpone the Orders of the Day in order that the debate might be resumed.
SIR R. INGLISprotested against the course of proceeding proposed to be adopted. It was impossible to conclude the debate that night; and to resume it under those circumstances would, for all practical purposes, cause the loss of the rest of the evening.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that if a pledge had been given to hon. Members that the debate would not be brought on after nine o'clock, it was only right to consider what influence it had upon their attendance, especially as an Irish debate happened to be in progress.
MR. HENLEYsaid, if the arrangement had not been publicly made, it had certainly been generally understood that the debate should not come on after nine o'clock. It was impossible that so important a discussion could close that night; and it would certainly be setting a very bad precedent if they were on this occasion to depart from the ordinary rule of the House of acting upon any general understanding that might be come to between the Gentleman having charge of a Bill, and those who took a leading part in the discussion of it, even although that understanding did not amount to a definite public arrangement as to the hour for a debate coming on. If the discussion were now to go on, it was not likely to be conducted in the proper spirit.
SIR R. H. INGLISwould agree to the debate going on if he thought it possible to conclude it that night; but it was clear they could not divide upon the Bill that night. If the Government did not consider the other orders of sufficient importance to occupy the remainder of the night, he would insist upon moving the adjournment of the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLshould have been glad to have had last night and to-night for other business; but as this Bill was an important subject, he had given up the whole of yesterday for its consideration, thinking, if such a measure ought to be passed at all, it should be passed as soon as possible. He had known nothing whatever of the arrangement fixing the latest hour for continuing the debate at nine o'clock; but all he could say was, he would leave the House to decide whether it should go on with the discussion now, or prefer some other time for resuming it.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, several Gentlemen had gone away with the impression that there would be no division that night.
MR. AGLIONBYasked whether any hon. Member knew of anybody who had gone away between nine and half-past nine o'clock; and if so, whether there could be any difficulty in bringing them back again?
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, he should move the adjournment of the House.
MR. HENLEYseconded the Motion. He had been asked if he knew any one who had left the House, expecting the discussion would not come on. He would answer that he did. The noble Lord the Member for Bath was one, and went away almost at the very moment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYdid not think it impossible for the House to divide that night; the subject was pretty much exhausted last night, and the opinions of two important classes upon it had been tolerably well obtained. At the same time he must apologise to the House for taking it upon him to mention to any hon. Member that he supposed the debate would not come on after nine. The noble Lord the Member for Bath had gone away with the belief that they would not divide to-night.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 116: Majority 91.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Lockhart, W.

Bernard, Visct.

Napier, J.

Broadley, H.

Oswald, A.

Cobbold, J. C.

Palmer, R.

Dundas, Sir D.

Pugh, D.

Ffolliott, J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Fox, W. J.

Simeon, J.

Gooch, E. S.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Grace, O. D. J.

Turner, G. J.

Halsey, T. P.

Walter, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Hope, A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Jones, Capt.

Henley, J.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Brockman, E. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brown, W.

Alcock, T.

Bunbury, E. H.

Baines, M. T.

Butler, P. S.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Chaplin, W. J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Bass, M. T.

Clive, H. B.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Blair, S.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Blakemore, R.

Devereux, J. T.

Boyd, J.

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

Brackley, Visct.

Dick, Q.

1293

Duncuft, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Dundas, Adm.

Mundy, W.

Dunne, F. P.

O'Brien, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

O'Connell, J.

Edwards, H.

O'Connor, F.

Ellis, J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Paget, Lord C.

Evans, W.

Parker, J.

Fagan, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Peel, F.

Filmer, Sir E.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Forster, M.

Power, N.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pryse, P.

Granger, T. G.

Raphael, A.

Greenall, G.

Renton, J. C.

Grenfell, C. P.

Reynolds, J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Rice, E. R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Harris, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Sadleir, J.

Hawes, B.

Salwey, Col.

Hay, Lord J.

Scrope, G. P.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Scully, F.

Heathcoat, J.

Seymour, Lord

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Slaney, R. A.

Heyworth, L.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hindley, C.

Stanton, W. H.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Talbot, J. H.

Horsman, E.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Howard, Lord E.

Thompson, Col.

Jervis, Sir J.

Thompson, Ald.

Keogh, W.

Thornely, T.

Kershaw, J.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Trelawny, J. S.

Lacy, H. C.

Tufnell, H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

West, F. R.

Lewis, G. C.

Wilcox, B. M.

Lushington, C.

Williams, J.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Wilson, J.

M'Gregor, J.

Wilson, M.

Meagher, T.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Maitland, T.

Matheson, Col.

TELLERS.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wortley, S.

Mowatt, F.

Hill, Lord M.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question (3rd May), "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question again proposed, "That the word' now' stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. E. H. BUNBURYsaid, he laboured under very considerable disadvantage, in rising at that period of the debate, and especially after the able and eloquent speeches addressed to the House last night by the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who had to a considerable degree exhausted the subject. However, the result of their speeches had been to narrow very much the issue which the House had
1294
to decide; and it was with great satisfaction that he had heard the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth admit at the outset, that whatever his views might be upon the social and political branch of the question, he would not feel himself justified by these considerations alone in continuing to impose the existing prohibitions. He had frankly admitted, that unless it could be shown that these marriages were forbidden by the law of God, the law of man was not possessed of sufficient authority to forbid them. It was upon this point, above all others, that he (Mr. Bunbury) wished to rest the argument; and, without following the hon. and learned Gentleman through all his theological inquiry, he maintained that the prohibition must not be based upon any thing short of the divine law. If the divine law had been clear and precise upon this point, the question would never have been mooted. But he maintained that he had a right to go further; and to assume, that while it was incumbent on the opponents of this Bill to prove that the marriages in question were distinctly prohibited by the law of God, it was not necessary for its advocates to prove that they were not so prohibited: it was sufficient if they could show that the point was a doubtful one. If it could be shown that conflicting opinions were entertained with regard to the prohibition by different sections of the Christian Church—that different theologians interpreted the Scripture passage in different and opposite ways; this fact in itself was sufficient to prove that the scriptural view ought not to form the basis of their civil legislation respecting these marriages. This was not a question of ecclesiastical law. The authorities of the Church might think they were right in their canonical prohibitions; but the question was—Had the Church a right to call in the civil law in aid of her canons? Had Parliament a right to impose civil disabilities, at the instance of the Church, upon persons holding conscientious opinions of a different character; for it was inflicting a civil disability to say, that persons who interpreted the divine word differently from the Church of England should be absolutely prevented from contracting marriages which they believed to be in perfect accordance with God's law, and to inflict upon their offspring the stigma and concurrent disadvantages of illegitimacy. That House was not to constitute itself into a theological tribunal to fix the interpretation of disputed texts of

