Sitting of 18 May 1849

MINUTES.
Public Bills.—Reported.—Parliamentary Oaths; Defects in Leases.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Maidstone, against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.—By Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, for Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. G. Hamilton, from Grangegorman, for an Alteration of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Act.—By Sir John Hope, from the County of Edinburgh, against the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. William Fagan, from Cork, for an Alteration of the County Cess (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Cobden, from Hertford, for Reduction of the Public Expenditure, and for Reform of Parliament.—By Mr. Hodgson, from Carlisle, respecting Taxation of Railways; and from Carlisle, for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.—By Mr. Aglionby, from Ellenborough, for the Copyholds Enfranchisement Bill.—By the Marquess of Granby, from Stamford, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Freemen's Lands.—By Mr. Foley, from the Guardians of the Bromsgrove Union, for an Alteration of the Poor Law,—By Mr. Anderson, from the Parochial Board of Sandsting and Aithsting, in Shetland, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Scotland); and from Kirkwall, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and Marriage (Scotland) Bill.

PRIVILEGE—PRESENCE OF STRANGERS.
MR. J. O'CONNELL: Mr. Speaker. I beg to give a notice upon a matter concerning the privileges of this House, connected with the last discussion upon the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. In consequence of having seen in the Times newspaper another breach of the privileges of this House by a report of the last discussion upon the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, in which report not only were the rules of the House violated, but the arguments of some Catholic Members were entirely omitted, whilst the arguments against them were duly reported, I shall, to-night, when the discussion upon the Parliamentary Oaths Bill comes before this House, endeavour to ascertain if there be strangers present, and if I find

663
that to be the case, I shall draw the attention of the House to that fact.

CONVICTS IN VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHasked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was the intention of the Government to send any more convicts to Van Diemen's Land? Also whether any despatches had been received from the Governor of that colony to the effect that there was no more room for convicts there? If so, would there be any objection to lay them upon the table?
MR. HAWESreplied, that it was the wish of the Government to send to Van Diemen's Land as few convicts as possible, and those only at right and proper times, under strict regulations; but he could give no pledge as to the intentions of the Government to cease sending them. With regard to the question relative to any despatches from the Governor, indicating that there was no more room for convicts there, none had been received to which such an interpretation could be given; but as he was about to lay upon the table a fresh collection of papers relative to transportation, his hon. Friend and the House would be able to put their own construction upon them.—Subject at an end.

AFFAIRS OF SICILY.
MR. BANKESsaid, he had given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he would put two questions to him to-day respecting certain transactions relative to Sicilian affairs; but as the noble Lord was not in his place, he would ask it from the noble Lord at the head of the Government. In answer to a former question which he (Mr. Bankes) had put, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that the united Cabinet of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland recognised the separate Government of Sicily, independent of the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies. He now wished to know from the noble Lord whether the Cabinet still recognised an independent Sicilian Government—that was, a Government independent of the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, his noble Friend, so far as he recollected, had stated that there was at the time a negotiation being carried on with the de facto Government of Sicily. That de facto Government no longer existed, and he believed there was no organised Government there.
MR. BANKESsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs having arrived in his place, he would put another question to him. It was, whether the noble Lord was aware that, as the result of the permission given by him to transport ordnance from Her Majesty's stores for the avowed use of the Sicilian insurgents, and of the encouragement given to those parties who formed the insurgent Government, the following circumstances had arisen. A British officer, who had formerly held a command in Sicily when the late Lord William Bentinck was there, and afterwards been engaged in active service during the Peninsular war, understanding that guns had been furnished from the Ordnance stores at Woolwich, and observing also other encouragement given to the Sicilians, accepted a command under the Sicilian Government. He undertook a commission to this country to raise troops, and to procure arms for the Sicilians. Those arms and troops were partially embarked in a steamer in the Thames. Two steamers were engaged, one to sail from the Thames, and the other to sail from Liverpool. The steamer engaged to sail from the Thames was detained by order of the Board of Customs. A question arose concerning the seizure, and the matter was referred to the Treasury. The Treasury, after duly considering the subject, and after having (as he understood) had communications with the noble Lord—the noble Lord having had communications, as it had been stated to him, but he might be mistaken in that respect, as he had received no information from the Minister of the King of the Two Sicilies, though, as he believed, communications were made by the noble Lord to the Minister of the King of the Two Sicilies, to the effect of that detention of the vessels—declined to interfere. The vessel, so far as related to any act of Government, was now at liberty to proceed to Palermo. The other vessel, from Liverpool, proceeded to Palermo. She reached that port just at the critical period when it suited the Minister of War there, and the Sicilian Government, whom the noble Lord had recognised, got on board with some of their coadjutors, and sailed to Marseilles. When they reached Marseilles, the Ministry of France, taking a different view from that of the noble Lord, with respect to the claims of the King of the Two Sicilies, detained the vessel, and she was now at Marseilles. He asked the noble Lord whether he was

665
aware of these circumstances, which he (Mr. Bankes) stated upon authority that appeared to him to he accurate; and whether he considered that the Government had enforced those laws which it was in their power to enforce, for the detention of vessels avowedly going to disturb the peace of a friendly country?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman, under the guise of asking me a question, has given myself and the House almost as much information as if he had been "our own correspondent." I am not able to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through the whole of the details regarding what the French Government has done at Marseilles. I do not know whether my noble Friend stated, in answer to the first question, that the persons who composed the Provisional Government at Palermo, have all quitted Palermo, and according to the last accounts there was no organised Government; but the population were in possession of arms, and were intending to defend themselves against the Neapolitans. The Neapolitan general had got within a very short distance from the town; and I imagine that some communication would be the result. In answer to the question with regard to the guns—first of all, I shall afford, I am sure, great satisfaction to the hon. and learned Gentleman by informing him that I have ascertained what has become of those guns. I find they had been sent to Syracuse, where they were not used at all, and they are there now in the possession of the King of the Two Sicilies. Next, with regard to the officer in question, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that, in consequence of these guns going off, and in consequence of divers other acts and misdeeds of Her Majesty's Government, a British officer had been induced to come to this country for the purpose of raising men. It is quite true, as he states, that Colonel Aubrey was sent to this country for the purpose of raising men; but I believe I have good reason to say no men were raised by him, and that his commission was an entire failure. With regard to the vessels, it is true that one steamer did leave from Liverpool, and that it arrived at Palermo. With regard to the vessel that was fitting out in the Thames, the Bombay, application was made on the part of, and by, the Neapolitan Minister here, for her detention, upon the ground that she was equipping in violation of the Foreign
666
Enlistment Act, and that, therefore, she ought to be detained. That matter was referred to the Treasury, and to the Customs. The Foreign Office has nothing to do with the execution of the law of this country, except making known to the proper department that the law has been violated. The whole transaction was carried on between the Treasury, the Customs, and the law officers of the Crown; and it was in consequence of the legal advice given to them, that there was no just ground for further detaining the Bombay, that the Bombay was released. Subject dropped.

RIGHTS OF NATIONALITY.
MR. ANSTEYwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would lay on the table of the House the copy of a letter of the 22nd November, 1848, addressed by Under Secretary Lord Eddisbury to Mrs. Castellari, stating that an Englishwoman by her marriage with a foreigner adopts the nationality of her husband, and even after widowhood loses all claim by light to the assistance of Her Majesty's Consul in the place where her husband died, in recovering or ascertaining the state of his property there? And whether he would also lay on the table the instructions which determine the conduct of Her Majesty's Consuls in such cases? He also wished the noble to state whether he had any objection to lay on the table a letter from a Mr. Paget to Lord Ponsonby, with respect to grievances sustained by his wife, Mrs. Paget, she being a Hungarian, and not naturalised?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad no objection to lay the letters on the table of the House. The subject had been fully considered, and had been brought before the Consul, and it had been decided that there was no right, according to usage and practice, on the part of the British Consul, to take any cognisance of the property of the individual in the case alluded to. Instructions had been sent to communicate that fact to the widow, and that the British Government had no right to interfere in the matter, as her claim must fall under the cognisance of the court of the country of which her husband was a native. With regard to the second case, that of Mr. Paget, he would look and see if there was any such letter in his office, and, if there was, he should have no objection to produce it. But that case was essentially

667
very different to the one previously referred to by the hon. and learned Member. A British lady, who married a foreigner, lost, in a foreign country, her nationality. She followed the nationality of her husband. But in this case it was an Austrian subject who had married a British husband, and it was in the Austrian dominions that the question arose. Her marrying a British subject could not, while she remained in her own natural allegiance, divest her of the character which she acquired by birth. The general doctrine, that if a lady of one country married the subject of another, she followed the nationality of her husband, was laid down by the legal advisers of the Crown; and it was a doctrine which in the abstract was most reasonable.

WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN.
Copy of the Transcript, Assignment of Errors, and Rejoinder; together with the Judgment and Tenor of Judgment in the Writ of Error: In the House of Lords-William Smith O'Brien, Plaintiff in Error, and the Queen, Defendant in Error [communicated from the Lords 15th May] read.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I now move, Mr. Speaker, that the record in the case of William Smith O'Brien be now entered as read.
MR. SPEAKERput the question, and the record was ordered to be entered as read.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I have now to move, Sir, that it appears by the said record that William Smith O'Brien, a Member of this House, has been convicted of high treason. I will state the course I propose to take upon this occasion, which is, I believe, without a precedent, but being without a precedent, it is a case which will relieve me from any necessity of dwelling upon the heinousness of the offence, or of showing this House that it is an offence which necessarily incapacitates a person who has hitherto been a Member of this House from continuing to hold a seat in it. Sir, the precedents which are upon our journals which can at all have any reference to this case are of two kinds. The first has respect to cases of high treason; and on this point the first case that I will mention is that of Mr. Forster, in 1715. On the 10th of May, 1715, I find the following entry on the journals:—
"That T. Forster, Esq., a Member of this House, having been taken in open rebellion, bear
668
ing arms against His Majesty, be expelled this House. Ordered, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant, &c., to make out a new writ for electing, &c., for Northumberland, in the room of T. Forster, Esq., expelled this House."
On the 22nd of June, 1716, it is stated that—
"The House being informed that J. Carnegie, Esq., who is returned a Member of this House for the shire of Forfar, had been in arms in Scotland on the part of the rebels during the late rebellion, and that there were two persons at the door who could prove the same, they were called in and examined at the bar, and gave the House an account that they had seen the said Mr. Carnegie in arms at Perth on the part of the rebels; and it was resolved mem. con. that the said J. Carnegie be expelled this House."
There are cases where the House acted upon information only, and did not wait for the trial of the parties. We have other cases with regard to which there might be some doubt, from the nature of the offences committed; but they do not bear on the case now before us, being cases of perjury, conspiracy, and various offences of the nature of misdemeanour. Now, Sir, the present case of William Smith O'Brien is one, with regard to this House, so far as I have been able to ascertain, without precedent. It is the case of a Member with regard to whom no proceedings had been taken when it was said he was in arms against Her Majesty, or when he was taken a prisoner. But this House having waited until the conclusion of the proceedings, when it appears, from the record which has been just entered as read, that William Smith O'Brien was arraigned as for high treason in Ireland, and convicted of that high treason, and that a writ of error having been brought against the conviction, all the pleas were overruled, and the judgment was confirmed by the House of Lords. In that respect, therefore, it is quite unnecessary that I should say a word with regard to the heinousness of the offence. Nothing can be more complete" than the conviction and judgment of the House of Lords. With regard to the consequences which, in the next place, should follow from such an offence, I need only say, it is an offence totally unlike those cases of misdemeanour to which I have referred. It is the offence of high treason, with regard to which all writers upon constitutional law, from Lord Coke downwards, have declared that it is the law of Parliament, that a person guilty of high treason or felony is incapable of sitting in this House. Such is the law of Parliament. I believe there is no one who will dispute