1295
Scripture—every Christian should be left to search the Scriptures for himself, and follow the guidance of his own mind. Whether the prohibition could be regarded as clear and distinct, might be judged of from the number and variety of the opinions expressed on the subject by different pious and talented men. Their evidence appeared in the blue book before the House; and he believed, notwithstanding the slur which had been cast upon the commissioners (who, he had no doubt, would be ably defended by the right hon. and learned introducer of this Bill), that this evidence had been very fairly and impartially collected. Many pamphlets had also been written on both sides; but he would not enter into any criticism of the various authorities. Some of them declared that they had no doubt or hesitation whatever as to the marriages in question being prohibited by the law of God; whilst others averred they had also no hesitation or doubt on the matter, whilst their opinions went quite the other way. A considerable majority of the clergymen who had been examined as witnesses before the commissioners, were clearly of opinion that these marriages were not prohibited by Scripture; and the same feeling existed among many of the other clergymen of the Church of England. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had attempted to trace the common consent of the Christian Church in favour of those prohibitions from the earliest times down to the Reformation; but surely the force of the argument founded upon this supposed common consent must be greatly weakened by the fact of the great difference of opinion that prevailed among the ablest divines of not only different but of the very same Protestant communities at the present day. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University had cited the authority of the great leaders of the Reformed Established Church—Cranmer, Parker, Jewell, and others—and ended by saying that these testimonies were conclusive. Now, great as was his (Mr. Bunbury's) deference to these great names, he, for his part, could not agree that these authorities were altogether conclusive and decisive upon the point, and precluded everybody else's opinions. The fathers of the Reformed Church were not, in his opinion, entitled to that implicit submission which the right hon. Gentleman claimed for them; and in this, the 19th century, the Protestants of the present times could
1296
not be bound down to accept the authority of the fathers of the English Reformed Church, any more than these fathers of the English Reformed Church considered themselves bound by the authority of the fathers of the early Christian Church, as decisive and conclusive upon matters of this kind. Protestants in the 19th century ought to hold fast by the great Protestant dogma of the right of private judgment in searching the Scriptures, and afterwards deciding our opinions for ourselves. This was the principle upon which they should base their legislation. The present law was disregarded by the people of this country—but with regard to the prohibited degrees in question only, and no others—not because their religious feelings were weak, as had been alleged, but because the people, and especially the middle classes, had, on the contrary, too strong a view of the sanctity of the marriage vow ever to submit to its being based upon mere human legislation. They required it to be grounded upon the divine law alone. A clergyman of one of the most populous parishes of Birmingham stated in evidence that many parties, related by affinity, came to him to be married, and on his refusing to perform the ceremony, they challenged him to show them any passage of Scripture against it. The more he (Mr. Bunbury) looked at the great divergence of opinion existing on the subject, the more strongly was he convinced that there must be something inherently wrong, and contrary to the common feeling of mankind, in the prohibition; because, how was it in different cases? Why, the relation by consanguinity was acknowledged by the universal sentiments of all mankind to be an utter bar to all matrimonial alliances. The particular cases in question, among so many prohibited degrees, were the only instances with regard to which any question arose; and this singular circumstance was only to be explained by the prohibition being at war with human nature. It had been said there was no general unanimity in the country in favour of this Bill; the fact was that both the laity and the clergy of the Church of England were divided in their sentiments upon the principle of the measure; but if it was borne in mind that these marriages had been prohibited by the canons and express decisions of the Church of England during three centuries, it would appear strange, not that there was no unanimity in favour of the Bill, but rather that the Church had

1297
succeeded in producing so little unanimity against it. The clergy of the Church of England, the Dissenting ministry, and members of all sects, were at issue in their interpretation of the scriptural view of the question. Many of the Catholic clergy and their people were favourable to the repeal of the prohibitions; and the Protestant Dissenters were also on the side of the relaxation of the law. Whether considerations of social expediency would justify the passing of the law, was a very subordinate part of the subject, although many weighty reasons, drawn from the social relations, the domestic affections, and the peace and comfort of families, might be adduced to strengthen the other branch of the argument. The most predominating of these considerations, to his mind, was, that the continuance of the present law led to numerous instances of concubinage, and all its attendant evils, among those whose happiness and comfort it interfered with. Now, he contended that they had no right, upon any fancied ground of expediency, to continue a course of legislation which had the effect of producing immoralities, and driving people to the commission of sins of which they would not otherwise have been guilty. The effect of the present law in respect to the mischiefs produced by it, resembled those which resulted in another department of legislation from the present system of game laws, which led men first to be guilty of poaching, and from thence they gradually were led to the commission of theft and robbery. He would not detain the House any longer; but for the reasons he had stated he would cordially support the second reading of the Bill.
MR. A. B. HOPEagreed that it was incumbent on those who opposed the Motion to show that the prohibition was in accordance with the law of God; but there was no inconsistency in those who believed this assuming that the prohibition in Scripture was not positive, in order afterwards to argue the question on social grounds. It was a material step in the argument to show that the prohibition operated beneficially to society. The laws of God were all wise and good, and that which operated injuriously might be assumed to be opposed to them. As to the allegation that the existing state of the law led to immorality, that was begging the question. If the thing were wrong in itself, the giving of a ring could not make it right; it would only be super-adding to concubinage an unreal form. Among the things which appeared to him as strange in the conduct of this case, none
1298
appeared more so than that his right hon. Friend excluded the marriage of brothers and sisters-in-law by the husband's side. He sought to draw a distinction between these two cases in his speech on obtaining leave to bring in the Bill. But supposing that the individual grievance which had caused the present movement, had been of this class, and supposing a firm as indefatigable as the one employed had conducted it, and a Member as eloquent as his right hon. Friend had introduced the measure to the House, he thought quite as good a case might have been made out in favour of allowing the marriage of brothers and sisters-in-law on the husband's, and disallowing it on the wife's side. We should have been told of the children who wanted the strong arm of a man to protect them. We should have heard of the attachment of the widow to her husband's name and family. We should have been told what a desirable wife for a poor man her previous knowledge of housekeeping made her, and so on, none of which reasons we should have heard existed on the other side. It had been asserted that the present was a poor man's question. He denied the truth of that assertion, and confidently appealed to the blue book which had been presented to Parliament on this subject. The evidence collected was drawn from a district of a country, comprising a large proportion of the most crowded towns of England, where immorality of all sorts reigned. What proof was given that the alleged marriages were all really marriages? Every one knew how constantly concubinage passed by the name of marriage among the lower orders. Where were the proofs that the commissioners had entered the miserable dwellings and penetrated the dirty alleys in which their asserted clients were to be found, for the purpose of obtaining the conclusive proofs, in the reality of their marriages, of the necessity for passing such a measure as the present? There were no such examples, no such stringent proofs, adduced in the report. But on examining that blue book, what did he find was the most stringent cases which were adduced in support of the Bill, all taken from the higher classes? There was one case in particular which had been greatly relied upon because of its so-called interesting—he would not say its meretricious—character. It was the case of the anonymous stockbroker. This interesting person appeared from the evidence to have married his first wife in the year 1816, and to have contracted a second connexion