669
that law, and, therefore, I need not enlarge on that part of the question. The consequence is, therefore, that William Smith O'Brien, having been convicted of high treason, is a person who is civilly dead. He cannot he elected to this House, and he could not hold a seat in this House if elected. I believe, therefore, that it would not be proper that you should make this a precedent, and proceed to the expulsion of a Member under the circumstances, as I at first believed. I have considered the case, and consulted with other persons—I may, perhaps, allude to the chair, and say that I have had the advice of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. I have, therefore, come to the clear conclusion, that the course which this House ought to take, is that of agreeing to the resolutions which I now propose. I beg, in the first instance, to move—
"That it appears, by the Record communicated from the House of Lords, that William Smith O'Brien has been convicted of high treason."
If the House agrees to that resolution, I shall then proceed to move that a new writ shall issue for the county of Limerick.
SIR F. THESIGERwished to state a single objection with regard to the wording of the resolution. The words were—"that William Smith O'Brien has been convicted of high treason." Now, the noble Lord might be aware that attainder did not follow on conviction, but on the judgment which followed; and he would therefore beg to suggest that the words of the resolution should be altered into "attainted of high treason." He thought the noble Lord could not proceed with the second resolution, which implied that William Smith O'Brien was civilly dead, unless the word "attainted" were introduced into the first resolution.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that possibly a middle course might be the best to take, and he would therefore suggest that the words "adjudged guilty" should be substituted for "convicted."
"Resolved—That it appears by the said Record, that William Smith O'Brien, a Member of this House, has been adjudged guilty of High Treason."
LORD J. RUSSELLthen moved—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to issue a new writ for the county of Limerick, in the room of William Smith O'Brien."
MR. F. O'CONNORsaid, that, after seeing the resolution as it originally stood,
670
it was his intention to move as an Amendment that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to extend a free pardon to William Smith O'Brien. He had not intended to introduce that Amendment by an inflammatory speech; but having ascertained that the relatives of Mr. Smith O'Brien wished that his case should remain in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers, he thought it would be exceedingly improper for any individual Member of the House to take up the subject, and he would, therefore, not move his Amendment.
"Ordered—That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Limerick, in the room of William Smith O'Brien, adjudged guilty of High Treason."

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill; Mr. Bernai in the chair.
The further consideration of the first clause was about being resumed, when
MR. J. O'CONNELL,directing his attention towards the reporters' gallery, said: I perceive, Sir, that there are strangers in that gallery.
The CHAIRMAN: Strangers must withdraw.
After the exclusion of strangers,
COLONEL THOMPSONmoved that they should be re-admitted.
MR. J. O'CONNELLopposed the Motion.
COLONEL THOMPSONthen gave notice that he should bring the subject before the House, in order to provide against a similar occurrence for the future.
MR. BANKESbrought forward his proposal that the oath to be taken by Members of Parliament should be made uniform by the Protestant Members making the same declaration of allegiance or non-resistance to the Established Church which has been required from Roman Catholics. He urged the impossibility that any Dissenters who made no objection to making a declaration of allegiance to the Queen, should object to making the proposed declaration in respect of the Ecclesiastical Establishment, inasmuch as it was notorious that one was as much a part of the law and the constitution as the other. And he enlarged upon the benefits of uniformity, and the advantages which would arise from thus sinking all differenees be-

671
tween the Catholic and the Protestant Dissenter.
Amendment proposed—
"To add to the Oath proposed to be taken by Members of the Houses of Parliament not being persons professing the Roman Catholic persuasion, the same provisions relating to the Protestestant Established Church which is contained in the Oath now taken by Roman Catholics."
LORD J. RUSSELLthen proceeded to expose the weakness of the expectation, that an oath which had always been bitterly complained of by the Catholics, and which others had only consented to impose upon them under the impression of a strong necessity, should be voluntarily submitted to by Protestant Dissenters, with no strong necessity at all.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, that one way of proclaiming uniformity was by making things alike good, and another by making them alike bad. The Roman Catholic oath had always been complained of by the Catholics as an enormous evil and injustice, because it was continually made the pretext for a charge of perjury against them when they voted on any subject where ecclesiastical matters were concerned. Was it intended that Protestant Dissenters were to consent to take the same bad oath, and was it intended they should be charged with perjury the first time any of them mentioned church
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, the true point to which change should be directed, would be to make all the oaths alike by reducing them all to a simple declaration of allegiance to the existing occupant of the Throne.
Motion withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Oath—
"To leave out the words, 'and that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other Foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this Realm; and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this Realm as established by the Laws.' "
Question put, "That the words, 'and that I do not believe that,' stand part of the Oath.'"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 164: Majority 102.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bennet, P.

Adderley, C. B.

Bentinck, Lord IL

Arkwright, G.

Beresford, W.

Baillie, H. J.

Blandford, Marq. of

Bankes, G.

Boldero, H G.

672

Bromley, E.

Law, hon. C. E.

Brooke, Lord

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lopes, Sir R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lowther, H.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Morgan, O.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Mullings, J. R.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mundy, W.

Fox, S. W. L.

Napier, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Neeld, J.

Galway, Visct.

Newdegate, C. N.

Godson, R.

O'Connell, J.

Gore, W. R. O.

Pakington, Sir J.

Granby, Marq. of

Palmer, R.

Greenall, G.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Gwyn, H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Hamilton, G. A.

Portal, M.

Heald, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Scott, hon. F.

Henley, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Stafford, A.

Hill, Lord E.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Hope, Sir J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hornby, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Hotham, Lord

Walpole, S. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Jones, Capt.

TELLERS.

Lacy, H. C.

Goring, C.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Harris, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Evans, J.

Alcock, T.

Evans, W.

Anderson, A.

Fergus, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Foley, J. H. H.

Armstrong, R. B.

Forster, M.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Barnard, E. G.

Fox, R. M.

Barrington, Visct.

Fox, W. J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Freestun, Col.

Bass, M. T.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bellew, R. M.

Gibson, rt hon. T. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Berkeley, O. L. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Grace, O. D. J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bright, J.

Granger, T. C.

Brotherton, J.

Greene, T.

Brown, W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Bunbury, E. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Butler, P. S.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Callaghan, D.

Grosvenor, Earl

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Carter, J. B.

Hastie, A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hawes, B.

Clay, J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Clay, Sir W.

Headlam, T. E.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Heneage, E.

Cocks, T. S.

Henry, A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Herbert, H. A.

Crowder, R. B.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Dairymple, Capt.

Heywood, J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Hodges, T. L.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Hope, A.

Denison, J. E.

Howard, P. H.

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

Hughes, W. B.

Divett, E.

Humphery, Ald.

Drummond, H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Kershaw, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Kildare, Marq. of

Dundas, Sir D.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Ellice, E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Ellis, J.

Langston, J. H.

673

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Rice, E. R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Rich, H.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Robarles, T. J. A.

Lewis, G. C.

Roche, E. B.

Lincoln, Karl of

Roebuck, J. A.

Lushington, C.

Romilly, Sir J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Russell, Lord J.

M'Gregor, J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Meagher, T.

Salwey, Col.

Maitland, T.

Sandars, J.

Marshall, J. G.

Scholefield, W.

Martin, J.

Scully, F.

Martin, C. W.

Shafto, R. D.

Matheson, A.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Shelburne, Earl of

Milner, W. M. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Milnes, R. M.

Smith, J. A.

Monsell, W.

Somers, J. P.

Morris, D.

Stanton, W. IL

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Stuart, Lord J.

Norreys, Lord

Thesiger, Sir F.

O'Connor, F.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Thompson, Col.

Osborne, R.

Thornely, T.

Oswald, A.

Towneley, R. G.

Paget, Lord A.

Townsend, Capt.

Paget, Lord G.

Vane, Lord H.

Palmer, R.

Villiers, hon. C.

Palmerston, Visct.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Willcox, B. M.

Patten, J. W.

Willyams, M.

Pechell, Capt.

Wilson, J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wood, W. P.

Peel, F.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Pigott, F.

Wyld, J.

Pilkington, J.

Wyvill, M.

Pinney, W.

Power, N.

TELLERS.

Price, Sir R.

Tufnell, H.

Pryse, P.

Hill, Lord M.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 2, 3, and 4.
On readmission of strangers, Clause 5 was proceeded with.
MR. LAWobjected to proceeding with the measure with so thin an attendance of Members, and especially after the exclusion of strangers from the previous portion of the discussions. But if the Committee determined upon proceeding at this moment, he would now content himself with stating, that upon the occasion of the third reading of the Bill he should do all in his power to exclude that provision from it which enabled Jews to sit in Parliament.
Clause, with Amendments, agreed to.
On Clause 6, providing that the Bill should not extend to Roman Catholics, or affect any of the restrictive portions of the 10th George IV., chap. 7,
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHmoved the omission of the clause. The effect of such omission would be that Catholics and Protestants would in future take the same oath, regarding th meaning of which, as now settled by the Bill, there could be
674
no reasonable doubt or uncertainty. After the decisions upon the previous clauses of the Bill to which the House had come, and after an almost unanimous expression of opinion in favour of simplicity and uniformity of legislative oaths, it would hardly be necessary for him to dwell at any length upon the general principles by which he desired that the Amendment he had moved should be determined. All he asked was, that they should fairly and fully apply those principles. They proposed to reduce the number of oaths to be taken by the great majority of both Houses of Parliament from three to one. They had expunged from that one every phrase whether of a political or a polemical character. They had agreed that, varying the form of attestation, the same brief and simple test of allegiance to the Throne should be made by every Member who belonged to the Church of England and to the Church of Scotland, by every Protestant Dissenter, and, finally, by the Jew. All were to have relief except the Catholics. Why was this? Everything that had been hitherto said in the discussion of this Bill fortified him in the conviction that such an exclusion of a particular section of the Legislature was foreign to its true spirit, and at variance with its wise and liberal tenor. The ancient and abiding doctrine of the constitution was that all the representatives of the people were equals in that House; and to attempt or pretend to tie the hands of any portion of the Legislature on particular subjects, while on those and on all other subjects the rest were free, was as plainly inconsistent with the theory of representative right, as it was with that of religious liberty. The oath prescribed to be taken by Catholics was a composite oath. Part of its provisions were to be found in the Catholic oath of 1774, and part in that of 1793. The first relaxation of importance that was made in the penal laws was in 1772. But whoever was at the pains to trace back the course of gradual and grudging emancipation would be amused at finding the first concession hidden under the title of an Act to "encourage the reclamation of the profitable bogs in Ireland." But in this apparent absurdity there was a grave significance. The spirit of the time was so darkened by exclusiveness and bigotry that no Government dared to introduce a measure ostensibly giving relief to the victims of statutable tyranny; and all that could then be accomplished was under the guise already named, to en-

675
able Catholics to acquire property in freehold. Two years after, an Act was passed ordaining a form of oath to be taken, when called upon, by every person in communion with Rome; wherein, amongst other things, he was required to disclaim all allegiance to the Pretender, and to deny that the Pope hath any power to depose princes, or any temporal authority within the realm. Now, these are three of the ingredients in the oath prescribed by the Act of 1829. Then came the Act of 1793, by which the elective franchise and many other privileges were conceded; and by a new oath contained in which Catholics were obliged to swear not to disturb the settlement of property—not to attempt the subversion of the Protestant Established Church in order to substitute a Catholic establishment in its stead—and not to seek the overthrow of the Protestant religion or Government of the kingdom. These three elements, with some verbal modifications, were likewise adopted in 1829; and thus a network of tests and obligations was framed, by which it was hoped that the consciences of Catholic Members of the Legislature would be so bound as that they could not meddle with any question affecting the temporalities of the Established Church. But what had been the result? Those whose legislative liberty it was thus thought to shackle and restrain, have, for the most part, rejected the interpretation which hon. Gentlemen opposite contended for. Many as honourable and high minded men as had ever possessed seats in that House, had from the first openly declared that they felt themselves free in their legislative capacity to speak and vote unreservedly on the Church question. Others, like his hon. Friend the Master of the Mint, took a qualified view of the matter, and while voting for the reform and the reduction of ecclesiastical resources, declared that they would not take part in any measure tending to the subversion of all endowment. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel and others put a still more stringent interpretation on the oath, and refused to take part on any question where the affairs of the Church were involved. Thus, amongst thirty-five or forty Members of the House, who were compelled to swear in the same words of obligation, three different and irreconcilable significations were confessedly maintained. At the beginning of each new Parliament, and it might be during each Session, three Members of that House stood at their table, holding in their hands the same
676
sacred book, and repeating the same solemn words; and the House, which had judicial knowledge of the fact, listened to those three Gentlemen while they swore the self-same oath, avowedly in their different and discrepant senses. Why, what was mockery, if this was not? Was it not calculated to lower the influence and dignity of Parliament in the estimation of the people? Sooner or later the House would have to deal with this subject. It might excite little interest at the present time; but the matter was one of too much importance to be suffered to remain as the case now stood. It was of no avail to say that the Catholic Members did not complain. No; but the Protestant Members who desired to see their Catholic friends and fellow Members relieved from an invidious obligation or from odious imputations, did complain, and would never cease to do so, while this useless, ambiguous, and unworthy test was suffered to remain on the Statute-book. He had heard the noble Lord at the head of the Government declare that night, in answer to those who wished to introduce the same terms into the oath to be taken by Dissenters which were in the Catholic oath—that the Church of England needed not such defence or protection as this—that its stability rested on public opinion—and that to build on any other human foundation, was to build on sand. He heartily concurred in that sentiment; and he, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would not refuse to sweep away this last badge of bygone exclusion as one that, instead of serving the true interests of religion, raised up against it heart burnings and ill will. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had stated that evening, that the Catholic oath ought not to be touched, as it was part of the settlement of 1829; and they were accustomed to hear it spoken of as part of what was called the compact on which emancipation had been granted. But he had a right to ask where was that compact; when was it made; or who was there on behalf of the Catholic millions who dwelt at that time in those kingdoms who was authorised to make stipulations for them, or for the generations that should come after them? If, instead of a compact, they were told that there was a condition precedent annexed to the admission of Catholics to the Legislature, then he could only say, what Parliament in 1829 was competent to attempt, Parliament in 1849 was as competent to aban-

677
don, when it had proved an egregious failure. Those who, like himself, felt strongly on this question, had been warned not to risk the fate of the Bill by pressing the Amendment. He thought it rather unfair to urge such a consideration in the first instance; it would be quite time enough to consider that point when the opinions of the House had been expressed upon the principle involved. Nor should it be forgotten, that, with two exceptions, every Catholic Member in the House had already voted unconditionally for the admission of the Jews. He concluded by moving—
"That the 6th Clause be struck out of the Bill, in order that all Members of the House should, henceforth, be enabled to take one and the same oath or affirmation, as the case may be,"
MR. W. FAGANsaid, it was most humiliating for the Catholics to take the oath as now proposed, and peculiarly so after the way in which the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire had been treated that night. Why should Catholic Members of that House be required to take a form of oath which the Protestant Dissenters did not take? The oath had been made an instrument for insulting the Catholics, and he had experienced something of this kind himself when, having brought before the House a Motion on the subject of ministers' money in Ireland, he was taunted by the hon. Member for Warwickshire with having forgotten the oath he had taken at the table. He would do nothing to injure either the Protestant Church or the Protestant religion, but, at the same time, he must say he thought that he might interfere with the temporalities of the Church Establishment without injuring it—indeed, he was of opinion that to do so would be rather to benefit than to injure that Church. He felt that, by pressing the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk, now, they might be interfering with the passing of what was, after all, the main feature of the Bill, namely, the emancipation of the Jews from their present disabilities; and if he was assured that such would be the effect of this Amendment, he would oppose it. On the whole, however, he did not think that it would have that effect, and he would therefore give it his support.
MR. J. O'CONNELL,at considerable length, called attention to certain portions of the Catholic oath, with a view to show the absurdity of that oath in the shape in which it now stood. First, there were the
678
words "the settlement of property as established by the laws." Now, if these words were intended to restrain Catholics from touching anything connected with the settlement of Church property, it would have the same restriction with respect to any property whatever. Again, Catholics "solemnly abjured any intention to subvert the Church Establishment as settled by law." But where was the difference between "the settlement of property established by the laws," and "the Church Establishment as settled by law?" The object of another disposition of the property of the Church being a good one, a Roman Catholic could surely only be restricted from promoting that object by a statute law. Again, Catholics were not to "disturb or weaken the Protestant religion." Now, he did not want to touch the Protestant religion. But was money religion? He did not look for the temporalities of the Church for himself, but only required that they should be applied to an object of advantage to the community at large. The hon. Member then denied that the Roman Catholics had ever taken the oath of supremacy either in the reign of Henry VIII., or Edward VI., or in that of Elizabeth. With reference to the present Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk, he did not know whether he should vote for it or not; if he happened to be in the House when the division was called for, perhaps he might vote for it.
MR. NEWDEGATEbegged to be allowed, for a moment, to call the attention of the House to what had just been passing. The hon. Member for Limerick had revived the debate at the commencement of which he had himself moved that strangers should withdraw, and had taken the opportunity of referring to the arguments which had been used in the speeches of several hon. Members, whose remarks, owing to his own exclusion from the gallery of those through whose means they reached the public, could no be reported. Indeed, he now got up and gave a one-sided and falsified resume of what had passed during the absence of strangers. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL denied that it was falsified.] He would confine himself, then, to the term "onesided." Now, this he must consider as a gross abuse of their debates. He would ask the House whether it was right to commence a debate, and to continue it, in the absence and during the exclusion of the reporters, and then, that the same Member, on whose Motion they had been

679
excluded, should get up and give a onesided resume of the discussion? He confessed he could place but one interpretation on the course the hon. Member had thought proper thus to adopt, and that was, that he had intended to take advantage of the circumstances as they had now occurred. With respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said of certain terms contained in this oath, all that he had to say in reply to that was, that he (Mr. Newdegate) understood the terms of the oath in question in the plain commonsense meaning of the words themselves, no matter whether placed in the oath twenty years ago or yesterday. He had thought it right to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary course which the hon. Gentleman had taken.
The EARL of ARUNDEL AND SURREYsaid, he had no intention of continuing this discussion, and he extremely regretted the exclusion of the public from the gallery; for though their rule on that subject was, no doubt, a useful one to preserve, he had never known it exercised more than once during the last twelve years. On the present occasion he particularly regretted that it had been put in operation, as the public would have no opportunity of reading one of the most useful debates he had ever heard on the opinions which were held on the subject before the House. For his own part he had, on a former occasion, expressed his opinion on a Motion similar to that now proposed by the hon. Member for Dundalk. He did not consider himself at liberty to do away with the Roman Catholic oath; but, at the same time, he should take it as a boon if the House itself would do away with the necessity of Catholics taking that oath. It was, however, impossible for him to sit down without offering his thanks to the hon. Member for Dundalk, who, as a member of the Church of England, had taken this opportunity of proposing the abolition of that which he considered was objectionable in the eyes of his Catholic fellow-subjects.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that in 1829, the state of the case on this subject was this—that Protestants and others were obliged to take three separate oaths, whilst the oath then instituted for Roman Catholics was, on the whole, to their comparative advantage, and they took all that was required of them in one oath. But how did the question stand in 1849? They had brought in a Bill which, at least incidentally, admitted the Jews to Parliament,
680
but which was also introduced for the purpose of altering the oaths taken by Members. By that Bill they gave an entirely different oath for the Protestants, and from that oath they had struck out much that was objectionable as regarded the Catholics; but they had left all that in the Catholic oath, and thereby rendered it more objectionable to them than before. It had been seen that Roman Catholics equally high-minded and honourable interpreted the oath quite differently; and why should not Protestants? It had been said already that no conscientious Dissenter could take this oath; but he went further, and believed that every conscientious Churchman must take it unwillingly, and certainly not without inconvenience at least. Almost every question brought forward might be liable to the charge that it was calculated to subvert the Establishment. He should, therefore, vote for the omission of the clause.
MR. SPOONERconsidered the speech of the right hon. Member a very useful one for the opponents of the Bill, and he trusted that it would open the eyes of the House to its true character. According to the right hon. Gentleman it was but another step towards the total abandonment of all the safeguards of the constitution of Church and State.
LORD J. RUSSELLhad very little more to say on the subject. He had no wish to make the oaths less simple, or to raise fresh obstructions against those now admitted to Parliament, or fresh enemies by the alteration of the Roman Catholic oath; and he should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
MR. W. P. WOODfelt that the oaths taken by Roman Catholics were highly objectionable; and if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote for it. It was most desirable that there should be no distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants. He objected to the restrictions imposed upon Roman Catholics on religious grounds as well as political. No security was gained to the Established Church by the miserable rubbish of their oaths. The Church, as far as it was an establishment, must depend on public opinion. The House represented the commons of England; and if the commons of England were all in favour of a change—if they represented truly the people, they ought to be unfettered as to any particular form of establishment. He would, however, be the last in the world to say that the

681
Church, as a spiritual establishment, depended upon opinion. It was as true, as holy, as perfect, and as powerful, when it consisted only of 120 persons assembled in an upper chamber as it was at this moment, when from a grain of mustard seed it had become a tree so great that all the nations of the earth might find shelter under its branches. Let them look at the Church of England before the repeal of the Test Acts and all its bulwarks of that nature. Would any one say that the Church of England at that day, when all its defences against Popery and dissent were in existence, was anything like the Church of England at the present day? There were not now so many public dinners, perhaps, at which "Church and Queen" were toasted; but there was now a more striking proof of vitality and efficiency in the number of new churches which had been built, and of schools which had grown up within the last thirty years. He would ask any member of the Church whether he could not recognise now in the Church of England more activity, more power, more spirituality, than she had exhibited for centuries?
COLONEL SIBTHORPlamented that he should ever have heard in that House a Chancery barrister—he might say, he believed, a distinguished Chancery barrister—but a Chancery barrister, of all the men in the world—designate an oath, a solemn appeal to the majesty of Almighty God, as "rubbish."
MR. W. P. WOODsaid, he thought no one else in the House would have misunderstood what he had said. All he asserted was, that reliance on any particular form of oath was rubbish.
MR. WYLDcomplained that the Irish Members had taken advantage of this Bill to introduce a question which the people of England had long since thought settled. They were doing little good for the cause they had in view. He highly approved of the Bill.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 54: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bellew, R. M.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Ashley, Lord

Beresford, W.