1299
with her sister in 1844. Consequently, supposing he was of the legal marriageable age of twenty-one years when he first entered into that state, he must have arrived at the not altogether adolescent period of forty-nine years when he formed this second connexion; and his wife's sister, supposing she was only fifteen years of age when her sister was first married to this anonymous stockbroker, must have reached the somewhat mature age of forty-three years before she was sought in marriage by her deceased sister's husband. The blue book contained a letter from her brother to the witness urging the marriage, because his eldest daughter, under whose chaperonage the aunt seemed to have lived, was going to be married. "The mature age of Mary, while resident with you, tended to render my sister's situation less embarrassing and awkward, which her absence will occasion." If "Mary" was mature at twenty-two, how much more mature her aunt must have been at forty-three, and yet she could not he allowed to live with her brother-in-law, though the same letter testifies to his respectability. It was clear that he was trepanned into the marriage by her brother. There was a case he had meant to quote, but it was of so disgusting a nature that he would not do so. When he stated that he referred to that of the postmaster at Wolverhampton, many hon. Members would understand to what he referred. There was another case cited in the blue book, that of the architect and engineer of Bristol, who, at the age of seventy years, sought the hand of his wife's sister, she being sixty years of age. This person's wife, with whom he had lived nearly thirty-six years, died in August, 1836, leaving him with six daughters, only one of whom, the youngest, was living with him; and she being considered too young to be entrusted with the care of the establishment, his late wife's sister, who had resided with them as one of the family upwards of twenty years, undertook the care of the household. This gentleman said of his sister-in-law, in a letter dated December 20, 1847—
"We are now to all appearance destined by Providence to spend the remainder of our lives together. I am sure I need not use any argument to show how much it would add both to her comfort and my own could we be lawfully placed in the situation of man and wife; and this we had determined to do, but find the law of consanguinity as it now stands to be a bar, and unless this obstacle is likely to be speedily removed, we shall be induced to adopt some mode to evade or seek redress in a foreign country. I view the
1300
prohibition as unjust, my conscience bearing me witness. I see no law, neither in morals nor religion, that imposes such a prohibition, and in this I am borne out by my own family and connexions, including my brother's family and the minister with whom it is my happiness to be connected; nor do I know of any reason, either private or public, which can be urged against it, except this which I am induced to call an iniquitous statute. We are both above sixty years of age, and may not therefore be charged with the frivolities of youth."
Now, he (Mr. Hope) conceived that if they relaxed the law maintained by our Church for three centuries, and the custom of the Christian Church for fifteen centuries, they ought to do it in order to meet some real grievance of overwhelming weight, and not to suit the caprice of this wretched architect of Bristol, who, at seventy years of age, could not live honestly and respectably with an old woman of sixty without talking about evading the law, and seeking redress in a foreign country. It had been assumed, because the Bishop of Lichfield was included in the commission, and because ten clergymen were examined before that commission, that the clergy gave a sort of tacit assent to the proposed alteration of the law; but that assumption was altogether unfounded. He found that although the commission first met in November, 1847, the Bishop of Lichfield was never present at a meeting of the body until eight months afterwards. He had himself presented a petition against the Bill from the Dean of Lichfield and the clergy of that city. The opinion of the Established Church of Scotland had likewise been shown to be adverse to the measure; and the great majority of the Roman Catholics were against it. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would not change the law and moral institutions of this country on such vague, insufficient, and intangible grounds as that presented by the report of the commission.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he would be as brief as possible in stating the reasons which induced him to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He was relieved from the necessity of saying much, because he fully agreed with what had been said in the early part of the evening, that the subject was almost entirely exhausted by the speeches which had been delivered on the former night of discussion. He would not enter into the theological branch of the subject, not certainly because he undervalued its importance, for he felt that it involved a preliminary point upon which it behoved every man to satisfy his own mind and conscience before he gave his

1301
vote upon this Bill. But he did not think that the question, whether or not these marriages between a man and his deceased wife's sister were prohibited by the word of God, was one likely to receive a solution by a decision of that House. It was a question upon which every man must satisfy his own mind, and if in the course of that preliminary investigation, which he hoped all had given to the subject, and which it had been in the power of every one to bestow, any hon. Member had arrived at the conviction that there was an express prohibition in Holy Writ against this kind of marriage, he (Sir G. Grey) admitted that such a one was not at liberty to treat this question on the mere grounds of social convenience and expediency. But those who had arrived at the opposite conviction, that there was no such divine prohibition, or at the conclusion that the question was left in doubt and incertitude, were, as it appeared to him, in either or both of these cases, perfectly free to consider this question in its practical and social bearings. All had access to the word of God, to the writings, and authorities on the subject, and to the publications which had issued from the press, in some of which the theological part of the question was very fully treated. Every aid, therefore, which human ingenuity and piety, and learning, and argument could afford, had been given, and the question might now be safely left to the decision of each man's own mind and conscience, without entering in that House upon a theological discussion. He (Sir G. Grey) had given his best attention to the arguments adduced to show that there was a divine prohibition against these marriages, but he was satisfied in his own mind that no such prohibition existed. He therefore felt at liberty to view the subject simply in regard to its practical bearing upon the interests of the community. The authority of the Church had been rather largely dwelt upon, but he felt at a loss to discover precisely in what sense that authority was invoked. If by the authority of the Church was meant that of the early fathers, of general councils, and ecclesiastical authority prior to the Reformation, he avowed he could not attach much weight to it; because, if he did, he felt he should be carried considerably beyond the conclusion deduced from that authority as applicable to the cases provided for by the Bill. If this deference was to be paid to Church authority in that sense, we should find ourselves in-
1302
volved in a multitude of prohibitions, many of them utterly inconsistent with prevailing opinions and practice, and restrictions would have to be imposed upon marriages between parties supposed to be related by sponsorship, or some supposed degrees of affinity, not now included in any recognised prohibition. Before he proceeded, however, he would observe that he concurred in the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, that where the question of divine prohibition was a doubtful one, they were not at liberty, irrespective of other considerations, to render that certain by human law which was left uncertain by divine law, and to impose restrictions which they were not satisfied did exist by reference to Scripture. If by the authority of the Church was meant the authority of our early reformers, or of that branch of the Christian Church established by law in this realm, then he could not see how the authority of the Church of England could be cited as a general law extending to persons not members of that Church. The prohibition extends to the whole of the subjects of this realm, whether members of the Church or not. It would be unjust and tyrannical to impose upon the members of the Church the necessity of choosing between their allegiance to their own Church and the law of the land; and if violence was done to the consciences of members of the Church, it would be an objection to this measure. But the Bill did no such thing. It merely left those who did not think they were bound by the authority of the Church at liberty to follow the dictates of their own consciences, and removed a restriction imposed upon them by the law of the land. Then came the question as to the effects of this measure upon society, and he thought that the great preponderance of arguments, and facts upon which the arguments were grounded, was in favour of the alteration of the law. He stated this with diffidence, for he felt that the question was one upon which much difference of opinion might honestly exist, and he felt the force of many of the objections which had been urged against the relaxation of the law. He had listened attentively to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth at the conclusion of his able speech of the preceding night, and to his appeal to the House not to disturb that free and unrestrained intercourse which now subsisted between a man and his wife's sister. But they were bound to regard society as a whole, and to the

1303
effects produced by the law of 1835 upon all classes. And what had been that effect? The hon. and learned Member for Southampton had reminded the House of the circumstances under which the prohibitory clause had been introduced into that Act. It was true, as he had stated, that the Bill, as originally brought into Parliament, contained no such clause. The Bill had a legitimate and useful object, and so far as it was limited to that object, the Act had proved beneficial in removing the uncertainty which had existed relative to a large class of marriages, which, not regarded with disfavour by society in general, stood in this position, that although not void they were voidable, and might be set aside by a suit in the Ecclesiastical Courts during the lives of both parties; so that the result was a perpetual disquietude and anxiety, and the marriage tie, which should be indissoluble, was left to mere accident whether it should be dissolved or not, and whether the children of that union were born in lawful wedlock or not. But in the passage of the Bill through the other House, a clause was inserted rendering all such marriages in future void. He dissented from the doctrine of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that the Act of 1835 did not give a legislative sanction to such marriages as had taken place before the passing of that Act. Before the Act of 1835 there was but one method whereby such marriages could be rendered invalid; but the Legislature, when they enacted that law, stepped in and placed a prohibition on the further invalidation of them. It decreed that all marriages of that description, which had taken place previously to 1835, should be declared as valid as any other description of marriage whatsoever; but it at the same time put a bar on the solemnisation of such marriages for the future. The promoters of the law of 1835 proposed to themselves the attainment of two objects totally dissimilar. They said "by the retrospective action of the measure we will render valid all marriages of this description which have been solemnised in times past, and by its prospective action we will prevent the possibility of such marriages being solemnised at all in time to come." But the very course they adopted rendered it impossible for them to succeed in such a project. The law was a most anomalous one, for it included two priciples which were entirely antagonistic. By one part of the Act a provision was
1304
made which amounted to a legislative declaration that there was nothing whatever immoral or worthy of objection in such marriages, and that they ought to be made as valid as any other description of marriage; and in the very next clause was found a sweeping prohibition of them. The Act of 1835 had produced no change of feeling or opinion with regard to these marriages in the minds of the people. Society still regarded the question in the same light as it had done before the passing of the law, and still refused to class such marriages in the same category with incestuous marriages. Notwithstanding the censure which had been cast by hon. Gentlemen on the commissioners for the manner in which they had discharged their duty—censure in which he could not concur—he thought there was abundant evidence produced by them that such marriages had not been stopped by the Act of 1835, but that they had continued to the same extent as before, and that evils of a serious character had been caused by the alteration of the law. The commissioners say—
"We cannot avoid the conclusion that the statute of 5 and 6 William IV., c. 54, has failed to attain the object sought to be effected by its prospective enactments. It has not prevented marriage with the sister, or niece, of a deceased wife from taking place in numerous instances; whether more or less numerous than before the passing of the statute, we have not, as was before observed, sufficient data to enable us to form an opinion. But, without reference to any comparison of this description, the number of those marriages is so great as to justify us in saying, that the provisions of that statute, rendering them null and void, have not generally deterred parties from forming such connections.
"We are not inclined to think that such attachments and marriages would be extensively increased in number were the law to permit them, because, as we have said, it is not the state of the law, prohibitory or permissive, which has governed, or, as we think, ever will effectively govern them."
How were these marriages viewed by men of a high tone of moral feeling, and who bore an upright and even a religious character? The commissioners had stated in their report that they had found that no strong objection to the present law was entertained in many cases by clergymen of various denominations—men who, so far from being chargeable with laxity of conduct, were remarkable for the rectitude of their lives. The commissioners spoke as follows:—
"We do not find that the persons who contract these marriages, and the relations and friends who approve them, have a less strong sense than others