Baldook, E. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Bremridge, R.

Bateson, T.

Brisco, M.

682

Brockman, E. D.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bromley, R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Lewis, G. C.

Brown, H

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Bunbury, W. M.

Lowther, hon. Col

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Lushington, C.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

M'Gregor, J.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Maitland, T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Martin, C. W.

Craig, W. G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Crowder, R. B.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Dod, J. W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Dundas, Adm.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Sir D.

Peel, F.

Ebrington, Visct.

Perfect, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Plowden,W. H. C.

Evans, W.

Pryse, P.

Fergus, J.

Rice, E. R.

Fox, R. M.

Rich, H.

Frewen, C. H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Glyn, G. C.

Rushout, Capt.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Greenall, G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Greene, T.

Seymour, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grey, R. W.

Smith, J. A.

Grogan, E.

Spooner, R.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stafford, A.

Halford, Sir H.

Talfourd, Serj.

Harcourt, G. G.

Thompson, Ald.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Tollemache, J.

Hawes, B.

Townshend, Capt.

Hay, Lord J.

Walpole, S. H.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Heathcoat, J.

West, F. R.

Hill, Lord E.

Willcox, B. M.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir. J.

Willyams, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Williamson, Sir IL

Hodges, T. L.

Wilson, J.

Hodgson, W. N.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wyld, J.

Jones, Capt.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hastie, A.

Anderson, A.

Henry, A.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Heyworth, L.

Armstrong, R. B.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Bass, M. T.

Kershaw, J.

Bright, J.

Kildare, Marq. of

Brown, W.

Meagher, T.

Carter, J. B.

Matheson, Col

Clay, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Monsell, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

O'Connell, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

O'Connor, F.

Devereux, J. T.

O'Flaherty, A.

Duncan, G.

Osborne, R.

Ellis, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Evans, J.

Pilkington, J.

Ewart, W.

Raphael, A.

Fagan, W.

Reynolds, J.

Forster, M.

Salwey, Col.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Scholefield, W.

Fox, W. J.

Scully, F.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

683

Talbot, J. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Thompson, Col.

Wyvill, M.

Thornely, T.

TELLERS.

Tollemache, hon F. J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Wood, W. P.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Land Improvement and Drainage (Ireland); Account of Turnpike Trusts (Scotland); Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Colonies.
2a Sewers Acts Amendment; Small Debts (Scotland) Act Amendment.
Reported,—Bankrupt Law Consolidation. 3a Poor Laws (Ireland) Rate in Aid.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Somers, from Hereford, for a Reduction of the Public Expenditure, and for a protective Duty against foreign Competition.—From Kilkenny, and other Places, against the Rate in Aid (Ireland).—By the Bishop of Winchester, from a great Number of Places, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—By Lord Stanley, from Brakeney and Clay, against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws.—From Bath, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN ROME.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished to make a short explanation of what had fallen from him on a previous evening, in answer to a question which had been put to him by a noble Lord (Lord
632
Beaumont) respecting the affairs of Italy. The noble Lord had asked him whether Her Majesty's Government had received any communication from other Powers relative to any proposed interference in the affairs of Italy; in answer to this, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had told their Lordships, that a communication had been made by the French Government to our Government, that it intended to interfere in the affairs of Rome by sending a force to Civita Vecchia, but that no communication had been made of its intention to undertake an expedition against Rome, as it had recently undertaken it. He had further stated upon that occasion, that no regular communication had been made to our Government on that subject by the Governments either of Austria or Naples. In strictness, he was perfectly justified in making the statement that no communication of a formal nature had been made to our Government by Austria, because he found upon inquiry that no record of any such communication was to be found in the records of the Foreign Office. He had learned, however, upon application to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that a verbal communication had been made to him by the Austrian Ambassador in this country of the intention of his Government to interfere in the affairs of Rome. The able statesman who now filled that distinguished office had certainly stated to his noble Friend Lord Palmerston, in a conversation which took place twelve days ago, that such was the intention of his Government. He read to his Lordship a communication which he had received from the Austrian Government, explanatory of its intention, and added that that intention was founded on the avowed intention of other Powers to interfere. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not authorised to go further than this—he was not authorised to state what that communication was. He was, however, bound in correctness to declare that such a communication had been made; and further to declare, after having seen it, that it was made in a frank and explicit manner. He thought it right, not only in justice to himself, but also in justice to the Austrian Ambassador, to make this statement; and he had also great satisfaction in making it, as he understood that it would be a satisfaction to the able statesman who now represented the Austrian Government in this country.
The EARL of ABERDEENwas happy

633
to hear the explanation of the noble Marquess, and had no doubt that it was agreeable to his feelings to make such a statement. He must, however, make one remark upon the position in which the noble Marquess had now placed himself. If the noble Marquess, in answer to the application which the noble Baron behind him had made, for information as to the object and intentions of the Austrian Government in invading the Roman territory, had said that he was ignorant whether any communication had been made or not to the British Government of its intentions, his answer would have been natural and intelligible, although perhaps unsatisfactory; but the noble Marquess had said in a manner the most emphatic and solemn—and no one could be more emphatic and solemn than the noble Marquess when he pleased—that no communication whatever had been made by the Austrian to the British Government. Those were the words of the noble Marquess. Now the noble Marquess asserted that he was in strictness justified in using those words, because no regular and written communication was made, or it would have been found in the records of the Foreign Office. But it should be recollected that the communication of the French Government on this subject was just the same—it was merely verbal—it was not official—and yet that was sufficient, and had been held to be sufficient, to satisfy Her Majesty's Ministers; whereas the communication of the Austrian Government was held not to be regular, though it was made officially, and not verbally, was written and read, and was declared to be in every sense frank, full, and explicit. Furthermore their Lordships must admit that, as the questions of the noble Baron had been printed, and must have been sent to the same quarter with that from which the answer was derived, it was quite unjustifiable that the noble Marquess should have been instructed to give the answer which he had given. He conceived this to be a most unjustifiable mode of dealing with Parliament and foreign Powers. It was not long since he had laid before their Lordships the particulars of a transaction of the same kind, which were very discreditable to the parties concerned in it. He alluded to the publication of an odious accusation against another Power, and to the fact of its having been allowed to circulate uncontradicted throughout Europe for many months, whilst the most conclusive and triumphant refutation of it was in the hands
634
of the parties circulating the accusation. The present was not a case of the same importance, nor likely to produce the same injurious consequences; but he looked upon it as a part of that policy of passion and hatred which had injured the interests of England in so many parts of Europe, and had produced results detrimental to the general tranquillity.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWEdid not rise to add anything to the statement which he had already made, or to revert to any of the remarks which the noble Earl had offered upon a subject which had long gone by, and had often been made a topic of discussion. He only wished to set the noble Earl right on one point. There was only one mode in which a communication from a foreign Government could be regularly made, and that was in writing. There was this difference, too, between the Austrian and French communications. The first had been made verbally in one conversation only. The other, the French, had been made in many conversations, and a copy of the despatch of the French Government had been formally communicated to our Government, and had been formally deposited in the records of the Foreign Office.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented to their Lordships the second report of the Select Committee on the digest of the Bankrupt Laws. He reminded their Lordships that, when that Committee was reappointed, it was with a view of enabling certain petitioners from Manchester and Liverpool, who had not been examined before the Committee last year, to point out any objections which they had to his Bill (the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Bill), and to offer any suggestions which they might have for its improvement. They had presented a memorial signed by 197 of the first firms in Manchester, praying to be allowed to suggest certain modifications in the Bill; but when they came to be examined, the parties found that all their modifications had been anticipated. They now expressed their delight and great satisfaction at having been so anticipated. Those 197 firms now prayed their Lordships that no alteration whatever might be made in the Bill, even according to their own suggestions, if the discussion upon them should cause any risk of throwing out so wholesome and salutary a measure. He told them frankly that no delay should they

635
have upon his part. He did not complain of the delay which had already taken place; for it had produced much good, by producing entire satisfaction with the Bill, not only in London, hut also in the provinces. That being the case, he now begged leave to report the evidence, and to move that the Bill, as amended by the Committee, be printed. On Monday next he would move that it he committed.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
LORD STANLEYsaid, in reference to the Bill for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, he would lay upon the table those Amendments which it was his intention to propose when the Bill went into Committee on Monday next. He had no intention, of course, now to enter into a discussion as to the precise nature of those amendments; but he thought it would be convenient to their Lordships if he stated, in a few words, the course which he proposed to take. Their Lordships having decided, by a small majority, that they would enter into a consideration of the details of the measure for the amendment of the law, the object of which was the encouragement of British navigation and commerce, he had felt it to he his duty to examine and consult with others whose opinions on the subject were better than his own, as to whether it was possible for them to assent to any and what provisions of the proposed Bill; and, on the other hand, to consider what modifications could be introduced into the existing law, which would not he inconsistent with the maintenance of that law, nor opposed to the interests of the navigation of this country, while at the same time they would be so framed as to afford relief to British commerce. He must confess, on looking at these clauses, it appeared to him that the amendments which he proposed to move were of such a nature as altogether to alter the frame of the existing Bill. The first principle to which he would direct their attention was this—whereas the Bill of the Government proceeded on a principle of absolutely destroying the existing navigation laws, and then reenacting a small portion of them, and, further, of acting upon a principle of retaliation in the case of foreign countries which refused to deal with us on terms of reciprocity, by enabling Her Majesty to impose upon them such restrictions and prohibitions as would countervail the disadvantages to which British trade or navigation was subjected by the laws of
636
those countries: now, his principle was exactly opposite—namely, he would maintain the principle of the existing laws; but he would provide that in certain cases in which they received from foreign Powers an intimation of their desire to trade with us on terms of reciprocity, Her Majesty should be authorised to dispense with certain provisions of the Bill, in favour of those nations that would meet them in a reciprocal spirit. He should, therefore, have to propose the rejection of all the repealing provisions contained in the first and second clauses of the Bill. The principle of his amendments to which be had adverted, which he intended to submit, must, he thought, either by its adoption or rejection, influence materially their further proceedings in respect to the Bill. He would therefore take the earliest opportunity of bringing the question fairly before the House. He would propose, that all, after the word "that" in the first clause of the Bill, should be omitted, and that words should be inserted, carrying into effect the principle to which he had adverted—namely, that of enabling Her Majesty, in cases of reciprocity proposed or granted, to dispense with or relax the existing law. The modifications of the existing law which he proposed to introduce, he would immediately afterwards, if he were successful in carrying that Motion, submit to their Lordships' consideration. But the question of repealing these laws, which would be raised upon the consideration of the second clause, would be mainly determined by their adoption or rejection of the principle he proposed to lay down. He would propose to introduce such modifications as would in the first place have reference to their coasting trade, or that which related to Europe; and, in the next, to the more extended trade with Asia, Africa, and America. He proposed to maintain inviolate the support that was at present given to the British shipbuilding establishments, by refusing a register to foreign ships. And he proposed to maintain the apprenticeship system in their coasting trade. In their intercourse with their colonial possessions he proposed to maintain the principle of the existing law, subject to such relaxations as the responsible advisers of Her Majesty might think fit to grant in certain cases; these cases to be specified in the Bill.
EARL GREYsaid, it would be convenient for the House to know whether the amendments of the noble Lord would be such as to inform them clearly what were