1305
of religious and moral obligation, or are marked by any laxity of conduct."
There was this remarkable circumstance connected with the evidence, that all the witnesses who had spoken in favour of a change in the law were persons who, from their profession, their habits of life, and their position in society, were intimately associated with the great masses of the people, and enjoyed the fullest opportunity, not only of becoming acquainted with their habits, their feelings, and their prejudices, but also of forming an opinion as to what the probable result of a change in the law would be; whereas those witnesses who had spoken against any alteration in the law were for the most part gentlemen who had no such opportunities, and who merely gave their testimony as a matter of personal opinion, founded on the writings of theological writers. He had no hesitation in saying that he should be disposed to attach greater weight to the evidence of the first class of witnesses than to that of the second, because it was better to have the experience of men who had a practical knowledge of the wants, wishes, and feelings of the people, than the speculative opinions of men whose views were only derived from their literary studies. In addition to the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Garbett, of Birmingham, the opinions of five clergymen, four of them having a large cure of souls in the metropolis, had been recorded in favour of an alteration of the law; and Dr. Hook, of Leeds, with whose name the House was familiar as a divine of eminence, to whom was committed the spiritual charge of a large number of his fellow-Christians, had also concurred in the opinion that there was no positive prohibition in the Scriptures, and that the removal of the prohibition imposed by the human law, would tend to the morality and general welfare of society. He did not mean to question that some inconvenience, and, possibly, some diminution of comfort, and, perhaps, even of happiness, might be felt in the upper classes of society as the result of an alteration in the law; but he had no doubt whatever that the interests of the lower classes of society were very much involved in the alteration of the law, and would be materially promoted by it. That was a consideration of peculiar weight and importance. He did not think it could be seriously contended by any one that an increase of morality had been the result of the law of 1835.
1306
The law was disregarded, which was in itself a great evil. Many unworthy attempts were constantly made to evade it, and great misery and anguish of mind were inflicted on persons who did not like to disobey the law, and who had no hope of relief from the distress in which they were now plunged, except in the expectation that the law would be altered. Uncertainty as to the validity or invalidity of these marriages, when solemnised under peculiar circumstances, still existed, and was productive of much mischief. That the law was not successfully evaded by parties who passed from England to Scotland, or from Scotland to England, in the hope of being able thus to elude it, must be evident; but in cases where persons going abroad, professedly with the intention of residing abroad, contracted marriages of this description in foreign countries, and afterwards returned to England, there were serious doubts whether, as the law now stood, such marriages were or were not valid. So that still there was much uncertainty and doubt which it would be well to remove. But the immorality of cohabitation without marriage, and the liability of contracting a defective marriage, did not constitute the only objections to the present system. The Rev. Mr. Garbett, in his evidence before the commissioners, expressly stated that the law of 1835 was liable to the most grave objection, from its tendency to encourage the practice of perjury. The rev. gentleman observed, that the law was disregarded "entirely upon the ground that people have a strong feeling that it does interfere with what may be considered the first natural rights. I think," he said, "the argument" you ought not to set the law at defiance,' is one which is very difficult to urge upon people when their affections are deeply interested in a manner that religion and conscience do not control. I do not think the law should put persons in such a position." He was then asked, "Do you think that the present state of the law tends to cause false oaths to be taken?" To which he replied—"I am quite satisfied of that. Persons are told by a particular surrogate that they cannot have a license, and they are unprepared for it. Many surrogates do not ask the question; they merely put the affidavit to them, and they take it without thinking what they are doing. I always ask the question, and of course refuse if they are within the degrees; but I know that they go some-

1307
where else and get licenses. They go to a surrogate who is simply content with their taking the oath, which, legally, is all that he is required to do. It is gross perjury on the part of those who do it, provided they understand the meaning of the affidavit, which is not always the case; but you should not tempt them." Most assuredly that was a consideration which ought not to be overlooked in considering the present question in its social tendency. He did not at all deny that the question was a difficult one—and that, all circumstances considered, it might perhaps have been better that it had not been mooted in that House; but, having been mooted, and their attention having been called to it, it was the duty of every Member to give the matter the most serious consideration, and to pursue with reference to it that course which in his conscience he believed to be the best. But, in addition to the social considerations which should induce them to view with favour the proposition for an alteration of the law, it should be remembered that they were not called upon to take any step not warranted by the sanction of experience. They had the experience of other countries to appeal to, and they found that in the majority of the Continental States of Europe, and in the greater part of the United States of America, the practice, prohibited in this country by the Act of 1835, was permitted, and had not been productive of any of those evil consequences which some hon. Members anticipated as the result of the repeal of the present law. Judge Storey, in a letter recently received from him, had stated, that nothing was of more common occurrence in America than such marriages, and that he had never heard a single objection against them founded either on moral or domestic considerations. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the great body of Protestant Dissenters in this country had expressed themselves in favour of the contemplated change: 108 nonconforming ministers had petitioned the House a few evenings since in favour of the Bill now under consideration; and he believed that not one single petition against it had been presented from the Dissenters. A large portion of the Catholics of this country were also in favour of the alteration of the law, as like-Wise were a largo portion, though not a majority, of the clergy and laity of the Established Chureh. People ought to be allowed in such matters to act according to the dictates of their own consciences.
1308
The present Bill did not propose to coerce their conscientious convictions in any way. It left any man at liberty to pursue that course which he believed to be most consistent with the dictates of morality and the law of God. He hoped that hon. Members would feel themselves at liberty to decide this question with reference to its influence on the interests of society. He hoped that they would be guided in their decision respecting it by the dictates of reason and the lights of judgment, rather than by the impulses of passion and of feeling. He trusted that the appeals which had been made last night to their feelings would not induce them hastily to destroy the hopes of those who, with anxiety, looked forward to the enactment by Parliament of a change in the present law. He had spoken his own opinions only; but having given to this subject the most serious consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that, for the reasons he had endeavoured to explain to the House, he should best discharge his duty by voting in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
SIR R. H. INGLISagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary that it might not be desirable to enter into any detailed examination of sacred Scripture in a popular assembly; least of all, in one which did not acknowledge any common authority of interpretation. But there were subjects upon which it was not possible to avoid distinct reference to the word of God. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that if that word were clear upon this question, the decision of the House must be in conformity with it. Now, in regard to the ordinance of marriage, there was in the New Testament no authority whatever, so far as the choice of persons was concerned; and in the most important relation of life it must have pleased Almighty God to leave his creatures without any authority unless we were to take into consideration the Old Testament also. Taking that also, we should find no regulations except in Leviticus; and, taking Leviticus, we must take the 18th chapter. That chapter, warning against certain practices which had polluted the nations of Canaan, conveyed a general principle, that a man should not marry any one that was near of kin to him; but it did not detail every specific instance to which the principle might he applied. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton had told the House that that which was not prohibited was permitted. If that hon. and