637
the precise restrictions upon their own shipping, quite irrespective of foreign nations. He meant to say that a large proportion of the restrictions in the existing navigation laws had nothing whatever to do with reciprocity or non-reciprocity. He hoped that the noble Lord would put his amendments in such a shape as would enable the House clearly to understand what was the state of the law which he meant permanently to maintain, what restrictions he intended to continue, what to repeal?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that when the noble Earl came to read the amendments, he hoped he would be able to understand them. In answer to a question of the Marquess of Lansdowne, his Lordship said he did not consider it was an established practice, or that a noble Lord was bound to give any notice whatever of his amendments. [Earl GREY: Hear, hear!] He was not disposed to alter his opinion in consequence of the significant cheer with which the noble Earl had condescended to honour his observations. He repeated he did not think it necessary to give notice of such amendments as he intended to propose when a measure to alter the law in regard to the most important interests of the country was proposed, and was only carried upon a second reading by a majority of ten proxies. It was not, he thought, a very unreasonable time for a person wholly unconnected with the Government to take a day to consult with those parties whose interests were all at stake as to what modifications might be safely introduced into a measure of this character; he did not think that the noble Marquess could therefore taunt them with any undue delay. On the contrary, he feared it might be possible that many persons whose interests were deeply involved, might not have a sufficient opportunity to consider the effect of the alterations now proposed in a law which had so long been considered the main support of the British mariner.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND)—RATE IN AID BILL.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, after the very full discussion the measure had undergone upon a former occasion, he should not trouble their Lordships with any lengthened observations. He feared that the measure would prove a failure at the very outset. It proposed to raise a sum of 330,000 l. by means of a sixpenny rate in aid. Now it had been ascertained that at the present time the amount of
638
rateable property in Ireland did not exceed 9,000,000 l. sterling, and it was evidently impossible that the sum proposed could be raised by means of a sixpenny rate. Besides, there was another Bill which had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers in another place, the object of which was to place upon the great majority of the unions in Ireland a rate of 2s. in the pound. It appeared to him that both these Bills should have gone together, and formed one measure. He had a return before him of the amount required in thirteen of those distressed unions, and he believed that the sum proposed to be raised would not be found sufficient. Taking the sum expended in those unions in 1848, and including the amount of grants, loans, and contributions, it would be found that those thirteen unions would sweep away the whole of the 330,000 l., and still leave a deficit. Their Lordships had heard a great deal of the opposition with which the measure was likely to be received in Ulster in the event of its being passed into law. The state of feeling in Ulster with regard to it was, he believed, a very dangerous one indeed, and he thought it would be well if their Lordships would take that matter into consideration before they finally gave their assent to the measure. But, however much Ulster might have to complain of the operation of the Bill, it was nothing in comparison with the complaint which Munster would have to make. It was stated that the majority of the unions in Ulster were taxed about 4s. 6d. in the pound; but he had received a statement from a noble Friend of his, who had recently visited the north of Ireland, and who stated that the average was considerably higher, averaging 5s. 6d. in the pound. Now, few of the unions in Munster were rated so low as 5s., and he happened to know many in the neighbourhood of Cork in which the rate was as high as 9s. 10 d. and 11 s. in the pound. But suppose 5s. was the average of the rating in Munster, 2s. 6d. more would raise it to 7s. 6d., and whatever right, therefore, Ulster would have to complain, Munster would have a still greater right, as it had already paid more. But there was another point to be considered—out of 130 unions in Ireland, 86 owed last Michaelmas a sum of 268,000 l., and were unable to pay off any portion of it, and yet these were what were called solvent unions. In many of these unions there were numbers of the paupers actually dying for want of a suffi-

639
ciency of food, and yet it was proposed to extract from those unions additional sums of money when they were actually unable to maintain their own poor. He had before stated to their Lordships the perfect impossibility of a country so poor as Ireland being able, after three consecutive years of famine, to support its own poor; and he was justified in making that statement when he found that men whose authority was of considerable weight, and who had advocated the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, had stated that it never entered into their computation that Ireland, when affected by famine, would be called upon to maintain her own poor. With a superabundant population, and a loss of the staple food of the people, none but the merest theorists could have supposed that she would be able to support her own poor. With regard to the present Bill, it was a very curious one. It was a Bill which proposed to work three miracles, and he would venture to say it would break down in all three. In the first place, it proposed to maintain the poor in these 22 or 23 bankrupt unions. He (the Earl of Glengall) maintained that it would do no such thing. The next thing it proposed to do was, that any advances that were made up to a certain amount, to relieve those distressed unions out of the Consolidated Fund, should be repaid through the medium of the sixpenny rate. He doubted that very much; he did not think they would ever see a fraction of it repaid. But the most extraordinary of the three miracles was, that a clause was put into the Bill, which contemplated the possibility of its being a remedy for one of the greatest evils of Ireland—namely, its superabundant population. It purported to aid and assist in emigration, which was one of the most expensive, although one of the best, means of relieving the country of that superabundant population. He ventured to assert that it would not do that. He, for one, was not disposed to object to any reasonable proposition for the relief of the poor of Ireland from the resources of Ireland; but the present measure was altogether a fallacy. Their Lordships would bear in mind that a majority of the Irish Members in the other House of Parliament, and a majority of Irish proprietors in that House, had voted against the measure; and that alone, he thought, justified him in taking the course he meant to submit to their Lordships before he sat down. A noble Lord, whose proxy was generally in
640
the hands of the noble Lords opposite, had, in a letter which he had recently seen, stated that the measure was calculated to peril the existence of the Union between the two countries, and sever the British connexion. He (the Earl of Glengall) wished now to touch briefly upon one or two points connected with the actual condition of Ireland. The landlords—that class which was best abused by those who knew them least—the landlords of Ireland for the last three or four years had not received one half their rent—they had had large quantities of land thrown upon their hands—the most solvent of their tenantry had put their rents into their pockets and had emigrated to America, and that system was unfortunately progressing. The solvent were going out of the country, and the destitute alone remained—a change which rendered the state of the country truly alarming, as the unfortunate persons who had been supported from the poor-rate for the last two or three years, with one allowance of meal per day, had their constitutions so broken down, that the physicians who attended the workhouses thought that multitudes of them would never be in a fit state to labour again. Nor was it to be wondered at that the farmers were leaving the country, looking at the prices which they were about to get for corn and their stock. Sir R. Peel said, in introducing his free-trade measure, that however England might be able to bear them, he very much feared Ireland would be in a very serious dilemma. Never were truer words spoken. In the west of Ireland there were magnificent flour-mills, but they were now standing idle, and had turned off all their hands. The trade with England in flour had employed 100 hands, whereas it now only employed ten. Their Lordships were all aware that the time was when Ireland had a noble trade in provisions. In consequence of changes which had taken place, it was now gone. They used to supply salt beef to the Navy, and enjoyed a colonial trade in that and other articles of her produce; but this was now at an end. Farmers might drive their stock to market, but no one asked the price. The Irish pork trade once produced 1,200,000 l. a year, but between the famine and free trade, that trade was also at end; the returns from Liverpool last week stated that Irish bacon and pork were perfectly unsaleable, from the great influx of American pork. The same might be said of the butter trade. Her Majesty's Go-

641
vernment certainly took a most extraordinary view of the condition of the country; for when their own commissioners told them that the country was already overtaxed, the main remedy which they proposed was to increase taxation. This really reminded him of the system of Dr. Sangrado, who, when he was told his patients were dying from overbleeding and hot water, replied that the reason why they were dying was because they had not had hot water and bleeding enough. The only way in which he could account for the conduct of the Government was, that they were acting under the pressure of the Manchester school, who went about preaching that no more advances were to be made to Ireland. The consequence was that the Government said, "We will get rid of this very awkward question by bringing in a measure to tax Ireland. We cannot extract blood out of a stone, but we will bring in this Bill, and when it fails we will come down to the House of Commons and vote for money." If such was not their intention, they were passing sentence of death on the starving poor. He thought he could place this question in a point of view in which nobody had ever put it before. He considered that this was as much, if not more, an English manufacturing question as as Irish one. Ireland, as it was well known, had no manufactures of her own. For many years previous to the famine, Ireland had been in the regular habit of taking between 10,000,000 l. and 12,000,000 l. worth of manufactures from England yearly. She was, therefore, not a bad customer to this country. He admitted that there were exports from Ireland very much to the same amount in the shape of provisions. There was real freedom of trade and reciprocity between the two countries, and Ireland was doing remarkably well until she was struck down by famine; nay, he firmly believed that there was not one country under the sun which had made more rapid strides than Ireland had during the ten years before the famine. Every article of manufacture used in Ireland came from England, from a steam engine down to a paltry nail. Everything manufactured from iron, copper, tin, silk, cotton, leather, glass, woollen, and earthenware was supplied by England. From the drawing-room of the Peer to the cabin of the Connemara, peasant-English manufactures were indispensable; even the iron pot in which the peasant boiled his potatoes came from England—if there was a
642
shoe among his family, it came from England also. And who, he would ask, was the loser at this moment in consequence of the distress to which Ireland was reduced? Was it not the English manufacturer? Judging from the returns which he had seen for the last year or year and a half, he was afraid that, instead of 10,000,000 l., not more than 2,500,000 l. or 3,000,000 l. worth of English manufactures had been consumed in Ireland during that period. Let the Manchester school recollect that their free-trade system had destroyed the Irish market. They had no manufactories in Ireland, and one reason was, that she had to thank a British Legislature for taking away her manufactures. From the time of Oliver Cromwell down to 1782, the Statute-book was loaded with Acts of Parliament prohibiting Ireland from bringing her manufactures to England—nay, prohibiting them altogether, and cutting them up root and branch. In 1782, when there was a Parliament in College-green, England was compelled to repeal those laws; but it was too late, and the manufactures of Ireland never recovered from the blow which had been dealt to them. These were mere truisms; but if any noble Lord had any doubt upon the subject, he would bring down to the House the names of all the different Acts to which he had referred, and prove that Ireland was not only treated as a colony, but as a conquered country. And then newspaper writers, and theoretical writers who travelled through the country, and got their information from waiters and hostlers at inns, abused Ireland for having no manufactures. The Government had brought forward another measure, a Bill to facilitate the transfer of lands in Ireland, and proposed to place all the property of Ireland in the hands of those triumvirs. He considered it a Bill for the confiscation of landed property in Ireland; but he was not surprised at it, for from the time of Henry II. downwards, nothing but confiscation had been going on in that country. Complaints were made against the Court of Chancery that it was too slow. Slow! of course it was; and God forbid that it should be fast in destroying the interests of widows, children, and remaindermen. He ventured to say, that at present the courts of equity in Ireland were presided over by two lawyers of first-rate eminence, whose judgments gave perfect satisfaction to the country, and those courts were as well conducted as the Courts of Chancery

643
in England. A very deep scheme had been laid to prevent the Government from making advances for Ireland, and it was intended by those who were at the bottom of it, when the land had, by these means, been brought down to a very trifling value, to purchase some portion of the land themselves, and sell it again. If the Legislature wished to facilitate the transfer of land in Ireland, the best mode would be to make some alterations in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery. He recommended their Lordships to keep their eye on this Bill, for they might rely upon it that if the small end of the wedge were now inserted, it would finally uproot the power of the landed aristocracy of England. He called this a measure of confiscation and spoliation—a measure which must separate Ireland from England—a measure which must drive 8,000 Anglo-Irish from the soil, the very men who last year were called the English garrison, and who were the mainstay of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The day that measure passed, their Lordships would, in his humble judgment, destroy the Irish Protestant Church. There were some other points on which he wished to touch; but as he did not wish to fatigue their Lordships, he should do so very briefly. Something had been said about emigration, which might do some good, and he alluded to the subject because the workhouses in Ireland were actually choked with young persons under eighteen years of age. He believed that there were 70,000, 80,000, or 90,000 persons about seventeen years old in the workhouses of Ireland. Then, again, the fisheries in Ireland ought to be encouraged. Drainage, improvements in land, and railways ought also to receive assistance. To show that the people of Ireland had not neglected the duty of self-reliance, he might mention that the city of Waterford alone had raised 100,000 l. to forward a railway in their neighbourhood. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds had also been expended in promoting railways in Ireland; but he was sorry to say that they were now at a stand, because no assistance could be given to them from the Exchequer Loan Fund. He should be glad to see agricultural schools established in every barony, and very great good might be done by allowing the proprietors of entailed estates to raise money on their property for the improvement of farm buildings. At present the landlords had no such power. He would conclude by expressing a hope
644
that in bringing forward the measure to which he had alluded, the Government would not induce the people of Ireland to think that England had seized the opportunity of Ireland's distress to injure and deteriorate the property of that country. He moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
LORD CREMORNEdeclared his intention of voting for the Bill, not because he thought it a good one in itself, but because he considered it the best of the two alternatives which had been offered. It was a measure of vital importance to the existence of the western population; and noble Lords who opposed it took upon themselves a very serious responsibility: were they prepared to offer any substitute? The noble Earl who had just sat down had not proposed any substitute for the rate in aid, though an income tax had been talked of in another place. Now he had no doubt that a rate in aid could be collected all over Ireland at a shilling in the pound; but how was it possible to estimate the cost of collecting the income tax? In proportion as Ireland was a poorer country than England, the cost of collecting the tax would be greater. He thought, therefore, that it would be a small consolation to the agricultural interest in Ireland, when they succeeded in imposing an union tax upon the monied classes, to find that the additional income derived from that tax would not relieve the agricultural interest or the poor, but would go into the pocket of the tax collector. Besides, why, he would ask, should their Lordships suppose that there would be less objection in Ireland to an income tax than to the proposed rate in aid? Only 17 out of 105 Irish representatives sanctioned the principle of an income tax by their vote: he thought then that it would have been useless for the Government to press it on the consideration of the Legislature. That being the ease, there were only two alternatives: either their Lordships must pass this Bill, or permit the population of the distressed unions to perish. He had felt a degree of reluctance in urging these views in opposition to the opinions entertained by many of their Lordships who were connected with Ireland; but he felt that he was bound candidly to state the reasons which induced him to vote in favour of the Bill.
The EARL of DESARTsaid he could not think that their Lordships were called upon to find a substitute for that measure,

645
if they should think fit to reject it. It was the business of Her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament the means by which it would be desirable, in their opinion, to meet any national emergency; and it was the duty of their Lordships to reject their proposals if they should believe them to be unjust or inadequate; while they could not be held responsible for the consequences of their having discharged their duty. He was surprised to hear it said that they might as well take one tax as another for the purpose of meeting the existing distress in Ireland; because one tax might be unobjectionable, while another might be open to various objections. He believed that the proposed rate in aid was a most unjust and impolitic measure; and, indeed, if he had had any doubts upon the subject, those doubts would have been removed by the speeches of those noble Lords who had supported the Bill on a former occasion. Those noble Lords had all admitted that the measure was contrary to all sound principles, and had only attempted to justify it on the ground that it had been devised for the purpose of meeting an emergency which made a departure from all ordinary modes of proceeding not only expedient but inevitable. But those noble Lords themselves had confessed that the Bill would be inadequate to the attainment of its proposed object. His noble relative, the noble Marquess opposite, had frankly admitted its inadequacy. Now, he (the Earl of Desart) could understand the conduct of a physician who, in a case of great emergency, should administer a dangerous medicine which might be productive of beneficial consequences; but he could not understand how any physician could administer a dangerous medicine when he was himself aware that it could lead to no good whatever. He certainly could not approve of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the great crisis which had arisen in Ireland. He found that after three years of that crisis they were then called upon to meet the distress of that country by a measure which, according to the admission even of its supporters, was objectionable in principle, and would in its results be inadequate; while they had brought forward no measure for effecting one of the most desirable of all improvements in the Irish Poor Law, by limiting the area of taxation. The Bill then before their Lordships would, on the contrary, extend the area of taxation to the utmost limits of the island. By doing
646
so, this Bill would, he believed, reduce the industrious and prosperous districts of Ireland to a level with those who were suffering such fearful distress and ruin; and it would render those now in a state of degradation and misery unwilling to exert themselves to improve their condition; and he should therefore feel it his duty to support the Amendment.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELfelt that it was a duty which he owed to his country to speak out fully his opinions at this stage of the measure. After hearing the evidence of the various witnesses who had been examined before the Committee of their Lordships, who stated that in their opinion the measure would not work—that it would not produce the amount required—that it would be productive of the most evil effects upon the country—and that it would lead to passive and in some cases to active resistance; and while, on the other hand, no evidence whatever had been adduced in favour of the Bill—he confessed that he was perfectly astonished at the conduct of the Government in pressing forward a measure which by the great majority of the Irish representatives in both Houses of Parliament—which the Irish press of every shade of politics, and the Irish people of every class and from every quarter, no matter of what politics—was considered to be so injurious and so detrimental to the welfare of Ireland. Upon the division on the Bill in one of its previous stages, every noble Lord connected with Ireland, and independent of the Government, had voted against the Bill. There was no precedent for the adoption of such a course either in this or any other country. He would, however, tell their Lordships of two precedents, which might, perhaps, be considered of importance. It was a fact that in Egypt one of the pachas, who was a despot, had imposed a heavy land tax over the whole of Egypt. He found that some parties were unable to pay the tax, and he tried the experiment of compelling those parties who had paid to make up the deficiency. The result was, that instead of the dissatisfied part being benefited, the previously flourishing part fell into a state of decay; the whole country had been impoverished, and the tax had become inoperative. A similar case occurred in India. The East India Company imposed a heavy tax upon cultivated land in that country, and it was then found that in some particular parts the cultivator of the soil was unable to pay the

647
amount of taxation. The East India Company compelled the other districts to make up the amount, and the same result followed, and the whole country had gone to ruin. Those were the only precedents he could find for the course now pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and for which they were now so restlessly endeavouring to obtain the approval of Parliament. Her Majesty's Government themselves knew that this measure would not meet the wants of even the twenty-one distressed unions for whose relief it had been principally framed; and they had it from the mouths of their own witnesses that there were numbers of other unions which were upon the very verge of destitution, and which were struggling hard to maintain their own paupers. The effect of imposing a rate in aid upon those struggling unions would of necessity be to increase the list of the insolvent unions, and to add to the distress of the country. It had been said in the course of this debate that there were 100 unions in Ireland in a state of difficulty. Now there were but 131 unions in the whole of Ireland; and the result of passing this measure would consequently be to throw the rate in aid upon thirty-one of the unions. He did not think that there would be found to be even so many as thirty-one unions able to pay the rate in aid. He was the more convinced of the inadequacy of this measure when he remembered the extreme distress which prevailed in many of the Irish unions. In the workhouse of the union of Fermoy, with which he was connected, there had been, since the 1st of January of this year down to the present time no less than 1,225 deaths. A large portion of the rates which had already been struck could not be collected. In spite of all the efforts of the guardians they found themselves perfectly unable to meet the destitution which existed in that union. There were upwards of 3,000 in the workhouse, and if they could find accommodation for 6,000, it would scarcely be sufficient for the people. When they considered this state of things—and this union was but a fair sample of the others—to what conclusion could they come, but that this measure would prove most disastrous? In many of the unions of Ireland they were perfectly unable to collect the present amount of rates. The Government might impose upon them additional taxes to any amount they pleased—10 s. or 20 s. in the pound, if they pleased; but they would never be able to
648
collect them. The measure was nothing more than a delusion practised upon the English people, for they would never be able to collect the proposed rate. He could assure their Lordships that although they might order that a further rate should be struck in Ireland, that rate could never be collected in many districts, as there was no money with which to pay it. The failure of the potato crop in several successive years had, in fact, reduced Ireland to a most prostrate condition. He believed the amount of that failure might be fairly estimated at 60,000,000 l., oven though each stone of potatoes were only valued at 2d. He believed that upwards of a million of tons of human food had been imported into Ireland, for which hard cash had been paid, so that the total loss to that country caused by the failure of the potato crop could not be estimated at less than 90,000,000 l. sterling. The fact at present was this, that money had disappeared altogether from that country. One hardly saw a sovereign in circulation. Even the silver was disappearing, and the amount of the circulation of the bank notes also, thanks to Sir Robert's Peel's Bill of 1844, had become considerably lessened. The circulation of the country had fallen from 7,000,000 l. to 4,000,000 l.; and indeed there was not enough of money afloat to meet the wants of a population of 8,000,000. How then, he would ask, were poor-rates, or rates in aid, to be paid, if there was not a sufficient circulating medium in the country? Formerly, a farmer might settle with his labouring man by letting him a small cottage, or a piece of ground, and allow his rent for wages; but that was not the case now. The farmer was now obliged to pay his labourer in the English way, and the consequence of the present state of things was that he was totally unable to give any employment, because there was no money in circulation in the country. The result of all this was, that the lands were going out of cultivation; credit was destroyed; no man could get credit now, no matter what number of acres he possessed; the solvent part of the population and the small farmers were all leaving the country, and in a short time there would be only two classes of people left in Ireland—the landlords and paupers—and there would be hardly any ratepayers left. He had opposed that measure before, and he would oppose and protest against it still, because he firmly believed it would be a total failure.
LORD STUART DE DECIESsaid, that the question before their Lordships seemed to resolve itself into an extremely narrow compass. It was simply this—whether the poor of the bankrupt unions of Ireland were to be preserved from starvation; and if so, what description of taxation or fund could be raised for that purpose. Many of their Lordships had been particularly lucid in pointing out the defects of this measure, hut none of them had pointed out a better mode; and the obvious inference from that was, that they had nothing better to propose; and if that were so, they were bound to support the measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl near him (the Earl of Wicklow), had, however, proposed a substitute, in an income tax. The same proposition was, he believed, made in another place, by some of the Irish Members. The noble Lord at the head of the Government took them at their word, called a meeting of them, and positively offered the alternative of a rate in aid or the income tax. When, however, the alternative was left to them, they begged leave to consider the proposition at a more convenient season. Having recently arrived from Ireland, he could confirm the account of the state of the country, and of the terrible destitution referred to by the noble Earl at the commencement of the debate. The present distress of Ireland was infinitely greater than it had been at any former period. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Glengall) had referred to the utter want of all business as furnishing a decisive test of the existing destitution. A better test could not, in his opinion, have been adopted. The farmers who were in the habit of attending the fairs with their stock could not find purchasers for it, and consequently could not pay their rent; and the tradesmen complained generally of the total stagnation of business. So far, however, from this being an argument against the measure, he believed that exactly in proportion to the amount of distress in the country, was it necessary to select that measure which promised to throw the least possible additional burthen upon the resources of the country; and he would state fearlessly, that the measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Government was caculated to throw a much lighter burden upon the people of Ireland than the one proposed by the noble Earl. It was stated in the course of the debate upon the second reading of this Bill, that in the event of this Bill being thrown out, 10,000 persons
650
would probably perish in the next few weeks. He did not believe that number to be exaggerated; on the contrary, he thought that there would be even a greater number than that, who would perish in consequence; and he, for one, was not prepared to share the awful responsibility which would attach to a vote that should produce such disastrous results. He would, however, throw out one observation which he thought it would be worth while for Her Majesty's Government to take into serious consideration—which was, that they should show a little more forbearance in demanding the repayment of advances under the Temporary Relief Act, than they had hitherto done. He had the honour of being connected with an union in the south of Ireland, in the county of Waterford, which was indebted in the sum of 12,000 l. The demand made for repayment amounted to two-thirds of that sum; if that demand had been enforced, they would have been compelled to close their workhouse, and to discharge some 4,000 or 5,000 paupers. He believed that if the repayments were spread over a great number of years, it would give greater satisfaction to the people, and perhaps tend to disarm a little of that hostility which was felt generally throughout the country against this measure.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had entirely misunderstood his position in reference to this measure. It was quite true, that in conjunction with the opinions of every man with whom he had conversed upon the subject of this measure, with every Member of the Administration, with the private statements of individual Members of their Lordships' House who had voted in favour of the measure, he had in that House condemned the measure which Her Majesty's Ministers had proposed, and he had endeavoured to suggest to Her Majesty's Government other means by which they could have raised a fund in a more constitutional and satisfactory mode, for the purposes for which this measure was intended, than that proposed by this Bill; but he never ventured to propose to their Lordships that they should adopt an income tax as a substitute for this measure. An income tax for the relief of the poor would be received in Ireland with equally as much odium as the present proposition. What he did suggest, and what he repeated, was, that in order to prevent this dangerous experiment being carried out—this innovation upon the principle of law—this new system of taxation, condemned even