1309
learned Gentleman were then present, he should ask him, was he prepared to maintain that doctrine to its fullest extent, and apply it to numerous cases—to that case from which human nature withdrew under the influence of aversion and horror? There was a prohibition against a man marrying his own granddaughter, from which the obvious inference had always been drawn that he was not to marry his own daughter. Such a marriage was clearly abhorrent to every feeling of human nature, and therefore the express prohibition might be deemed unnecessary; but surely no one would think of affirming, because it was not prohibited in words, that therefore it was permitted, though marriage with a granddaughter was expressly forbidden. In all cases where links of that kind were wanting, it required but a small exercise of ordinary understanding to supply them. It was fully acknowledged that the marriage of one woman to two brothers in succession was unlawful; and was it more lawful, he would ask, that one man might marry two sisters successively? The present state of the law was censured as an infringement upon liberty—that therefore such a law, like a penal statute, ought to be construed strictly, and they ought not to go beyond the letter of the law. But in the view which he took of the subject, he conceived that he by no means went beyond that which might be considered a fair construction of the law. He felt as much as any one could possibly feel, the delicacy, the importance, and the sacred character of the various subjects which were connected with the present discussion; and he had felt deeply anxious that no discussion whatever should take place. He wished that the decision of the House pronounced seven years ago, when they refused permission to introduce a similar measure, might have been taken as conclusive against the Bill then before them. His hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire had been as much opposed to discussing the present question as any one amongst them; but his excuse for entering upon it on the present occasion was that it had been brought under their notice by the report of a Royal Commission. Now, he would come to that commission and its Report, observing, in the first place, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had exposed the insufficiency of that report in an argument as conclusive as had ever been heard, and as perfectly calculated to dispel the influence of the evidence
1310
laid before the House as any speech which could possibly have been made. He had thought, but his right hon. Friend had proved it impossible, that such a number of cases of the marriage of men with the sisters of their deceased wives could exist as had been assumed in the proceedings of the commissioners. But he never regarded mere numbers as constituting an argument of any importance in a judicial question. They were not sitting there to try the feelings of many or of few; he cared not whether the whole or a tenth part of the persons mentioned were to be affected by the Bill. If there were only one case, it ought to he decided on the same principle as the utmost possible amount of numbers; he, therefore, rose to address the House under the influence of the deepest personal pain; and he should have been glad on any account to have given a silent vote on the present question, if he felt that he could have done so consistently with his sense of duty. Looking again to the report of the commissioners, he would say, that there never had been laid on the table of that House a document so little worthy the authority of the Crown, or of the high and distinguished names which were appended to it. It was informal in every part. The House of Commons was indebted to the hon. Member who represented Dumfries for originating a regulation, according to which every Member of a Select Committee became responsible for the questions which he put. It was remarkable, however, in the evidence now before them, that the name of no individual commissioner was prefixed to any one question; nor had the attendance of the commissioners been in any case recorded; and, finally, what had Her Majesty's Commissioners stated on the matter referred to them? They came to no conclusion whatever. The House was no more bound by their report than by the eloquent speech of one of the commissioners. So far from the report containing any distinct recommendation, it altogether avoided a conclusion, and referred to the possibility of the House either relaxing the existing law, or rendering it more striet than it had hitherto been. The prestige of the Royal Commission, then, carried with it no higher importance than belonged to the speech of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. The commissioners pledged themselves to nothing, and they recommended nothing to the House. There was one point, however, in which he agreed with the commissioners—he referred to that

1311
part of their report in which they admitted that the proposed alteration of the law did not concur with the public mind of England. He agreed to that proposition, and he did not believe that the public mind of England went along with the measure then before them. If it were a matter to be decided by the word of God, the question was quite at an end. It was said, however, that the petitioners who came to the House as opponents of the Bill, did not come forward boldly against it on scriptural grounds. Upon the theological part of the question, they, perhaps, hardly knew how to address the House of Commons. Then as to its being a question of ecclesiastical authority, they were told that many of the clergy held different opinions on the point; but the clergy must look to the Church to which they belonged. If they remained in the Church, and accepted its wages, and professed to perform its service, they must accept the interpretation which the Church put upon the Scriptures—they might be better than the Church of England, but if they did not agree with that Church they ought to leave it. They might preach according to the rubric and the canons, and they might enforce the discipline of the Church; but they must not altogether overlook that interpretation put by the Church on the Scriptures. He could not suffer the authority of men, however individually respectable, to be brought forward for the purpose of deciding an ecclesiastical question which the Church had already decided for them. Would any one deny that to be the doctrine of the Church of England which the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire professed to set aside? No man acquainted with the rubric, the canons, and the authoritative decisions of the Church of England, would deny that the tables of affinity and consanguinity in the Book of Common Prayer were opposed to the Bill then before them. The tables of prohibited degrees were said to be no part of the Book of Common Prayer; but he must he allowed to say that he had never seen a Church prayer-book without those tables. The two copies used every day in the House of Commons contained, he would venture to say, the lists of prohibited degrees—they were then on the table of the House; those lists were suspended in every church and chapel, and no one could deny that they possessed the sanction of the Church of England. The learned Lord Advocate had said that he ought not to omit some reference to the
1312
law of Scotland. Of the law of England he would say nothing. Whatever doubts might exist regarding it some years ago, it was now perfectly clear on the subject. But with regard to the law of Scotland, he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact that on this point it was not merely a municipal law similar to those passed by Lord Lyndhurst or Lord Hardwicke, but that it embodied the confession of faith. In the 5th of the first Parliament of William and Mary the confession of faith was bodily inserted, and was as much a part of that Act as any of its other provisions. It was there stated, that—
"A man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor a woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than her own."
No words could he more explicit. The Bill therefore proposed, not only to repeal the municipal law, but also the great ecclesiastical constitution of the realm of of Scotland. And he believed no Scotch Member would deny that the feeling of the clergy and people of Scotland was decidedly opposed to the change now brought forward. It was admitted in the report that it was so with the clergy, and had they added the laity also it would have been no exaggeration. They had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster of the Forces give notice that night that if the Bill should unhappily be read a second time, he would move an instruction to the Committee that it should not extend to Scotland. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would also move an instruction to the Committee that the Bill should not extend to Ireland, for in Ireland the feeling against the measure was as strong as in Scotland. The Bill was in the first place against Scripture; it was also opposed to the law of the Church of England, the law of the Church of Scotland, and the public feeling, both in the one country and the other. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton had delivered an able and eloquent speech; but, able as it was, it began with an assumption altogether unsupported by historical facts; for, in reply to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge of the great learning, unparalleled in later ages, of those to whom we owed the Reformation, he contended that the state of the law in respect to marriage arose from the foul source of

1313
Henry VIII.'s desire to marry Anne Boleyn. It was not consonant with a correct view of history to say that either the ecclesiastical or civil prohibition was first imposed at the era of the Reformation. It was for their opponents to show that such marriages were ever sanctioned at all; and he defied them to do so. They had, in fact, been prohibited for 1,200 years at least before the time of the Reformation; for 300 more they had been prohibited by the Church of England; and he hoped an opposite principle would not be encouraged by Parliament. He could hardly conceive anything more objectionable than the proposal to make it optional with the clergy whether they would celebrate these marriages or not. His right hon. Friend might if he pleased make marriage a civil contract. Those who were not members of the Church would not complain—and those, who though members of the Church, disregarded its canons might go to the registrar's office, as they might indeed do now. But that in the parish of St. Pancras, where the writer of one of the letters referred to by his right hon. Friend was the able and faithful minister, and in St. Giles's, the adjoining parish, where one of the most active, zealous, and learned of his order, Mr. Tyler officiated—those clergymen should be called on to administer these marriages, the one, perhaps, choosing to do so, and the other not—he asked if, by such a state of things, the interests, not merely of the Church of England, but of religion, would not suffer? There was another important view of the question to which he would shortly refer. This was emphatically a woman's question. In his own personal experience, he had found that the women of England were in an immense proportion opposed to this measure. He did not merely refer to the numbers who had signed a petition to the Queen, but to the fact that everywhere they were to be found against the proposition. He had received a letter from a lady who stated that, having many sisters, she could not, if such a measure as this passed into law, receive them into her house. Her words were to the effect, "I should have been jealous of every sister I had." [Dissent.] He did not adopt the language altogether, but he pledged himself to the fact; and the House must deal with men and women as they found them. This lady, who was a person of high character, had addressed a letter to him in which she made that statement. They
1314
must, in all such cases, take the feelings of people just as they found them; they might or they might not be such as they wished to extend, but they were still feelings of human nature, and they must act upon them. The lady went on to state, what he had seven years ago urged upon the House, in answer to the argument that, unless a measure like this were passed, many children would be left without motherly protection—that she knew of more than one case where, if the Bill of the Earl of Ellesmere had been carried some years ago, the surviving sister would have left the house which had been for years her homo, and the children that for years had been under her care. He believed that, statistically, the number of these marriages must be few, and that what was stated in the Times newspaper of there being some 3,000, was nearer the mark, than the statement they had heard of there being 30,000 or 40,000. Then in how many of these cases had the deceased wife asked a sister to be her successor? The probability was that they would find very few indeed. Much of the argument in the House, and more of that which had been urged out of doors, assumed that the only alternative which a widower had was either to marry his wife's sister, or to leave his children in a manner orphanless. Now did it never happen that he had sisters of his own, or a mother, or an aunt, to whom such care might he confided? As to the manner in which this case had originated, he found that it was brought forward by two attorneys. He did not deny their zeal or diligence, but he thought their zeal had carried them far beyond that which duty warranted. When he saw letters addressed to Members of Parliament to know what their opinions were, it gave him an unfavourable opinion of the discretion of those who resorted to such a practice in order to promote any measure. Then, how unilateral was the evidence which had been produced. It had been said that one of the gentlemen who were examined before the commission, a minister of the Church of England, was examined under circumstances not so favourable perhaps to the character of the commissioners as it would have been desirable they should have been. It was said that his evidence was at first rejected, particularly a portion of it; and that afterwards, upon his insisting that either what he said should be recorded, or that he should not be considered a witness at all,

1315
the answers which were rejected were reinstated. He mentioned this merely incidentally, as it was one of the many proofs that the confidence bestowed upon the commission and their report ought to he limited somewhat more than the prestige of a blue book might otherwise carry. They had not conducted their inquiry with that laborious research which the matters referred to them required; and the result had been a meagre and unsatisfactory opinion, upon which he would defy any man to rest so sweeping a measure, unless he were determined to do it post hoc, if not propter hoc. He should be most anxious to extend, wherever he could, the reasonable happiness of all his fellow-creatures; but he must not compliment away his sense of what was right; and especially when that sense of right appeared to him to be so plainly dictated by the word and will of God, and when he found that word and will expounded by his own judgment in a manner so unequivocal as to leave no doubt upon his mind. He, therefore, adjured the House to reject the Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend for the sake of the general feeling of the people of England, for the sake of all but the universal feeling of the people of Scotland, and for the sake of the feeling of the people of Ireland, most ably, most temperately, but most firmly expressed in many of the petitions which had been addressed by the clergy from that part of the empire, and, indeed, by some of the evidence which appeared in the appendix of the report. But he would adjure the House, from higher considerations than any which affected the personal feelings of the day; for, if it were true, as he believed it was, that the measure now proposed was contrary to the word of God; if it were true, as he was sure it was, that it was contrary to the mind and will of the universal Church—for no church whatever could be found to sanction these marriages, till within the last 300 years, and it was the only question of discipline upon which the interpretation of all the great churches entirely coincided—if it were true that the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Greek Church, and the Church of Rome, differing as they did on so many other points, all concurred in this; if it were also true, as he believed it to be, that this was emphatically a woman's question—and that the feelings of the women of England were heartily and strongly against
1316
the measure; if these things were true, then on these considerations he did adjure the House not to disturb a state of things which had so long existed; and, for the sake of a few, however amiable, however excellent persons, and however painful it might be to refuse them, not to sanction a measure which, as he conceived, would violate the law—which, as he believed, was contrary to the mind and will of the Church—and which, as he well knew, was against the feelings of the great mass of the people of this country.
Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Viscount Ponsonby. Sat first.—The Lord Berwick, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Freemen's Lands.
3a Cruelty to Animals Prevention.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Falmouth, from Penzance, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws By Earl Delawarr, from Cambridge, for the Restoration of Protection to British Produce.—From Plymouth, and a Number of other Places, against the Navigation Bill.—By Lord Redesdale, from Lyme Regis, for Increasing the Number of Bishops and Clergy.—From Middleton, against any Measure for the Endowment of Roman Catholic Clergy.—From the Lissane and Limerick Unions, for a Modification of the Poor Laws (Ireland) Rate in Aid Bill, and for the Adoption of a System of Emigration.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from the Congregations of several Free Churches in Scotland, against Sunday Travelling.—By Lord Monteagle, from Hawarden, Huddersfield, and other Places, against the granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops—From the Irish Branch of the United Church of England and Ireland, for an Alteration in the Mode of Disposing of the Grants in aid of Education (Ireland).—From Melksham, for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—By Earl Grey, from Montreal, for a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

RAILWAY ACCOUNTS—MR. SAUNDERS.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from Charles Alexander Saunders, which he had been requested by that gentleman to present in consequence of some observations which had fallen from him in the course of his speech the other night
1248
on railway audits. He had mentioned the name of Mr. Saunders, because his name had been prominently brought forward at a public meeting. Mr. Saunders gave a different statement of the transaction to which he (Lord Brougham) had referred, in two important particulars. Mr. Saunders stated that he never was a servant of the South Devon Company; and he (Lord Brougham) had never said that he was so. He had said that Mr. Saunders was the secretary of the Great Western Company. The question turned, not on the shares of the Great Western, but on the shares of the South Devon Company. The only point on which he had any doubt in his statement was, whether he was altogether justified in declaring that the South Devon was an affiliated branch—though he did not use that exact phrase—of the Great Western Company. The Great Western was only connected with the South Devon by holding a great number of its shares, and exercising thereby a preponderating influence over it; and that was the mode in which one company often exercised an influence over another, to the great injury and detriment of the public. The Great Western had purchased a large number of shares of the South Devon, and had paid up the calls upon thorn. Mr. Saunders had also purchased on his own account many shares, but had not paid up the calls. He had purchased what were called "preference shares," for which there was a guarantee of 6 per cent for ten years. The South Devon ceased to pay that interest at the end of the first year, and, as they had broken its bargain with him, Mr. Saunders did not feel called upon to keep his covenant with them. It was not the suggestion of Mr. Saunders, but it was a suggestion made to him in the other House of Parliament by a gentleman who was a Privy Councillor, that the whole transaction was illegal. He took the opinion of an eminent counsel at the Chancery bar, and also at the common law bar, upon the suggestion, and they gave him such strong opinions on the point, that he determined to resist the payment of his calls; and the matter was now sub judice. He (Lord Brougham) had also said, on the authority of Mr. Hutton, that Mr. Saunders had a salary of 3,000 l. a year. It turned out that he had only a salary of 2,000 l. a year. Such were the statements of the petition; and, as he had been the party to bring forward the charges against that gentleman in his place in Parliament, he thought