651
by those who proposed it—they ought to act upon a fair, honest, and legitimate principle—they might impose an income tax for the purpose of equalising the taxation of the two countries, and then if they were to have a rate in aid, that it should be one levied upon the whole revenue of the united kingdom, and not upon any one particular portion of it. The English representatives in the other House refused to sanction that principle, because, as they said, Ireland did not contribute her fair share of taxation as compared with this country. Whether that assertion were well founded or not, he would not then stay to inquire. There were persons, however, who were more intimately acquainted with the subject than he was, who entertained a totally different opinion. He would, however, undertake to say, that if their Lordships had had an opportunity of examining the evidence recently given before a Committee of that House, they would find that the assertion that Ireland did not contribute a fair proportion of revenue to the State, was totally and entirely erroneous. He would, however, admit that Ireland, not being subject to the income tax, and that tax having been imposed upon this country since the period at which the calculation of the proportion of revenue to be paid by Ireland had been made, it was his opinion that the income tax having been introduced into England, should also be introduced into Ireland. Let them first impose an income tax upon Ireland for the general exigencies of the State, but not for the relief of the poor, and then adopt the fair, honest, and proper principle, to which no person could object, that if any part of the united kingdom was in such a state of destitution as to require the necessity of a rate in aid, such rate in aid should come from imperial resources. It was upon those grounds alone that he made the suggestions to Her Majesty's Government; but so fully was he persuaded that this measure would work badly, that even in the last stage of the Bill, he would conjure Her Majesty's Government to pause before they proceeded further with the measure. The noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill, appeared to support it only upon the grounds that the amount proposed to be received by the measure was a small one, and that its duration would be but for a short period. The noble Earl evidently calculated upon remaining in office, so as to be enabled by his influence to prevent the renewal of the Bill at the expiration of the;
652
two years for which this measure was to remain in operation. But could the noble Earl depend upon that? If the free-trade principles adopted by the present Ministry were to prevail, could they count upon any long tenure of office? Suppose they were to have a Cobden Ministry—he did not suppose that Mr. Cobden would at present have the honour of a seat in that House; but suppose my Lord Roebuck, as Secretary of State, getting up and proposing the continuance of the rate in aid for two years more; and suppose that proposition to be supported by some Members of the Manchester school, of whom they had heard something to-night from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Glengall), how would the noble Earl receive that proposition? One thing, however, he did not consider absurd, which was, that whether his noble Friend should or should not be in the Administration, the renewal of this measure would, two years hence, be propounded; and he believed that it would not be in the power of the Government to relinquish the measure, as the Bill now passing through its stages in the other House would, in his opinion, render its continuance unavoidable. Upon the discussion on that Bill, it was reported in the public papers that a question was put to the First Lord of the Treasury, asking what the Government intended to do after the maximum rate of 5s. and the rate in aid of 2s. were exhausted. What was the answer? The answer was, "We will fall back on the state of things before the poor-law existed." What was that state of things? In the first place, the country then was comparatively wealthy; and it was more than wealthy—it was the most charitable country on the face of the earth. But where is the charity now on which to fall back? They must fall back on the utter destitution of the country, and be driven to renew their rate in aid. If they should find the Commons of that day—two years hence—(seeing they had already succeeded in throwing the burden off their own shoulders) as ready to perform the same service for their constituents again, the result must be starvation in Ireland, or the renewal of the rate in aid. His noble Friend the Postmaster General had told their Lordships that if they did not pass this Bill, 10,000 persons would starve; but that was utterly impossible—it was an argument ad captandum, and the noble Lord could not have reflected much on the subject; but, at the same time, it was utterly impossible that Parliament could separate

653
before passing some measure of relief for the people. The measure which he (the Earl of Wicklow) had pointed out, was the most effective that could be framed; and he trusted and hoped that even at the eleventh hour they would reject the measure before the House, and give to the Government an opportunity of introducing a measure more consistent with sound principles and their own opinions of what was just.
The EARL of ROSSEthought it was no light thing to pass a measure which was likely to produce in Ireland—the north of Ireland especially—a feeling of disaffection to Her Majesty's Government. The people of the north had been always amongst the most loyal subjects in the country, and had evinced their determination, on a recent occasion, to aid the exertions of Her Majesty's Representative in Ireland. It would be utterly impossible to explain to the farmer in the north of Ireland the justice of inflicting this tax upon him; and were it not for the strong feeling of loyalty by which that body is actuated, it would have been almost utterly impossible for Lord Clarendon to have got through the difficulties he had surmounted. The noble Lord who spoke last but one had adverted to the great calamity by which the people of Ireland had been visited; but were they therefore to destroy the state of things that now exists in the north of Ireland? That state of things was created by the frugality and industry of the people; and it was impossible to expect that men who had produced their present prosperity by the exercise of those eminent qualities should make a provision for the rest of Ireland. Acquainted as he was with men in the north of Ireland, he could not consent to give a silent vote on this occasion.
The EARL of CARLISLEhaving had an opportunity, by the indulgence of their Lordships, of making a very lengthened statement of the reasons which had induced him to support the present Bill, and of stating very fully the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government urged this measure upon their immediate consideration, he felt it would not now be necessary for him to occupy much of their attention. And as it appeared to him that the proposition to which he now asked their assent rested on a very simple basis, though one, at the same time, of most irresistible urgency, he felt he could do nothing in this last stage of this, if unusual, yet, as it appeared to him, most indispensable
654
measure, hut declare (while fully admitting its unwelcome character) his conviction of its absolute necessity. With respect to the objections that had been urged, both on a previous occasion and during that night's discussion, to the measure before them, they had not sought to deny the faults which, to a certain extent, attached to it. His noble Friend the President of the Council had stated to their Lordships that it was the opinion of himself and his Colleagues, that this measure could only be justified by what they considered a serious, unprecedented, he might say unparalleled, emergency; but he added that it would be followed by other alterations in the existing poor law, and that the operation of this measure should be strictly limited to the period assigned to it in the Bill. The noble Earl who spoke behind him had hinted at the possibility of his noble Friend the President of the Council not being, when that period arrived, a Member of Her Majesty's Government. He (the Earl of Carlisle) could only say, that if by any misfortune they should be deprived of the assistance of the noble Marquess in the Government to which he was so much a strength and an ornament, he trusted that their Lordships would remember that the same announcement of the same determination respecting the duration of the measure had been made in terms as explicit by the head of the Government elsewhere. The noble Earl had held out to their Lordships the terrible prospects that might follow the destruction of the Administration, and had shadowed forth the sort of persons that might succeed them; but he (the Earl of Carlisle) could not think that visionary and farfetched apprehension could be matched with the awful certainty with which they had to deal. Her Majesty's Ministers asked the sanction of their Lordships on the final stage of this measure, on the ground of its urgent, awful, and unsurmountable necessity—he could not qualify it with words less strong. It might be said that they might go on as they were now going on, issuing sums of money; and, what sounded still more strangely to his ears, they had been told that the scruples about advancing money without the authority of Parliament (the House of Commons being at the same time in full Session) was mere constitutional twaddle. How the shade of Rockingham would be astonished at the suggestion! But as the matter had been referred to, he would state explicitly, and his Colleagues in the House of Commons

655
had already said enough to render it unnecessary for him to do more than to repeat his former declaration of opinion, that it would be inconsistent with the duty which the responsible advisers of the Crown owed to the country, if they were to have advanced money under any other than a full understanding that the Bill now before the House was, with the least possible delay, to become the law of the land; and now, until it should become law, he did not think that the Government could safely proceed a single step in the advances necessary for the poor of Ireland. For himself, he must be permitted to say, that although he could not consciously abandon a large number of his fellow-countrymen to all the horrors of starvation, he still did not see his way very clearly how that appalling result could be prevented, if the Bill now before their Lordships were to be rejected. A noble Earl had referred, in the course of the discussion, to an income tax; but no one seemed inclined to further that proposition. The noble Earl had stated with perfect truth that his view of a substitute that might be suggested, was not to propose a property tax for the actual relief of the poor in Ireland, but that with a view to equalise the taxation of the two countries a property tax should be levied in Ireland, and paid into the Consolidated Fund, and that the relief of Irish poverty should be provided for by issues from the imperial exchequer. There was nothing unfair in that proposition, and it was one the Government would not be averse to entertain, if they thought they had a prospect of carrying it through with any success. But even supposing the objection to the imposition of a property tax in the present circumstances of Ireland could be got over—admitting there was time in the remainder of the Session to pass the Bill—he would put it to their Lordships whether now, when the other House of Parliament was engaged in the anxious consideration of other measures deeply affecting the permanent prosperity of Ireland—when they were engaged in discussing the alterations it might be proper to adopt in the poor-law, and whether any regulations could be made to facilitate the transfer of land, a subject alluded to in terms of alarm by the noble Earl who commenced the discussion that night, and who uttered a solitary expression of disapprobation against that measure—when the other House of Parliament was engaged in the consideration of other important subjects, tending, he trusted, to a salutary solution of the
656
state of distress in which Ireland is involved—would it be wise, or would it be prudent, to throw before them such a bone of contention as the propriety now, for the first time, of imposing a property tax on Ireland? With regard to the efficiency of the present measure to meet and counteract the distress of the Irish people, he could only say that the Government had brought it forward with the hope that it might be effectual; but as to declaring that this measure, or any other measure, could be pronounced to he adequate for the distress of Ireland, it was impossible for any human foresight to make that calculation. It must depend on a great variety of circumstances, on the nature of the general harvest, particularly the nature of the potato harvest in this and the next year. There were circumstances to which he need not call attention, which in one mode or other must disturb such anticipations or calculations. It might be affected one way or the other by the amount of emigration, or, in a more painful way, by the prevalence of disease and by the rate of mortality. The noble Earl who had opened the night's discussion said that they proposed to effect three miracles by means of this Bill; but he could assure him that Her Majesty's Government did not attribute any miraculous powers to the measure; and so far from expecting that it would be brought into operation as a miraculous agent, he should feel no surprise even though all the probable results should fail to be realised; but they had brought it forward with an honest intention, as the readiest means at hand, to meet an appalling emergency. In that hope they proposed it as the best measure that under the circumstances they could hope to carry, or hope, when carried, to bring into effective operation; and he would put it to the humane consideration of their Lordships not to shut the door to any measure of relief that was ready furnished to their hands. The noble Earl who spoke opposite, had borrowed an illustration from Egypt, more recent than the times of the Pharaohs, and said that when two districts in Egypt were much impoverished, the Pacha called upon the third to supply the deficiency; but if the doctrine had then been carried to the full length which the opponents of the Bill now demanded, the whole of the Ottoman empire would have been taxed for the relief of that single Egyptian province, because Egypt was held to be an integral portion of the Turkish dominions. Another noble Earl opposite had told them that Her