1249
it only right that he should give Mr. Saunders's correction of them from the same place. He had been informed by several noble Lords, who had long known Mr. Saunders, that he was a most respectable person, and that anything he said was deserving of credit.
LORD LYNDHURSTbore testimony to the honourable character of Mr. Saunders, and, corroborating the observations which had fallen from Lord Brougham, proceeded to explain the reasons which had induced Mr. Saunders to purchase these preference shares of the South Devon Company. Mr. Saunders had submitted all his proceedings in resisting the payment of the calls on those shares to the directors of the Great Western Company, and those proceedings had met with their general approbation.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that though he had mentioned the name of Mr. Saunders, he had not mentioned the name of the solicitor who had got 190,000 l. of the money of the Great Western Company. He had said that he was a member of a respectable firm, for which he had himself had done business; and a Mr. Hunt, whose name he had not even mentioned, had applied to him personally to state that he was not the party implicated. Certainly Mr. Hunt was not.
The DUKE of CLEVELANDmade some remarks on the conduct of Mr. Saunders towards the South Devon Company. That individual might be able to defend his conduct in a legal point of view, but he could not defend his honesty. The petition which he had just presented would do him more harm than good.
LORDBROUGHAMsaid, he thought the noble Duke was rather hard upon Mr. Saunders. If the noble Duke had proposed to buy a farm, and found there was a bad title, would be not try to get out of his bargain?
THE DUKE of BEAUFORTsaid, that he had been for many years acquainted with Mr. Saunders, who was a man of high honour and character. Some years ago the directors of the Great Western had presented him with a large sum of money and a piece of plate in return for his valuable services to that company.
EARL GRANVILLEonly knew the facts of this case from a communication made to him that morning by a noble Lord, whose statement coincided entirely with that contained in the petition of Mr. Saunders. If that statement were true, no blame could attach to that gentleman. The
1250
first doubt of the legality of the preference shares was suggested to him by Sir E. Ryan, whilst in conversation beneath the gallery in the House of Commons with Mr. Russell, the chairman of the Great Western. He had himself seen Sir Edward Ryan that morning, and Sir Edward informed him that he perfectly recollected the conversation in question.

REPORTING THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
LORD BEAUMONTgave notice that, on Thursday next, he would move the consideration of the Standing Order No. 130, for the purpose of referring it to the Library Committee; he meant the standing order which related to the presence of strangers during the sitting of the House. His own opinion was, that it was very essential to the House that something more accurate should be given to the world as an account of what passed in that House. He had himself been put to great inconvenience by a misrepresentation—no doubt an unintentional misrepresentation—of some proper names, which was not the fault of the persons who attended there for the purpose of giving an account of their Lordships' proceedings, but was owing partly to the malconstruction of the House, and partly to the noise which was made in a part of the House which was not, strictly speaking, within the House—he meant below the bar. As a consequence of this, whatever might be the wish of the reporters to convey to the country an accurate representation of what occurred, they were unable to do so, and great pain had been given to certain private individuals, from their not being furnished with a clear and distinct statement of what had passed. The result had been that such a number of letters had been addressed to those Peers who took part in the debates, as required a great deal of time to be answered.

REBELLION LOSSES BILL (CANADA).
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the necessity for which has arisen from what I must conceive to be an erroneous report of what has been stated in another place, upon a subject of considerable importance. It has been reported that a statement was there made, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that, with respect to the Bill

1251
which is now pending, or rather which has passed the two branches of Legislature in Canada, for granting compensation for losses sustained during the rebellion in that country, and which is now awaiting Her Majesty's assent, to be signified either by the Governor General or by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, no official correspondence whatever, up to the present time, has taken place between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonial Department and the Governor General of Canada; that the reports of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly in Canada have not been communicated to Her Majesty's Government; and that no official instructions have been either asked for or given, nor any correspondence taken place on the subject. It has been added—which is a matter, in my mind, of still greater importance—that private letters have passed upon the subject between the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor General of Canada, and that this course has been adopted avowedly for the purpose of rendering it impossible that the correspondence should be laid before your Lordships, or come under the cognisance of Parliament. I am perfectly ready to agree, as in other communications of this kind, that Her Majesty's Government have the power to withhold any portion of the correspondence on the ground of its being detrimental to the public service; but if the course has been pursued which I hope to hear denied by the noble Earl, and that the statement of what took place elsewhere was erroneous—if, I say, the whole of the correspondence, with the opinions of the Governor General, and the directions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon a matter which deeply affects imperial interests—if these have been studiously confined to private correspondence, and no official correspondence has taken place—if, consequently, that private correspondence is the private property of the Secretary of State, and, when he leaves the office he now holds, will be removed by him from the public records; or if it be of such a character that at no time it is capable of being produced—then, my Lords, in such case, if that system be suffered to prevail, Ministerial responsibility is at an end, and the control of Parliament is absolutely ousted over any proceedings which Her Majesty's Ministers may think fit to adopt with relation to our colonial interests. Nay, more, the
1252
successor of the noble Earl, whenever the noble Earl shall quit office, who will have to carry on the affairs of Canada, finding, perhaps, that this question has led to ulterior consequences, will have no record before him by which he may understand the intentions and advice of his predecessor, or the nature of the information and instructions given to the Governor General, by which he may be influenced in guiding his own course in measures which may have resulted from this. I hope to hear from the noble Earl, not that he is ready to produce that correspondence, but that there is one which will remain in the office, and which, at some time, may be produced, if necessary, in order to throw light upon the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I have felt it my duty to call attention to this case, for the purpose of marking, as I think your Lordships will do, your opinion of the irregularity and inexpediency of such a course of proceeding for the future, if it has been adopted upon the present occasion. The questions which I wish to put to the noble Earl are—first, whether any official correspondence has taken place upon this important subject between himself and the Governor General of Canada? and, in the next place, whether the whole and sole responsibility of assenting to, or refusing to, sanction the Bill, is intended by Her Majesty's Government to be cast upon the shoulders of the Earl of Elgin? and, thirdly, whether, acting upon the part of the Crown, the Secretary of State has felt it his duty to instruct the Governor General of Canada as to the course he was to take on behalf of the Crown?
EARL GREY: In reply to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, I have to inform your Lordships that no official correspondence has taken place upon the subject referred to by him. I have further to inform your Lordships that the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly are not yet in the possession of the Colonial Office. It has never been the practice that the votes and proceedings of the colonial legislatures should be sent from any of the colonies enclosed to the Secretary of State. We have accounts in the local newspapers; but formal reports of these proceedings have never usually been in the possession of the Secretary of State for the Colonies until the close of the session of the colonial legislatures. Some time since this inconvenience attracted my notice, and I wrote a circular to the Governors of the principal