657
Majesty's Government were responsible for the proposition of the measure; but those who opposed it were responsible for the decision they came to. The proposition of Her Majesty's Government was caused by the existence of distress of a most appalling character; and upon their Lordships would lie the responsibility of opening the door of relief, or rejecting this measure. Let it not be thought that he wished to use the language of threat in their Lordships' House: very different was his intention. During the debate upon the present question they had heard much said on the subject of the poor-law generally. At one time there was an objection to the administration of the poor-law—at another to the extension of outdoor relief. Accusations were made sometimes against the Government, sometimes against the Poor Law Commissioners, sometimes against the priests, and sometimes against the people. He had no doubt that all those parties might have fallen into errors, and he lamented the mistakes that had been committed; but in the present case, at least, there could be no doubt that every effort of legislation and government proved almost powerless—that the events taking place in Ireland seemed to depend upon a higher agency and a more powerful control than that of man. As in "the tale of Troy divine," where these pregnant lines which attribute the fatal course of events to divine control, may be lawfully transferred to what, under a true faith, we now impute to the immediate interference of an overruling Providence:—
"Non tibi Tyndaridis facies invisa Lacœnœ, Culpatusve Paris; Divum "—
he used the reading of Dr. Bentley, almost as much inspired as the original:—
"Divum, inclementia Divum,
Has evertit opes, sternitque à culmine Trojam."
It was in the face of this Heavensent calamity, this blight of nature—this suspension of the usual productive qualities of the soil, which, however increased by other causes or aggravated by other symptoms, had reduced Ireland to a state of suffering and despair that never before was exhibited even in her own disastrous annals—it was under those circumstances that while he admitted the undue amount of pressure that was thrown upon the other districts of Ireland—while he did credit to the laudable exertions which for the first time under the new poor-law she had been called upon to make—he would call to their mind that to meet this sudden desolation
658
the Imperial Treasury had already poured out advances amounting to 10,000,000 l. sterling—that private benevolence had supplied 1,500,000 l. more—that there was not a dependency or colony of the British Crown that had not given contributions—and that even foreign countries had swelled the stream of golden bounty to relieve the distress and suffering of Ireland. Under these circumstances he did not think it could be a permanent source of ill-will or hostility in the Irish mind that in such a state of things they should call upon the more favoured districts of Ireland to contribute 6d. in the pound—to contribute a sum with respect to which one of the complaints was, that in the whole period of two years it was not likely to amount to more than one-half a million—to contribute this limited sum for a limited time, with a promise not to renew it, in aid of their famishing fellow-countrymen, and for the relief of a calamity for which they had received such general and universal sympathy from every other possible quarter.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsupposed that it was because Her Majesty's Government were unwilling to excite hostility and dislike in the Irish mind, that they did not venture to suggest the infliction of a property tax on Ireland. His noble Friend rejected the idea—he trembled at the idea of imposing a property tax on Ireland; his noble Friend chose rather to incur that dislike which is present and active, and to endeavour to impose, not upon the property of Ireland but on the poverty of Ireland, this rate in aid. Their Lordships would recollect that the property tax would be levied on property alone, but the rate in aid now proposed to be levied would be levied upon poverty as well as upon property. Did not his noble Friend know, or if he did not know, there were others who could inform him, that amongst the humbler class of ratepayers in Ireland, there were many persons in as deplorable a state as those receiving relief? And yet from such persons as these it was expected by means of the Bill now before them to extract a sum of 320,000 l. But then his noble Friend told them that the measure was only to last for the next two years; but his argument merely came to this—his noble Friend used it as an inducement to pass this Bill. But what would this Bill do? It only professed to produce 320,000 l. in the present year; and yet his noble Friend, at the same time, told them that no human being could anticipate what the demand would be that they would be called

659
upon to meet. His noble Friend told them that the necessity of the case was urgent and imperious, and no doubt it was; and if he (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought there was no other alternative, why then he would be undoubtedly driven, under this dire necessity, to vote in favour of this measure. His belief, however, was, that if this Bill did not pass, not a human being more in Ireland would perish. His noble Friend had said that hundreds and thousands of persons were at this moment perishing from want, notwithstanding the poor-law; and he (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought they would perish notwithstanding the rate in aid. The effect of the measure would be, that instead of relieving the distressed unions, they would reduce all the unions in Ireland to a common level, whatever that might be. Whatever might be the general rate necessary for maintaining the poverty of Ireland, the effect of the Bill would be to reduce the whole of the country to the same rate of payment. That would be a very great evil, and have a great tendency to prevent the due administration of the law. In many quarters in Ireland the law is now administered in different degrees—in some it is well administered, in many it is moderately administered; but the effect of this measure must be to cause a common level of pressure all over the country. Many thought that the effect of this measure must be to throw all the unions of Ireland under the administration of paid guardians, and he was not going to dispute the fact. It might frequently happen that the substitution of paid guardians instead of the original guardians might be attended with benefit; but though he admitted the substitution of vice-guardians, in many instances, had been an improvement in the administration of the law, he was still of opinion—and he apprehended that everybody connected with Ireland would agree with him in the opinion—that it would be a very great misfortune to the administration of the poor-law, if other portions of the country were to be thrown into the hands of vice-guardians. The system of appointing vice-guardians was rather an unconstitutional one. The noble Lord was very much shocked at the notion of advances being made without the consent of the House of Commons; but he (Earl Fitzwilliam) begged leave to say that hereditary constitutionality was quite as much shocked at the idea of those vice-guardians, having no connexion with the country, but sent down from Dublin by the Poor Law Commissoners, being empowered
660
to determine the amount of rate, and to levy the rate, and, in default of payment of the rate, to distrain the person that ought to pay the rate. That was as unconstitutional on a small scale as it would be unconstitutional on a large scale to give money without the will of Parliament. He always thought that taxation and representation should go hand in hand; but were that the history of the present Bill, where was the representation? Out of the 105 representatives from Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, no less than 80 Members voted against this Bill. There was, therefore, taxation without representation. There was another alternative referred to, which was not taken into consideration; he alluded to that which had reference to a property tax. When in the Committee that was appointed to consider the Irish poor-law, he had moved a resolution pointing out that it would be better to impose an income tax on Ireland; a considerable majority of the Committee voted with him; but he was a little surprised when he found that his noble Friend now sitting at the table was one of those who voted against the proposition. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) begged leave to say, that when the alternative was between one mode of taxation and another, or rather when there were two modes of taxation suggested for the purpose of relieving the destitution of the country, the odium of opposing the second alternative was much greater than that of opposing the first. He would oppose this Bill because there was another alternative; but if this Bill were thrown out, he would then most undoubtedly feel himself bound to support some other alternative. He would put the matter in this way. Suppose they were first called upon to discuss the question of a property tax or starvation, and that the House had thrown out the measure for a property tax, why then the case would be very different. It would be a question whether, under the circumstances, their Lordships would be justified in opposing the rate in aid; but it is now the first alternative proposed, and they felt there was a better alternative; and if the House should reject this Bill, they Would be prepared to support what they considered to be the better alternative. If his noble Friend would try the experiment, he would find that there would be very little opposition to the second proposition. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) had not the slightest doubt that if his noble Friend were to withdraw this Bill at the eleventh hour, a substitute would be

661
found, and that substitute none of their Lordships would feel themselves justified in opposing. He would take the resposibility of voting against this measure, with confidence, in so doing, that he would not risk the life of one single person in Ireland; for if the measure were rejected, a week would not elapse when Her Majesty's Government, cast upon their own resources, would very easily find a substitute to which no man could make any objection.
On the Question that "now" stand part of the Motion:—Content 37; Not-content 29: Majority 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor.

BISHOPS.

Hereford

MARQUESSES.

Manchester

Breadalbane

Peterborough

Clanricarde

Ripon

Lansdowne.

St. Asaph

Worcester.

EARLS.

LORDS.

Bruce

Byron

Bessborough

Camoys

Burlington

Campbell

Camperdown

Cremorne

Carlisle

Eddisbury

Cowper

Erskine

Devon

Foley

Ducie

Hastings

Granville

Howden

Grey

Langdale

Minto

Milford

Shaftesbury

Say and Sole

Strafford

Stuart de Decies

Arundel

List of the NON-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Romney

Manchester.

Rosse

MARQUESSES.

Stradbroke

Downshire

Talbot

Drogheda

Warwick

Sligo.

Wicklow.

EARLS.

Viscount.

Clanwilliam

Hawarden.

Clare

BARONS.

Courtown

Beaumont

Desart

Blayney

Fitzwilliam

Bolton

Galloway

Clarina

Glengall

De Ros

Lonsdale

Polwarth

Lucan

Templemore

Mountcashel

Vaux

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Earl of Yarborough

Earl of Enniskillen

Earl Fitzhardinge

Lord Sandys

Earl of Effingham

Earl of Waldegrave

Bishop of Durham

Lord Rossmore

Lord Portman

Lord Egmont

Archbp, of Canterbury

Lord de Freyne

Earl Spencer

Earl of Ellenborough

Earl of Zetland

Viscount Lorton

Earl of Scarborough

Earl of Sandwich

Lord Poltimore

Earl of Wilton

Earl Cornwallis

Viscount Beresford

662

FOR.

AGAINST.

Earl of Suffolk

Viscount Gage

Earl of Sefton

Earl of Malmesbury

Duke of Devonshire

Marq. of Londonderry

Lord de Mauley

Lord Southampton

Earl of Lovelace

Lord Grantley

Lord Sudeley

Lord Stanley

Viscount Ponsonby

Earl of Selkirk

Lord Colborne

Earl of Ranfurly

Viscount Clifden

Lord Brougham

Viscount Hardinge

Viscount Combermere

Earl Fortescue

Lord Redesdale

Lord Montfort

Lord Colchester

Earl of Cawdor

Earl of Bandon

Earl of Morley

Lord Downes

Lord Elphinstone

Earl Nelson

Marquess of Donegal

Earl of Cardigan

Lord Crewe

Marquess of Abercorn

Duke of Bedford

Earl of Eglinton

Resolved m the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly, with the amendments; further amendments made.
Bill passed.
House adjourned to Monday next.