1253
colonies, directing that by every mail the votes and proceedings of the legislative assemblies should be transmitted to the Secretary of State. But with respect to the correspondence on this subject, I must further add, that the private letters which have passed between myself and the Earl of Elgin are confined, so far as they relate to this subject, to the expression of his opinion that it was his duty to decide upon his own responsibility, when this Bill should be tendered to him, whether he would accept it or reject it, or whether he would reserve it for the sanction of Her Majesty's Government; leaving it to them, when he had acted in accordance with his constitutional duty, to determine whether the decision to which he should so have come should be approved by Her Majesty in Council or otherwise. It will rest with Her Majesty in Council ultimately to determine whether this Bill is to come in force or not; but the Governor General has stated to me, that he thought it inexpedient, until he was called upon to take some measure on the subject—until he was called upon to act in the matter, that he should make any report whatever upon it, because he conceived it to be inexpedient that it should be known in the colony what would be the course which he should ultimately think it right to take. The Act which had been passed through the two branches of the legislature, had not, at the date of the last advices, been tendered to him for his assent; and, upon inquiry, I find that it is the usual practice of the legislature in Canada, as of most others, not to tender any public Act to the Governor, for his acceptance or refusal, until the close of the session, unless there existed some special reason for bringing the Act into early operation. The present Bill has not yet been laid before the Governor General; he has not decided; and not having decided—not having taken any public step upon that subject, he said that he did not conceive the time was come when he could with propriety or advantage to the public service make any official report upon it. I have further to state, that I have given Lord Elgin, neither publicly nor privately, any directions or instructions with respect to the course he is to pursue. I have abstained from doing so deliberately and advisedly, because, in my opinion, it is absolutely impossible that the affairs of the colonies can be administered with advantage, if the Secretary of State interferes more with the discretion of the Governor
1254
than is absolutely necessary. The more experience I have of colonial affairs, the more persuaded I am that the true secret of satisfactory management of our colonies is to choose the best men that can be found for governors, and having got such governors, to give to them a large and wide discretion, and a generous trusting support, and never to believe that they have acted wrong, unless there is some strong evidence to that effect. In pursuance of that opinion, I have advisedly and deliberately abstained from giving the Governor General of Canada any instructions with respect to the course he is to pursue on this subject. I have further to say, that if I should leave the office I hold next week, the official correspondence left in the records of the office will leave to my successor all the means which can be necessary for forming his judgment upon any measure which he may be called upon to adopt. Of course, I adhere to the practice—which has been the practice of all my predecessors—of corresponding privately, as well as officially, with the governors of Her Majesty's colonies. It is important that I should know, not only what they have done, but what are their private opinions upon the various subjects which may come under their notice. It is more especially necessary in cases where the governors are private friends, that I should have their full and unreserved opinion upon passing events both at home and abroad. These letters I shall continue to write and to receive; but, most undoubtedly, I think, as the noble Lord thinks, that it would be departing from my duty, and the governors of the colonies would be equally departing from theirs, if the official correspondence which may remain in the records of the office does not contain what it ought to contain—namely, the fullest information with respect to all the facts and occurrences which take place in those colonies, and upon which the Secretary of State for the time being, wherever he may be, may be called upon to decide. I have reason to believe that I have carried almost farther than most of my predecessors the principle of taking care that every instruction and every important statement of facts should be contained in official despatches, and not be confined to private letters.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it was very important—not that incidental communications between one man and another should be perused in order to their being

1255
laid before Parliament, but that communications on public business from colonial governors to the Secretary of State should be preserved for the use of Parliament. He had been greatly relieved from his anxiety on this point by the statement which the noble Lord had just made. He understood that an old and valued friend of his had stated elsewhere that Lord Elgin had omitted to mention certain matters of great public importance in his despatches, lest those matters should be brought before Parliament, but that he had noticed them in his private correspondence with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But nothing could be more incorrect, more groundless, than the doctrine that because a thing is mentioned in a despatch, Parliament must be made acquainted with it. Many things might be mentioned in a despatch which it would be highly improper to lay before Parliament; and even in times of the strongest opposition to a Government, Parliament never had the least difficulty in acceding to the proposition that a despatch should not be made public if any Minister thought its publication would be inconsistent with the public service. Nothing, therefore, could be more absurd than the idea that things which it might not be convenient to lay before the public, could not be put in despatches lest they should be called for by Parliament; for despatches had been called for and refused at all times. He agreed with the noble Earl that the best way of governing a colony was to take great care, in the first instance, to choose fit and proper persons, and having made a selection, to give them entire confidence, and to lend them an unhesitating and generous support, until they were clearly proved to be in the wrong. That was the rule by which he (Lord Brougham) had always been guided as a Minister. He doubted very much, on the other hand, whether a governor should be so left to himself as that he might act entirely on his own responsibility: while there might be no ground for fettering his discretion, it might be necessary to give advice and suggestions, and even directions, for the right management of colonial affairs. It was highly satisfactory, however, to know that there was no foundation whatever for the statement made elsewhere, that Lord Elgin had omitted certain matters from his despatches lest Parliament might be made acquainted with them.

OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
The EARL of ROSSEmoved for the production of certain correspondence which had recently passed between the Poor Law Commissioners and the boards of guardians in Ireland as to the expediency of giving or withholding outdoor relief. He did not expect that his Motion would meet with any opposition from Her Majesty's Government; but he nevertheless thought that some little explanation was necessary, as otherwise his object might not be obtained. The correspondence between the Poor Law Commissioners and the different hoards of guardians was so voluminous that he felt great difficulty in so wording his Motion as to procure the production of all the information which he wanted. He was particularly anxious to obtain that portion of the correspondence which took place during the last five or six months. He understood, that in the unions of Ballinasloe and Dungarvan, the system of outdoor relief had to a considerable extent been enforced; and he had carefully examined the evidence of Mr. Power, given before a Committee of their Lordships, with a view to seeing what his opinions were upon the question to which he was now addressing himself; he regretted, however, to find that the evidence of Mr. Power was not so clear and satisfactory as might be expected from a gentleman of his experience and ability. Mr. Power, it seemed, had been asked how it happened, that in some unions the poor never received outdoor relief; and it would be collected from his evidence, that wherever the poor-law was well administered, they had not found outdoor relief to be necessary; but, wherever the law was ill administered, outdoor relief became indispensable. Now, their Lordships could not fail to see that a good deal of importance might he considered to attach to the subject which he desired to bring under their notice, and therefore did he feel most anxious to obtain any documents or correspondence which would throw light upon the proceedings of the Poor Law Commissioners, and the several boards of guardians. Whatever the conclusions might he at which their Lordships would arrive after seeing the correspondence for which he was about to move, one position was perfectly clear, that wherever there was least outdoor relief, there the amount of industry and prosperity amongst the population would be the greatest. He might mention the circumstances of that union with which he himself was best acquainted—the union

1257
or electoral division of Parsonstown; there I no outdoor relief was administered, and the rate was 3s. 9d. in the pound, while in the union of Tullamore the rate was much higher, and the practice of outdoor relief most extensive. For this dissimilarity no good reason could be assigned, at least none founded in any material difference between the one district and the other, for they adjoined each other; they had much in common, and he saw no ground for I thinking that the poor-law might not be similarly administered in both places. Besides the other information which he desired to obtain, he wished to know the; amount of increased expense incurred in the building of additional workhouses.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that Her Majesty's Ministers had not the slightest objection to produce every possible information on the matters to which the noble Earl had referred. But he thought it would be desirable that the noble Earl should limit his Motion to the correspondence which had taken place during the last twelve months.
The EARL of ROSSEsaid, it would perhaps be better that the correspondence which had taken place during the last six months should be produced in the first instance; the rest might afterwards he made to follow.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that the only desire of the Government was to produce the correspondence in the mode and at the period that would I prove most convenient. With respect to the case of the union of Ballinasloe to which the noble Earl had referred, he wished to observe that as the recipients of relief in that union exceeded 4,000, it was very possible that proper workhouse accommodation could not be found for them all. He confessed he was strongly in favour of the principle of confining relief within the workhouse; but, under the immediate pressure which existed in Ireland, and which he hoped would be but temporary, it was necessary that poor-law guardians should be empowered to extend the relief to outdoor recipients. The papers which the noble Earl moved for should be produced with as much despatch as possible, and as copiously and satisfactorily as the subject required.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that two questions of great importance were involved in the proposition of the noble Earl. One was the application of outdoor relief in times of pressure, and an-
1258
other was the administration of the poor-law by means of vice-guardians, It appeared to him that the adoption of the principle of outdoor relief was a most dangerous one, generally speaking; and he wished to protest most strongly against the supposition or the principle that it might or ought to be safely adopted on the score of economy. Higher questions than those of mere money were involved in that consideration. Some had advocated the principle of outdoor relief, because, as they said, they could afford a relief at a cost of 2s., which would cost 5s. in a workhouse; but, for his part, he confessed that, as a landlord, he would prefer a greater expense on a system of indoor relief, to a lesser on a system of outdoor relief, because he considered the practical social effects of the latter would be to strike at the root of industry, open the door to frauds, and render the administration of the poor-law almost impossible.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday.