Sitting of 2 April 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia: Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Commons Inclosure Acts Extension.
2° Repayment of Advances Acts Amendment (Ireland); Protection of Inventions Act, 1851 (Extension of Term); Sheep, &c. Contagious Disorders Prevention.
3° Copyright Amendment; Municipal Corporations Acts Amendment.

THE EARL OF DERBY—EXPLANATION.
MR. COBDEN: It will be in the recollection of the House, Sir, that in the course of the remarks made by me in the debate which arose on the hon. Member for Bristol's Motion respecting the Ballot, in the course of some remarks I offered upon the subject, I made two quotations of words purporting to have been used by the noble Earl at the head of the Government; the first in 1835, and the other in 1841. I have received a letter from the noble Earl respecting the quotation of 1835, which, with the permission of the House, I will read:—
"St. James's Square, March 31.
"Sir—I read this morning with no little surprise a report of your speech of last night, in which you appear to have stated that on the 2nd of June, 1835, I had declared that 'if they had the ballot, I, as an English landlord, would not only see that my tenant voted, but would see him put the ticket in the ballot-box,' and you proceed to argue on the necessity of taking measures to screen the voter, 'even from the prying eyes of Lord Derby.' The above is the report of the Times. The Morning Chronicle gives the same words, but adds, as part of my supposed speech, as quoted by
584
you—' I do not mean to say that this would be a desirable precaution, or a course which ought to be adopted by landlords, unless forced to it by expediency; but I, as a landlord, should be driven to that expediency, if the ballot were adopted, to satisfy myself.' The reports in the Morning Post, Morning Herald, and Daily News, are substantially the same, and I can, therefore, have no doubt that such a statement was made by you in the House of Commons. Now, although it is not very easy to answer for every expression made use of in a speech seventeen years ago, yet the sentiments expressed are so entirely at variance with what have always been my opinions and my practice, that I felt firmly convinced that you must have made the statement under some extraordinary misapprehension; but, having here the Mirror of Parliament, which at that time was considered the most accurate report of the debates *, I turned to the debate in question, of which your speech gave me the date. I had been describing the practical working of the ballot in America, which I had seen with my own eyes, and the means resorted to for defeating its operation; and I went on to say,' I have no doubt that, if the ballot were adopted in England, a landlord determined to exercise his powers oppressively might declare that he would not be satisfied unless he saw with his own eyes voters put their tickets into the balloting-box. [An Hon. Member: No, no!] Let not the hon. Member who calls ' No' misunderstand me. I do not say that would be a desirable course to pursue; but if you drive men to expedients in order to ascertain how persons vote, I show you by what means they have it in their power to vote so as to defeat your object, if they think fit to use those means.'
"I am sure, Sir, that you will see that the above quotation, taken from the most authentic report of the day, is so far from bearing out the imputation which you have thought yourself justified in casting upon me, that I characterise the course which you would have it supposed I was myself prepared to adopt, as that of' a landlord determined to exercise his powers oppressively,' a character which I hope and believe has never attached to me.
"Having made this statement, I leave it to you to act as you may think that justice and honour demand.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"DERBY.
"Richard Cobden, Esq., M. P."
This letter was despatched yesterday morning, but some delay occurred before it reached my hands. It was addressed to me at the Reform Club, where I do not go every day—not oftener perhaps than once a week, and, not having called there since it was delivered, it followed me to the House last night, and was delivered to me after the meeting of the House. I immediately sent Lord Derby a note, dated five o'clock, in the following terms:—
"House of Commons, 5 o'Clock, April 1.
"My Lord—Your Lordship's letter has just reached me here. I should deeply regret to have misrepresented your expressions, and can plead, in justification, that I quoted them from Hansard, the most authentic record of our Parliamentary discussions. I hasten to say that, if you will give

585
me authority for stating that the report of your Lordship's speech in that work is incorrect, and authorise me to say that your words are accurately given in the Mirror of Parliament, I shall be most happy to be the medium of making the correction in my place in the House of Commons;—and I am, my Lord, your obedient servant,
"R. COBDEN.
"Right Hon. Earl of Derby, &c."
This morning I received another letter from the Earl of Derby, which is as follows:—
"St. James's Square, Thursday Night.
"Sir—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated 5 p. m. this evening, from the House of Commons, in answer to mine of yesterday morning, which appears only then to have reached you. In reply, I beg to say that if you will do me the favour of referring to my letter of yesterday, you will see that I then expressed my conviction that the report from which you quoted my speech of June, 1835, was erroneous, the grounds of that conviction, and the confirmation which it subsequently received from an examination of the only contemporaneous report in my possession of what I really said. The Mirror of Parliament had then been recently established in consequence of the extreme inaccuracy of Hansard's Reports: and so long as it contitinued, it was, I have no hesitation in saying, by far the most accurate record of Parliamentary proceedings*. I rely on its accuracy in the present instance, not only on account of its general character, but because it is in accordance, as the report in Hansard is at variance, with all the opinions I have ever entertained and acted upon; and I think, if you will do me the honour of comparing the two reports, you will have no difficulty yourself in deciding which of the two bears intrinsic marks of the greater accuracy. I have to request that your explanation may not be delayed, as I see that your unintentionally erroneous statement has already been the subject of comment, injurious to me, in many leading articles of the public press.
"I think it right to add that Mr. Walpole is in possession of the correspondence which has passed between us, including this letter.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "DERBY.
"R. Cobden, Esq., M.P."
Now Sir, whilst I am most anxious to do justice to a political opponent, I am not unnaturally desirous that I should not suffer from injustice myself. The House will observe that the noble Earl does not bring any charge against me of having made an unfounded statement, or of having made an erroneous quotation from his speech as it is reported in Hansard. We are in the habit in this House of bringing up against each other extracts from the reports of the debates given in that work; and I was not aware when I cited these passages from the noble Earl's speech that there was any other authentic record besides Hansard of the proceedings of this House in 1835. I was aware that the Mirror of Parliament had been in
586
existence for a few years, but it did not occur to me that it was in existence at the period to which I refer. I will read to you the passage of the noble Earl's speech as reported in both works. [Cries of "No no!"] The passage is very short, and I have no desire to trespass at any length on your attention. The passage in Hansard is as follows:—
"He would now come back to what his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) said about trusting in the forbearance of landlords, and upon that point he agreed with his noble Friend. If they had the ballot, he would say, as a landlord, that he would not only see whether the elector dependent on him voted, but he would see him put the ticket into the balloting urn. He did not mean to say that that was a desirable course of proceeding, or a course that ought to be adopted by landlords unless forced to it by expediency; but he, as a landlord, would be driven to that expediency if the ballot were employed, in order to satisfy himself."
And now I will read the same passage, as reported in the Mirror of Parliament:—
"I hare no doubt that if the ballot were adopted in England, a landlord determined to exercise his powers oppressively might declare that he would not be satisfied unless he saw with his own eyes voters put their tickets into the ballot box. [An Hon. Member: No, no!] Let not the hon. Member who calls 'No' misunderstand me. I do not say that would be a desirable course to pursue; but if you drive men to expedients in order to ascertain how persons vote, I will show you by what means they have it in their power to vote so as to defeat your object, if they think fit to use those means."
The House cannot fail to perceive that there is all the difference in the world between these two statements. In Hansard the noble Lord is made to say that some imaginary landlord, supposed to have a propensity to oppression, might under certain circumstances pursue a certain course. [Cries of "No, no! In the Mirror of Parliament."] Yes—in the Mirror of Parliament the noble Lord is made to say that some imaginary landlord, supposed to be disposed to oppression, might, under certain circumstances, pursue a certain course. Whereas in Hansard, the noble Lord is made to say that he would pursue that course himself. Sir, I can have no hesitation in accepting as perfectly satisfactory the explanations of the noble Lord, and in giviug him, without reserve, the full benefit of the interpretation which is placed upon his words, not only by the noble Lord himself, but also by the Mirror of Parliament. I, of course, feel bound to withdraw fully and most entirely the comments and strictures

587
which I made in reference to the sentiments attributed to the noble Lord; only transferring such Strictures, comments, and animadversions to those imaginary landlords whom the noble Lord had in his mind's eye when he made his speech of 1835.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I may be permitted to say that the frank and handsome explanation which the hon. Gentleman has just offered, is, I can assure him, as satisfactory to the Government as I have no doubt it is to the entire House. I am sure, Sir, that the House and country will feel that the imputation which has rested for a few days upon my noble Friend, is as inconsistent with the real facts of the case—now that these facts are correctly ascertained—as it must always have been supposed to be from his untarnished reputation and unblemished honour.
[* These, we are happy to say, must be understood as his Lordship's individual opinions only, and were not entertained at the time by the majority of Parliamentary men, e.g. the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel (see Vol, xxvi, 961).
The Mirror of Parliament was established in 1828; and during the earlier years of its existence was well done, The Editor took the ordinary course of offering to his patrons the means of revising the reports of their speeches; and to the extent to which they did so, the reports of that work have great value. Mr. Hansard, at the same time, had the same arrangements—which, in fact, bad existed from the commencement of the work in 1805;—and the extent to which his offers were accepted, was, both from old connexion and from the stable reputation of the work, very great; nor was this confined to those who were peculiarly friendly to him—many of those who revised the reports of the Mirror, availing themselves of Mr. Hansard's reports also. The great extent to which this was done was so well known and felt, that it was soon apparent that the Mirror of Parliament would prove of the lesser value as an authority; it consequently underwent several changes not characteristic of a permanent publication; public support was gradually withheld, and it was discontinued at the close of the Session of 1841.
Up to this time, by an oversight growing out of long usage, no record was kept by Mr. Hansard of the speeches which had received revision, But in 1841 a sys-
588
tem was established for the purpose of regulating the printing and other mechanical arrangements of the work, which it was soon seen would prove a very interesting document—namely, a columnar Diary of—

1. The speeches of the Members which it was intended to submit to revision;

2. Of the subject of the debate;

3. Of the dates of forwarding the proofs of speeches, and the date of their return revised;

4. Any remarks which might be necessary.

From this Diary the following statistics have been gathered—sufficient to prove, beyond controversy, that there is no longer room even for individual opinion as to the value of Hansard as a record of the Spoken Proceedings of the Parliament;—.

Session

Speeches sent out.

Returned revised.

1841

276

232

1842

520

337

1843

515

393

1844

Diary mislaid.

1845

536

518

1846

442

343

1847

598

400

1848

710

459

1849

650

476

1850

772

502

1851

727

514]

PUBLIC BUSINESS—DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
On the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next,
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he thought that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make some announcement of the manner in which he proposed to proceed with the business before the House after the Easter vacation, and he wished the Militia Bill to be postponed beyond the first day of meeting after the holydays.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on moving the adjournment of the House for the holydays, he would state the arrangement which he proposed the House should adopt with respect to public business. The Government was anxious to expedite the public business as much as possible.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the Militia Bill was too important a measure to be proceeded with on the first day after the holydays, when a numerous attendance of Members could scarcely be expected.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that to meet the wishes of

589
hon. Members then, he would fix the second reading of the Militia Bill for Friday, the 23rd of April.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I think, with the right hon. Gentleman, that the business of the House ought to be expedited, and I have no objection to the postponement of the Militia Bill to the 23rd instant, provided that, if it be then read a second time, the Government proceed with the measure without delay. While on this subject I am desirous of addressing a few words to the House on a matter connected with it. Much apprehension has existed in the public mind during the last few days from a belief that some circumstance has arisen to alter the intention of the Government to advise a dissolution of Parliament as soon as the state of public business would permit that course to be adopted. I will not particularly advert to the circumstances under which that apprehension has arisen. I feel the inconvenience of adverting to words supposed to have passed in a conversation elsewhere, at which no Members of this House may have been present. At the same time, I think it desirable that before we enter into Committee of Supply on Monday, some explanation or statement on the subject should be made by the Government. I feel myself the more bound to require this course to be taken, because, relying on the accuracy of reports of what had passed in another place on a former occasion, and being assured by many noble friends of mine that what they had heard was perfectly satisfactory to them, I advised those with whom I act on this side of the House not to do anything which would have the effect of postponing or delaying the Supplies, but to proceed at once to vote the money for the Estimates. This side of the House certainly complied with that request most cheerfully, and no less than 14,000,000 l. has been voted with a rapidity perhaps without a precedent—the House being induced to do so by the assurance, which I must suppose appeared to them satisfactory, that the immediate measures before Parliament would be expedited as much as possible, and that the present Parliament would not be called upon to consider any other measures than such as were urgently necessary for the Government of the country. I feel that I am responsible to many Members for having recommended that course, and, without further adverting to the circumstances which may have given rise to any
590
misunderstanding now existing in the public mind, I cannot refrain from expressing a hope that, on Monday evening, before going into Committee of Supply we shall have such a statement as will put us in complete possession of the intentions of the Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no wish to interfere with any discussion which the House may legitimately think fit to entertain with respect to the conduct of Government on going into Committee of Supply on Monday next; but, as I have no desire that any misconception on this important subject should unnecessarily remain until Monday, perhaps the House will allow me now to make some observations on what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is most inconvenient to have controversies in one House respecting the exact meaning of expressions reported to have been used in the other; but, having necessarily, from my position, an intimate and complete acquaintance with the views and feelings of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown with respect to the subject to which the noble Lord has referred, I have no hesitation in saying—without waiting till Monday—that very great misconception has existed within the last two or three days with respect to the intentions of the First Minister of the Crown, and that the noble Earl at the head of the Government never intended in any way to convey to the Parliament or the country the impression that his opinion on the subject of the dissolution of Parliament was in the least degree changed. It is not in the slightest degree changed. It is the intention of the Government—as it was the intention of the Government—so soon as those measures are passed which we deem necessary for the service of Her Majesty, and for the security and good government of her realm, humbly to counsel Her Majesty to dissolve the existing Parliament; and we shall take this course, also, with the full intention of recommending Her Majesty to meet Her new Parliament in the course of the present year, under circumstances which will afford it an ample and complete opportunity of deciding on the character and policy of the existing Government. In saying that, I think I have said all that the Government can say. We have never for a moment hesitated or faltered in that intention. As for any Government pledging itself to recommend a dissolution at a particular and

591
specific period, it is a course which I think no Member of this House, which I am sure no person who has ever been in the service of the Crown, will call for. I cannot believe that the noble Lord will demand such a pledge from us. It is impossible for us to name a particular hour, day, week, or even month, when the dissolution will take place: circumstances might occur to render it most impolitic, if not impossible, to dissolve Parliament at any period which might be named. All I can say is, that so soon as such business as we deem absolutely necessary and indispensable shall be transacted, we will humbly recommend Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament; and, in order to prevent any misconception, I will add, with the full intention of advising Her Majesty to summon Her new Parliament in the course of the present year—I mean for a bonâ fide sitting—in which the policy of the Government may be decided on. I am now only repeating what I intended to convey to the House before, and what, I am sure, it was the intention of the First Minister of the Crown to convey by his communications in another place. These are the intentions which we have always had; and it is unnecessary for me, after the declaration I have made, to assure the House that we will endeavour loyally to fulfil them.
MR. HUMEsaid, that there was one thing required in order to give satisfaction to all parties, and that was a statement of what those measures were which the Government thought necessary. He must state to the right hon. Gentleman that an idea prevailed that there existed an unwillingness to give that information to which he thought the House, under the circumstances, was entitled. Though, when first assuming power, the Government might not have been able to state what those necessary measures were, surely after this lapse of time the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the rest of the Cabinet, must have made up their minds on the subject.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

HARWICH BOROUGH.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, when he gave notice of his Motion for issuing the writ for Harwich on the previous evening, it appeared to him that it was one which was generally acceptable to hon. Members on his own side of the House; but he had since been given to understand that oppo-
592
sition would be offered to him, not from the Ministerial, but from his own side of the House. On the previous evening he had had the honour of supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) for an inquiry into the misdeeds of the borough of Harwich. The Government had thought proper to oppose that inquiry; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department stated reasons why that inquiry should be resisted, adding that it was not his intention to allow a writ to issue for the borough of Harwich, as this Parliament was on the eve of a dissolution. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) had objected to this course; he had said that there never was anything more unconstitutional, or unprecedented, and he had maintained that the House was bound either to institute an inquiry into the alleged corruption of this borough, or else not to suspend the issue of a writ for a new election. There was a difficulty in suspending the writ at all, for this reason, that the Committee had not made any report of corruption against Harwich, but had declared the election void in consequence of the returning officer having closed the poll before the time allowed by law. He was fully convinced that this borough was a nest and hotbed of corruption, but that was no reason why they should establish the most dangerous doctrine that a Minister of the Crown could, upon any occasion he thought proper, say, "such or such a place shall have no representative," at a time when no inquiry was pending. If this were done in one case, it might be done in another. Upon this ground he (Mr. T. Duncombe) said that if they refused the inquiry moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, a writ should at once be issued. How was the approaching dissolution to take place? It was not to take place in consequence of this Parliament running its natural course, but in consequence of the advice that was to be given by the Prime Minister of the Crown. And were they to suspend the issue of a new writ because certain advice, which nobody knew whether it was to be given in May, or June, or July, was to be offered at some time or another to the Crown by the Prime Minister? It was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary afterwards, in the course of the debate, had said that he had another reason for refusing to allow a writ to issue. It was this—that if he proposed the issuing of the writ, it would be

593
said that the Government had influence in the borough, and that a supporter of the Government was about to be returned for it. Now it must be admitted that there was a delicacy, and punctiliousness, and scrupulosity about this reason of the right hon. Gentleman, such as he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had never before witnessed; and he only hoped that the wear and tear of official life would not remove such honourable feelings from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) could not understand upon what grounds they had the right to suspend the issuing of this writ, and he hoped that the House would not deprive even the borough of Harwich, with all its delinquencies, of its constitutional rights.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich, in the room of Robert Wigram Crawford, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he begged to move as an Amendment that no writ should issue during this Session of Parliament for the borough of Harwich. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), that Harwich was a rotten nest of corruption, and it was upon that ground that he called upon the House not to encourage corruption by issuing another writ for this borough. It had been said that there were only two courses which could be pursued on the present occasion: either to institute an inquiry, or to issue a writ. But he (Mr. Bouverie) would affirm that in this, as in other cases, one of three courses might be adopted, and that they might either determine to issue the writ, or to suspend the issue, or to institute an inquiry. They all knew what had been disclosed on the Committee, with respect to Harwich in 1841, and that a compromise had been effected with reference to the return for that borough, with the view of screening the Members who were returned at that election. Had there been any reason to suppose that since 1841 the state of things had in the least degree improved? Far from it. In 1847 there was another election, and in reference to the candidates returned at that time a Committee of that House had declared that Mr. John Attwood had been guilty of bribery by means of his agents. It was alleged in extenuation of the sins of this borough, that two elections had occurred there since
594
1847, and that there was no proof of bribery having been resorted to at either of them; but it seemed to him that they needed no fresh evidence to show that the borough was a sink of corruption. He (Mr. Bouverie) had voted with the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) for an inquiry into the practices that were alleged to exist in Harwich; but the House had refused to grant that inquiry. And now his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, with the zeal for logic which always distinguished him, said that they must issue a writ for a new election. Upon this point he (Mr. Bouverie) joined issue with his hon. Friend, and he would say that it was an old constitutional practice that the writ should be suspended in cases where bribery was suspected, and that not in one Session only, but in some cases from Session to Session. In the year 1700 it was ordered that no writ should issue for Winchilsea. In the same year a similar order was made with respect to Great Grimsby, and the same course was at different succeeding times taken with respect to New Shoreham, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other places. He thought that the corruption which existed at Harwich would justify them in resorting to the old constitutional rule of withholding the writ. Before two or three months elapsed there must be a new election, and what would be the consequence of that with reference to this borough? Why, that there would be no appropriate remedy in case of corruption at an immediate election. If a writ were now issued, the most gross and beastly corruption might be practised, but there would be no mode of ascertaining the fact, because it was morally certain that Parliament would be dissolved before any inquiry could take place. But if the House now suspended the writ, the electors would have an opportunity at the next general election of showing that they had abandoned the malpractices of which they had been guilty.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no warrant do issue this Session of Parliament for any now Writ for the Borough of Harwich,' instead thereof."
Question, "That the words proposed to be be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he coincided with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in thinking that the writ for the borough of Harwich ought at

595
once to issue. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), he must express his entire disapprobation of it. If constituencies were thus to be disfranchised—if any constituency was to be so treated upon a charge of corruption, where was such a system to end? Since the revelations made by Mr. Coppock, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have the most morbid sensibility regarding corruption. Seeing and knowing what took place throughout the kingdom, it was most unfair that they should single out a small borough like Harwich, and visit it with the penalty of disfranchisement—that was a proceeding most inconsistent and unjust. If they looked back a little, they would find that it was not in small boroughs alone that corruption prevailed—he would refer them to former elections in the City of London itself. Look at Greenwich. Why, it was proved before a County Court that Alderman Salomons had given direct orders for a large expenditure on the part of certain agents and publicans; this was proved before the County Court, but Alderman Salomons escaped payment of those charges, on the ground that they were illegal, and in contravention of the Act to Repress Bribery, Corruption, and Treating. If they were to make the case of Harwich a precedent to be rigorously adhered to, then they ought to inquire into half the constituencies in the kingdom. They constantly heard it stated that the Members on his Bide of the House obtained their seats by more corrupt means than those on the other. Now, that he emphatically denied. He could state, from his own knowledge, that if an inquiry were made into all the constituencies in the kingdom, his side of the House would be found to contrast most favourably with the other. Bribery was unusual in counties—it was, indeed, very seldom practicable. It was further alleged that tenant-farmers were frequently obliged to vote against their inclination. The fact was otherwise, and he would not advise any set of men to go to the country upon such a supposition. The tenant-farmers felt what they expressed, and would vote as they spoke and felt—any party of landowners who went to the country upon any other belief would go upon a most perilous adventure, and might be certain of their fate. The imputations cast upon farmers, that they were the mere tools and agents of landlords, was a calumny and a libel on them. He trusted the House would not accede to the Amend-
596
ment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—that they would not adopt so unconstitutional a course as to decide by a mere majority of that House upon a great constitutional question, setting law and privilege at defiance.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the hon. Gentleman had complained of a sort of morbid sensibility which had been shown by that House with regard to corruption; but, considering that a Bill had been brought forward by the Government of which he was a supporter for the express purpose of enacting provisions to put down corruption, such a complaint on his part was rather strange. He (Sir De L. Evans) had stated in his remarks, on a former evening, that there were particular circumstances connected with this borough that made it conspicuous above all other corrupt boroughs in this country, and that there was stronger proof against it than there was against St. Albans and Sudbury, for that two Committees had found it guilty of corruption. He had offered the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that if he would point out any other borough equally corrupt, he (Sir De L. Evans) would withdraw his Motion; but not one syllable had the right hon. Gentleman said in answer. Under these circumstances he must oppose the issuing of this writ.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he had been Chairman of the Harwich Election Committee, and must say that, after a long scrutiny, the Committee were of opinion that general corruption had not prevailed at that election. The House must well know that allegations in an election petition ought not to be considered as evidence, and he would further remark, that if the principle of condonation were ever to be admitted, Harwich had amply condoned whatever offences it had been guilty of.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that in 1842 he had moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into certain matters connected with Harwich, when it was proved that money had been spent in the borough in a wholesale manner. When the inquiries of that Committee were closed, he had come before the House, and had moved that no writ should issue for Harwich, but that Motion was negatived by the House. Ten years had now elapsed since that time; much bribery might have taken place during that period, but none had been proved, and the House was now asked to do that which, when he had asked it, at a time that the inquiry was fresh, and the

597
whole thing was proved to the satisfaction of everybody, the House had refused to do. How could they now attempt to refuse the issuing of a new writ after ten years had elapsed, during which no fresh evidence had been adduced against the borough?
MR. BRIGHTbegged to remind his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) of the Resolution of the Committee of 1847, referred to by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), which declared that at that election Mr. Attwood had been, by his agents, guilty of bribery. It appeared that there was something like logical sequence in the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), that the House, having refused an inquiry into the state of the borough, was bound to issue the writ. But there were two kinds of punishment which Parliament had power to inflict upon offending boroughs. The one was, an inquiry with a view to disfranchisement, which might be termed Capital punishment. The other was the minor punishment of the suspension of the writ. They were now approaching the termination of the present Parliament; and if any malpractices should take place at an election for Harwich, consequent upon a writ now issued, it would be impossible for this Parliament to punish it in any way. He therefore proposed that the House should not make itself responsible for issuing any writ now, but that it should allow Harwich to exercise its privilege at the general election of returning Members to that House.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had stated that Parliament had two punishments to inflict upon offending boroughs. Who denied it? The question really was, not whether Parliament might inflict either punishment, but whether that House would think fit to inflict either in the present case. There was no doctrine more clear than this, that whenever a vacancy occurred, it was the duty of the remaining Members of that House to supply it. Exceptions might occur, and if a Committee made a Special Report, upon that Special Report the House might act. But was there a Special Report in this case? There had been two elections at Harwich since 1848, and had it been alleged in cither case that there had been such bribery as to justify that House, without the encouragement of a Special Report of any Committee, in recommending a measure so
598
severe as the disfranchisement of Harwich—for disfranchisement it was, in fact, if they continued to suspend the writ? If once the principle was got rid of, that Members of Parliament were elected by their constituencies ex debito justitiœ, it would be absolutely in the power of a tyrant majority in that House to rid themselves altogether of their opponents.
MR. COBBOLDsaid, that he had been a voter at the last three elections for Harwich, and he would undertake to say that there was no ground whatever for the sweeping allegations that had been made respecting bribery at those elections.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not concur with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford in thinking that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would be an unparliamentary proceeding, or that it would be a precedent that would give an undue power to a tyrannical majority. The power of suspending a writ had been used by that House from time to time since the year 1696, when he believed the earliest precedent of this kind was established. With respect, however, to this particular instance, he owned that there was much more doubt as to the discretion of exercising this power. He considered that the House having chosen, on the last occasion when the seat for Harwich was declared void, to suspend the issuing of the writ from the month of July last to the present April, there could be no reason for it to alter its course. His hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis), appeared to think that the House had been in error all that time, and ought now to make haste to get out of it. Now he (Lord J. Russell), when be was at the head of the Government, certainly could not agree in that view, and having consulted with his right hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Sir G. Grey), they determined that, if a new writ for Harwich was proposed to be issued, they should oppose that Motion. He (Lord J. Russell) had seen no reason for changing the opinion he had formed, or the course be had decided upon taking. Nevertheless, it would seem that the last two elections for Harwich made this a peculiar case; and he thought the opinion of the House appeared now to be in favour of issuing the writ. If, however, his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) chose to divide the House, he (Lord J. Russell) must certainly divide with him; but he would rather suggest to his hon. Friend that it would be better

599
not to divide, but to allow the writ to issue.
MR. HUMEthought there had been as much bribery at the last two elections for Harwich as at any former election; and charges of bribery had been brought against the sitting Members, which charges, however, were not gone into, because the return was declared null upon some other preliminary allegation—such, for instance, as when Mr. Prinsep's seat was declared void on the ground that he did not possess the requisite property qualification. He should support the Amendment, because he thought the suspension of the writ a mode of punishing the borough for its corruption.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who was a high Parliamentary authority, stated that there were a variety of precedents on the journals for suspending a writ; but he would ask the noble Lord whether the precedents to which he referred did not all of them occur prior to the Grenville Act, when the House itself decided as to the validity of the elections; and whether the noble Lord was prepared to favour the House with any precedent applicable to the particular circumstances that they had now to consider? Now, it was true that in the year 1842 there was a very strong Report submitted to that House, in which it was declared that extensive bribery had prevailed at Harwich; and it was recommended to the House at the time that, if necessary, a further and more searching inquiry should be made into the alleged corrupt practices, to see whether they were of so extensive a character as to justify the disfranchisement of the borough. The House, however, on that occasion chose to pass over the Committee's Report, and agreed to the issuing of a new writ; and if any act could amount to what was called condonation, unquestionably the House, with a full knowledge of all that had occurred in 1842 at Harwich had acted upon that principle. In 1847 an election took place, and there was a Report by an Election Committee to the effect that Mr. Attwood had been guilty of bribery by his agents, and that gentleman was in consequence unseated. But it was stated by hon. Members, in 1847 or 1848 (he forgot exactly which year), that the proofs of bribery were of so flagrant a character as to warrant the interference of that House, and to demand a further investigation. At that time an Act had been
600
passed under the auspices of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), by which, if in the course of any inquiry before an Election Committee that Committee had reason to believe that any charges of bribery had been withdrawn, or abandoned, or not bonâ fide prosecuted, it would be competent for the Committee to report that fact to the House, and the House might then direct the Committee to reassemble and investigate those charges. He was, therefore, entitled to say, with regard to 1848, when the Committee reported that Mr. Attwood had been guilty of bribery, and unseated him, that there was no evidence before the Committee to induce them to think that extensive bribery had prevailed, or there would have been a Special Report on the subject, nor to induce the House to believe that any charges of bribery had not been fairly investigated. Then he had a right to take his stand on the year 1842, and to consider whether, since that time, any circumstances had occurred to warrant the House—contrary to precedents, he maintained—in taking the extraordinary course of refusing to issue this writ. Now, at the two elections subsequent to 1842 it was not pretended by any one that the slightest bribery had been practised at Harwich. Well, what had occurred with regard to that suspension of the writ to which the noble Lord referred? Subsequent to the last election, his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate (Mr. Bankes) presented a petition to that House, conveying charges that intimidation on the part of the late Government had considerably influenced the election; and under these circumstances it was not thought right to issue the writ. His right hon. Friend had since explained why it was that at the commencement of the present Session he had not renewed that proposition. Afterwards a notice was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) that he was prepared to bring charges of gross bribery against the borough of Harwich, and he asked the House to defer the issue of the writ until his allegations were considered. The House, however, after hearing the hon. and gallant Member's statement, did not consider that he had made out his case, and refused to issue the Commission of Inquiry for which he asked. Under all these circumstances, what was it the duty of that House to do? Was Harwich entitled to a representation in that House, or was it not? If there was no charge,

601
and no intention to prefer any charge, he said they would do an injustice if for a single day they withheld the issuing of the writ, and prevented Harwich from being represented in that House. The argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that the writ could be issued for the approaching general election, was perfectly inexplicable. Why would it be more fit to issue it after a dissolution than before it? The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had risen to vindicate his own consistency; but it appeared that he was anxious not to be driven to the necessity of being consistent, because he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw the Amendment, and allow the writ to issue.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, the House had virtually decided that no further inquiry into this matter was necessary, and under those circumstances he could not see how it could be made consistent either with former precedents or with reason or justice that they should refuse any longer that which was the natural right of a constituency. He should consequently vote for issuing the writ.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that, having acted as a Chairman of the Committee which sat upon the last election for Harwich, he could state that it was distinctly and openly declared by the counsel for the petitioner that he had never any intention whatever to charge the sitting Member, or any of his immediate friends concerned in the election, with any acts of bribery or corruption.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he wished to ask a question of the Government, which affected the character of that House for justice, good faith, and consistency. He wished to ask what distinction could be drawn between St. Albans and the borough of Harwich? The two cases were admitted to be parallel up to the year 1848; but the bribery practised at the last two elections could not be gone into because the elections were annulled upon preliminary objections.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that after the discussion that had taken place, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich, in the room of Robert Wigram Crawford, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
LORD NAAS LORD NAAS moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid: Sir, in giving notice of my intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and in rising to carry that intention into effect, I beg to assure the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I have no desire to offer a factious or unfair opposition to any measures they may deem advisable to propose. I seek not to hold them responsible for the legislative enactments or the executive decisions of which I complain. They have no part in the Treasury Minute which is about to become the subject of discussion this evening—a document as unjust as it is illegal. Her Majesty's Government cannot be considered answerable for a course of policy which, however well-intended it may have been, has destroyed the capital and depopulated the shores of Ireland; on the contrary, I am bound to admit, that whilst they occupied the benches from which I am now speaking, every proposition for the amelioration of Ireland received from them a fair and generous consideration. I cannot forget that without a single exception they voted for an advance of 16,000,000 l., the professed object of which was the development of the resources of the sister kingdom. I feel, under these circumstances, if I can make out a case worthy of attention, it will receive at their hands a full and fair consideration. The Treasury Minute which it is the object of this Bill to confirm, is one stating that where the expenditure of any electoral division in Ireland for the support of her poor for the year amounted to 4s. in the pound, the treasurer should retain in his hands the whole of the consolidated annuity due from that electoral division; and where the expenditure for the support of the poor and the consolidated annuity amount together to a sum exceeding 4s. in the pound, then the balance to be paid by the treasurer on account of the instalments should be only the difference between the amount of the expenditure for the support of the poor, and the amount produced by a charge of 4s. in the pound. Now, a Treasury Minute like this, as affecting the local taxation of this country, would be a

603
perfect nullity; but it was not so with regard to Ireland, for so heavily taxed was that unfortunate country, that even by this assistance, trifling as it may appear, a sum of 75,850 l. would be released out of 245,000 l., leaving a balance of 170,000 l. to be repaid to the Treasury. The proportions in which the sum would be remitted in the several provinces would be 276 l. in Ulster; 3,073 l. in Leinster; 24,017 l. in Connaught; and 48,502 l. in Munster. There has been delivered to this House a letter signed by Sir Charles Trevelyan, whose abilities I willingly admit, but whose inaccurate knowledge of Ireland and its affairs renders him peculiarly unsuited to the office of "child's guide to Chancellors of the Exchequer," saying that the result of this Minute is merely to establish a maximum charge for what he calls "the demands of the public" of 4s. in the pound. I contend that that will not be the mere effect of this Minute. The effect of this Treasury Minute will be, and must be, for the next forty years, to keep up in the great majority of the unions of Ireland, doubt, discontent, and excitement. The Minute is to be renewed every year; the effect of it consequently will be, to supply during that period a constant motive for the most wasteful and reckless expenditure of the poor-law fund. The managers and guardians of a poor-law union have only to manage to expend 4s. in the pound, and they are safe from all demands for that year from the treasurer on account of the annuity. Is it possible to conceive a more absurd or a more mischievous practice, circumstanced as Ireland is, than this? The Minute, in fact, says, "only be wasteful, and we will make no demand whatever upon you." Is it to be wondered at if Ireland is sinking, when the great boon for which we are called on to be grateful is that which generously offers us a bounty upon improvidence and mismanagement, and imposes a fine upon economy and thrift? No union is to share your boon until it has qualified itself by extravagance of expenditure and mismanagement. I come now to the Consolidated Annuities Act, the 12 & 13 Vict., c. 14. This Act was passed to give the most uncontrolled and unlimited powers to the Treasury over the rateable property in Ireland. It was, in fact, a vote of confidence in the Treasury as regarded this matter. Under this Act, the late Treasury were able to do as they pleased. They were to decide,
604
without any appeal, what the liabilities of the different unions amounted to. The unions authorities had no voice whatever in determining their decision; the Treasury having made their decision as to the liabilities of the unions, were to convert them into long or short annuities at their pleasure. Great as their powers were under this act, they did not satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury Board, but their first act was to assume a power not given them by this Act, or any other. They were not authorised to delegate their powers to any other body, yet the first thing they did was to delegate them to the Poor Law Commissioners; and having done that, I contend that every subsequent act is perfectly illegal. As I have said before, however, Parliament placed full confidence—personal confidence—in the acts of the Treasury, which thus acquired its power; there was an appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opposing a Motion made by the hon. Member for Leitrim, to allow this extraordinary power to be exercised by the Treasury. The appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House was, that it "should not interfere with a discretion which had been exercised with so much moderation by the Treasury." His appeal was responded to by the House by a majority of 128 to 91. Confidence was thus voted by the House of Commons in the moderation of the Treasury; and I will show what that moderation was. The result of the united wisdom of the Treasury and the Poor Law Commissioners was, that an annuity of 245,000 l. was charged on a debt of 4,422,951 l. assumed to be due by the Poor Law Unions of Ireland—an amount of money, or anything like it, that I will undertake to show the House is not, and cannot, be considered due. Now what are the items of which this sum is made up? The first was not even borrowed by the Poor Law Guardians; it is an item of 1,222,707 l. advanced to Mr. Nicholls for building workhouses; but it should be borne in mind by the House that of this sum 47,268 l. was struck off on account of the shameful way in which the works were executed, on the report of a Government officer, Mr. Pennethorne, sent specially to inspect them. With the building of these houses, and the selection of the sites, some without water, some without sewerage, we had nothing to do; Mr. Nicholls was sent over to Ireland to examine into and report upon this subject; and the re-

605
suit of his recommendation was the extravagant expenditure included in this item. The House will recollect that the late Government chose to throw over altogether the able report of the Poor Inquiry Commissioners, and to adopt that of Mr. Nicholls, as their basis of legislation; and they avowed themselves responsible for its accuracy. Had they not done so, Parliament would never have sanctioned the measure, opposed as it was by Mr. O'Connell and a large majority of the Irish Members: as the Act passed solely on their responsibility, they should not be allowed to shrink from the consequences which attached to their conduct. Mr. Nicholls stated, as his calculation of the requirements of the country, that eighty workhouses would be sufficient for the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland; but in order that, by no possibility, there should be a deficiency of workhouse accommodation, he estimated for one hundred workhouses, each of which, reckoned at 7,000 l. each, would give a total cost of 700,000 l. He stated that the utmost that could be required for the accommodation of the poor of Ireland had been included in his calculation. He stated that by no possibility could more than 80 workhouses be required. We have now 163 workhouses. The sum of 312,000 l. a year, he said, would be the utmost that could be required for the support of these houses, provided they were full, but that from his experience of workhouse administration in England, he had no hesitation in saying he was fully justified in fixing the entire amount necessary for the maintenance of these houses at 208,000 l. Now the first workhouse in Ireland for the relief of the poor was opened in November, 1840, and if you take the sum of 312,000 l. a year—the largest sum that it was stated could be demanded in Ireland for the relief of the poor for eleven years—it will give you the sum of 3,432,000 l.; to which, adding 700,000 l.—Mr. Nicholls's estimate of the cost of erecting these workhouses—you have a total of 4,132,000 l. to be paid in Ireland for the support of the poor, from the opening of the first workhouse to the present day. If we had not paid that sum, I admit that we should not now be in a position to make out any case against the repayment of this money. But we have done more than that. Since that time we have actually paid 9,858,736 l., 5,000,000 l. more than Parliament pledged itself should be demanded of us at the
606
time the Bill was forced upon the majority of the Irish Members—5,000,000 l. more than we were assured we should be called upon to pay. The Irish Poor Law was declared by the noble Lord then at the head of the Government, and it was at the same time admitted by Parliament, to be but an experiment. It hag been, indeed, an experiment. It may have been an expensive one to you, but it has been a fatal one to us. However, I ask you only to be just, to adhere to your own bargain; and, if faith is to be kept with a body of men so despised as the representatives of Ireland, I ask you to rest contented with the case as it stands—with our having paid the sum you originally compelled us to become liable for, and 5,000,000 l. in addition. You have received the maximum amount which upon your own estimate and pledge we were to pay you, and you have received 5,000,000 l. more. Do not, then, call on us now for 1,200,000 l., which neither in honour nor in equity you can ask for. I object to the first item, not alone on account of the prostrate condition of the country from which you seek to exact it—under a law passed in direct violation of the articles of union between the two countries, but because Ireland has already repaid the amount, although she never was a party to the borrowing of any portion of it, nor received anything like fair value for it. The guardians of the Mallow Union, in a petition lately presented to the House, declare they have greater accommodation for 900 l. expended by themselves than for 6,000 l. laid out by Mr. Nicholls. The second item in the account is for the calls under the Temporary Relief Act, amounting to 782,228 l. To this sum I have no objection whatever to urge. It was, I believe, honestly and fairly appropriated, and effected the purposes for which it was intended. It afforded relief, kept the people alive, and was not imposed by the nominees of the Government. To the third item, for advances under the 1 & 2 Vict., c. 21, and 9 Vict., c. 9, 170, 228—to that sum I can have no objection when the works are completed, as they must be before the demand can be legally made, and then the money must be repaid by the proper parties. The baronies, and not the poor-law unions, are the parties liable. Let me call the attention of the House to the position in which these charges were. The Act under which they were contracted empowered the Board of

607
Works to execute certain works upon the presentment by a special sessions; and on their completion being certified, the grand jury to pay a moiety of the sum expended by a presentment on the barony in which they were executed. Under this Act the debts were owing when the works were completed. The Commissioners of Public Works then acquired a claim which they could legally enforce, and enforce against the locality. What was the boon conferred on Ireland in respect of this? These sums were sought to be levied, whether the works were completed or not; and the debt was fixed with interest, not on the barony which was originally liable, but upon a district totally different in extent and in circumstances. The debt was a debt of the barony when the works were completed. It was thrown upon the Poor Law Union, whether the works were completed or not. Not only was the money exacted without the terms of the contract being fulfilled, but it was exacted from persons who never contracted at all. It was an attempt to make A. pay the debts of B., and pay them when they could not either legally or equitably be enforced against B. When the special sessions presented a sum for any work, it was the duty of the Board of Works to ascertain whether the sum presented was sufficient to complete the work, and if an insufficient sum were presented, to decline the undertaking; but, accepting the presentment, the law bound them, as it binds all contractors, only to look for payment on condition of completing the work. I have no objection to the repayment of the Board of Works for performing that which, by law, they are required to perform; but I do object to the demand of the Treasury and the Poor Law Commissioners to pay for it before it is finished. Every one, I repeat, is aware that these are baronial debts—not poor-law debts—and should find their way into the half-yearly cess-accounts. Whatever Sir C. Trevelyan may think in this matter of account, the baronies and the poor-law unions are not the same. This is, in fact, as I have before said, an attempt to make A. pay the debt of B.; and though I do not object to the repayment of the money when it becomes due, I object, and fairly, to its being demanded of parties not liable to pay it, and before it is due. The amount claimed for labour-rate is set down at 2,046,784 l., giving credit for 258,000 l.
608
already repaid. Now, independently of the question—which is a very extensive one, and on which I should have a great deal to say were it essential to my present purpose—whether it is just that a national calamity, such as the Irish famine, should be met by other than national means—independently of that great question, I have very strong objections to admit that any rate, to the extent here claimed, has become due. A very considerable portion of this debt, according to the papers furnished by the Board of Works, remains quite unaccounted for. There is no statement from the Board of Works to show that anything like the money now charged upon us has been by them expended under the Acts. The result, as shown in two ways by returns before the House, is, that 460,000 persons were employed for six months at 10 d. a day each, which gives a sum of 2,300,000 l. Adding to this 205,000 l. for superintendents, and say 100,000 l. for implements, the total amount expended is only 2,605,000 l. The Board state that they have expended 4,462,000 l. But they have given a second statement to Parliament, which I have carefully gone through. In that return they state that the gross sum expended is 4,547,065 l, 1s. 8d., and that the number of persons employed was 356,314 for nine months. At 10 d. a day for that period, the cost of this labour amounts to 3,474,061 l. 10 s., whereas they state that they have expended upwards of 4,547,000 l. Here, then, is a difference totally unaccounted for of 1,000,073 l. 11 s. 8d. I have another statement of theirs to draw attention, to. They state the gross number of labourers employed for the period at 1,310,347, which, at the cost they return of 4,547,065 l. 1s. 1d., would give wages at the rate of 6s. 11½d. per head per diem. Great as this extravagance may have been, it is certain that no such wages as these were ever paid. How the money was really expended, I will proceed to tell the House; and I very much regret that more English Members should not be present at this moment, as I believe what I am about to say would make a strong impression on them. I will give a case not occurring in my own county, but in the county Limerick—and as to which I can assure the House that there is no mistake. At a sessions for that county, held at New castle, under the Labour Rate Act, the amount of work considered necessary by

609
the magistrates and cesspayers of the county was ascertained and fixed, but some time afterwards an advertisement appeared in the local papers, that the Lord Lieutenant had called an additional session. Lord Clare inquired of Lord Monteagle by whom this session had been asked for; to which Lord Monteagle replied, that he knew nothing whatever about it, but that he was going up to Dublin, and that he would make inquiries there on the subject. On his arrival in Dublin he inquired at the Castle how this after-session came to be called, and he was informed by the Secretary that it had been demanded by the officers of the Board of Works. The fact that the officers of the Board of Works had applied for this additional session proved to be correct. They had asked it on the ground that the money originally granted at the former session would not be sufficient; that the works would of necessity be discontinued for want of funds; and that it would be very undesirable to leave them in an unfinished state. Under these circumstances, they stated, they thought it desirable to ask for another session, in order to procure the further sum which they considered necessary for the completion of the works. This seemed so sensible and so satisfactory to the magistrates and cesspayers at Newcastle, that they supported every proposition that emanated from the Board of Works. They adopted the estimates submitted to them by the Board, and at once voted the money which they were informed was wanted to complete the works. They gave no other presentment whatever. They said simply, "We will give you whatever your estimates are, and we will rely on the works being finished." Now the House, after this statement of facts, will hear with astonishment that not one sixpence of this money ever was laid out by the officers of the Board of Works. Having got this presentment, they did not apply the money in the manner represented, but they debited the baronies with the entire amount, and applied the money to make up a deficiency in their own accounts. Could it be a matter of surprise that they objected to the repayment of money so scandalously misapplied? In 1822, to relieve the famine in ten counties out of thirty-two, or about a third of all Ireland, a sum of 600,000 l. expended under local management proved more than sufficient to keep the people from starving in the famine which at that time prevailed. In
610
1847 the famine extended to about two-thirds of the whole country, relief was given in 2,443 electoral divisions out of the 3,439 into which Ireland was divided. And I maintain that, with proper management under local control, notwithstanding the increased cost of food, 2,000,000 l. or 2,500,000 l. would have been amply sufficient to do all that was done in Ireland in; 1847. But Sir Charles Trevelyan shows, by his own figures, that 4,436,854 l., in addition, has been squandered in the attempt to prop up a tottering law—a law which, but for these grants, could not have been supported—and to make up the deficiency which the blunders of the Government had occasioned. It is no satisfaction to us, when Ireland has been ruined, to think that England has suffered. Had the liberality of Parliament and the benevolence of Englishmen not been marred by the self-sufficiency and maladministration of those whom Government, ignorant of the real wants and capabilities of the country, invested with the administration of the relief funds, Ireland would not present the sad return she now does, of ruined proprietors, roofless houses, and unoccupied lands. The next item is something similar. It is a debt of 300,000 l., contracted under 12 & 13 Vict., c. 14, to cover the money wanted by the Poor Law Board, in consequence of the rash and reckless extravagance of the Government officials. It will be recollected that the Poor Law Commissioners took it upon themselves to dismiss the boards of elected guardians, and to supply their places by paid nominees of their own. To show the effect of this substitution, in a moral view, it would suffice to refer the House to the petitions from Mohill, Carrick, and I might say from the majority of the unions in the South and West of Ireland. Even in a pecuniary way, as has been repeatedly shown in this House, it has been most detrimental to the Irish unions: there were returns that proved that an increase of debt had under their management taken place in the Listowel union of from 5,000 l. to 12,000 l., in the Kilrush union of from 2,000 l. to 12,000 l., and in the Ballina union of from 2,400 l. to 21,400 l. In common with the majority of Irish Members, I have always opposed this advance as a loan, and am still of opinion that the Irish unions are not fairly chargeable with money thus wasted. The next and the last item in this account is a charge of 3,000,000 l. for

611
interest, which I think ought to be charged upon the United Kingdom. During the debates on this subject, not a hint was thrown out about the payment of interest. We were reproved by the noble Lord at the head of the Government for not regarding the Bill as a boon to Ireland; one word in relation to interest never fell from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were blamed by the noble Lord for not appreciating the Bill as we ought. He said, "You think it is advantageous to Government, and not a boon to you." Now, how can that be a boon to us which converts a doubtful and ill-secured claim for 4,500,000 l., to be recovered, if possible, from three different bodies and at seven different periods of the year, into a substantial charge on all the property of Ireland for 7,000,000 l. sterling, and that charge to remain in force for forty years? But this we are nevertheless called upon to regard as a boon; a measure passed, not for our accommodation, but for the security of Government. It may be asked, How can you expect that any extension of time for the payment of a debt can be given to you, without your being called upon to pay interest? There might he grounds, Sir, for that argument, if that extension of time had been intended for our accommodation. But such is not the fact. The extension of time was given, as in the case of a bankrupt estate, for the payment of the instalments, and to secure the Government as much as possible. This demand for interest may have emanated from the greatest financier of the age; but it was also worthy of the greatest usurer of the day. Is that the spirit in which this measure should be brought before the House? In the language of Scripture, "What the palmerworm has left, the cankerworm must consume." Governments are proverbially grasping; but this quite goes beyond the ordinary range of the exercise of their power. I regret very much, Sir, that my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place to answer me on what ground of justice this demand is made; and it may seem wrong in me to speak thus, in his absence, of matters in which he is largely concerned; but I can assure the House, that were the right hon. Gentleman present, I should speak in still stronger terms. Now, it has been very much the habit of hon. Members to speak of the heavy advances that have been made to Ireland; but when they hear of
612
the treatment we have experienced in respect of them—when they hear of thousands after thousands having been wasted in spite of us—I think at least they should: be ready to admit that there ought to be an inquiry into the whole question. Let a fair inquiry be made, and a fair statement given of the money we really owe, and it shall be cheerfully and punctually paid, I ask the House to remember, by the returns laid before it, that from the time of the Exchequers of the two countries being consolidated, down to the year 1828, the advances from the Consolidated Fund to England and Scotland amounted to 16,000,000 l., out of which 6,000,000 l. had been repaid; while, in the same period, only 9,000,000 l. had been advanced to Ireland, out of which 7,000,000 l. had been repaid. I ask the House to remember the statement made by the noble Lord the Member for London, when he admitted that, during the last fourteen years, we have repaid 6,065,079 l., besides 385,295 l. out of 431,990 for the rate-in-aid—which was forced upon us against our unanimous opinion—and besides this, also, that out of the 313,000 l. advanced to the Shannon Commissioners, we have repaid, as I can state, 269,000 l. Why, the noble Lord says, that out of the total sum assessed, 94 per cent has been repaid by us, that 4 per cent more was in progress of levying, being included in the rate-in-aid, and that but 2 per cent of these advances could be considered even as doubtful. More than this, during the five years that have elapsed since the famine, we have paid for poor-rates the sum of 7,414,434 l., independently of repayments to Government; and how, in the face of returns like those, eon any one get up and say there is an evident disposition on the part of the Irish people to evade the fair fulfilment of the engagements they have come under? Now it is said that, on account of the income tax and assessed taxes, Ireland is not taxed to any thing like the extent of Great Britain, in proportion to her capital. On that subject the House will probably recollect the protest of the 18th of May, 1849, entered into by one of the most able as well as the most scientific men in Europe—I mean Lord Rosse—against the rate-in-aid; because, from his examination of the question, it seemed to him that we paid a much larger percentage on our capital, in the shape of taxation, than we should do. Lord Rosse's protest sets forth this as one of the grounds

613
of protesting. He says: "Because, from the best sources of information at present available, it appears that Ireland pays a larger percentage on her income to the Imperial Exchequer than Great Britain, while she sustains a heavier amount of local taxation." Lord Rosse's assertions are easily made out. The gross income of Great Britain is 250,000,000 l., and that of Ireland 20,000,000 l. Now, taking the revenue at 52,000,000 l., the proportion for Ireland will be 4,160,000 l., and 47,000,000 l. for England. Yet Ireland contributed upwards of 5,000,000 l. Again, as to local taxation, Great Britain pays 12,000,000 l. on property valued at 105,000,000 l.; whereas Ireland, according to the statement made by Mr. Griffith before the House, paid 3,270,853 l. on property amounting only to 9,898,566 l., being a rate, for local taxation, of 6s. 8d. in the pound; whereas, on the above estimate, the local rate for England is only 2s. 3½d. From the returns laid before the House in 1851, I find that of certain rates, such as the poor's rate, the county rate, and the highway rate, the poor's rate for England amounted to 5,000,000 l., the county rate to 800,000 l., and the highway rate to 1,000,000 l.; being a total, in 1851, for those rates, of 6,800,000 l., on a valuation of 68,000,000 l., or an average of 2s. in the pound. Now, in the same period, in Ireland, the poor's rate amounted to 1,200,000 l., and the county cess to 1,100,0000 l.; giving a total of 2,300,000 l. on a valuation of 11,500,000 l., or an average of 4s. in the pound; exactly double the corresponding amount for England. In a pamphlet attributed to the late Under Secretary of the Home Department, an authority not likely to favour Ireland, it was stated, "The valuation of property, rateable for the poor in Ireland, has undergone a considerable change during the famine. In 1847, it amounted to 13,187,421 l.; in 1851, it was 11,580,518 l." Supposing the net annual value to remain stationary, the future local taxation of the country, apart from municipal taxes, parish cess, tolls, port dues, and light dues, may be estimated at 3s. 6d. in the pound (that of England being at 2s. in the pound) on the average. These words, "on the average," imply a much greater financial strain upon the local resources of a part of Ireland than appears upon the face of the preceding statement. There are considerable tracts in Connaught and Munster, where the poundage of 3s. 6d., estimated as the
614
average for Ireland, must be multiplied by two or three, in order to satisfy the general purposes of poor-rate and county cess expenditure; and there are electoral divisions in which 20 s. in the pound will not satisfy the demands for poor-rate alone. In some electoral divisions in the county I have the honour of representing, there are rates of 11 s. and 12 s. in the pound in progress of levy. My hon. and gallant Friend the late Member for Scarborough assured me, not long since, that his property in the county of Roscommon has, in the last year, paid 16 s. 6d. in the pound for poor-rates alone. The effects of the famine ought to be considered, and I hope will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). It must be considered that we have passed through a period of unexampled distress—that we have lost from the potato failure in 1847 no less than 60,000,000 l., besides paying 21,000,000 l. for the food we had to import; that, notwithstanding these demands, we have paid 7,473,434 l. in poor-rates, since the famine; and that our imports and manufactures have fallen from ten millions almost to four millions. I ask the House to consider these circumstances, and then to say whether it thinks that Ireland can be able to bear the imposition of such a tax as this, which is to be continued in force for a period of forty years. One-fourth of her population has fled from her shores within the last few years; and if this be persevered in, the diminution of her population must be more rapid than it yet has been. Let it be remembered that the germ of England's weakness is Ireland, and that the more she is suffered to sink in the social scale, the greater must the danger become. Recollect, also, that pressing all these demands upon Ireland is the very worst policy. Raise Ireland to your own level, and you will receive a larger sum in excise and customs duties when she is flourishing, than you will by exacting this miserable claim. I have endeavoured, Sir, to go over the items of this Treasury account, and to show that the demand which is made upon us is a demand which you cannot enforce, consistently with equity, and your own assurance given us when this law was passed. I have endeavoured to show that, of the six items of which the account is made up, there are but two that can, with even a shadow of justice, be urged. I ask you, then, to consider this subject. I say again that I have no desire to press Her Majesty's Government unduly

615
on this point; but remember that it is subject of inquiry before a Committee of the other House, and I think I do not ask too much when I ask you to suspend the levy until your demand has been fully decided upon by the report of the Committee. Let us be called upon to pay whatever sum is advised by the Committee, and we will do so with cheerfulness and punctuality. I have the utmost confidence in the Committee; but I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this question, and I implore them to do so fairly and generously. I trust that in that they will prove that their kindness to us, so long as they were on this side of the House, was well-intended and sincere. Let them claim from us whatever is justly due, and, having received it, let them devote it to the development of the resources of Ireland—to her railways, her commerce, and the employment of her labourers. By adopting principles such as these, I can assure Her Majesty's Government they will find the Irish people disposed cheerfully to discharge their obligations, and they will show to the world that they themselves have not shrunk, in office, from carrying out the propositions they advocated when in opposition. Sir, my object in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill has not been to throw any factious obstacle in the way of Her Majesty's Government, but more for the purpose of calling attention to the unfairness of the charges of which those items have been made up by the late Government; and under these circumstances, I am disposed to take any line that might be thought advantageous by the House. I beg, Sir, to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Mr. GRATTANsaid, there was not the slightest doubt that Ireland had been plundered, and all they wished to know now was what had become of the money. From 1847 to 1852 they had been plundered under the care—under the special providence—of the late Government, who had always professed to have so much at heart the interest of Ireland. Where was the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), where were the Manchester Members, who had supported this bad policy, and now shrunk from its exposure? Where was the hon.
616
and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey), who was so ready to meet his Constituents—so ready to resign when required—so certain of reelection—so zealous, for the welfare of his country? and what, he wished to know, had been the result of their measures? The poor had not been preserved in life, nor kept at home. He held in his hand a statement giving a sad account of the state of things in the workhouses, showing that the morality of the people had not increased, while 117,000 farm-houses had been destroyed; and all this was while the country was enjoying the blessing of the Poor Law. Not only had the Poor Law failed, but the mischief was increasing; for the expenditure in 1849, when there was no famine, was actually quadruple to what it was in 1847, when there was a famine. To show the extravagant manner in which the Poor Law administration was conducted in Ireland, he would refer to a single instance. The case of Youghal was this: a sum of money was to be granted to build a workhouse in that town, and a Treasury Minute was issued for an advance of 9,000 l. to build, a house of that description, capable of containing 900 persons. The money was paid to the Poor Law Commissioners in October, 1851, and they, by a sealed order dated the 16th of September, 1851, declared that the repayment of the first instalment of the money was due on the 23rd of September in the same year: this before the money was advanced! Would the House believe that not a single stone of the intended workhouse was yet quarried? The people of Youghal had made contributions toward the erection of that building, yet, notwithstanding that, it appeared from a document he held in his hand from a very talented person, (Mr. Fisher) of Youghal, that the stones, with which it was to be built still remained in the ground. What was the fate of the individuals resident in those workhouses in Ireland? He asserted that, since the establishment of those institutions, there had been more deaths in Ireland than had been known at any particular period of her history. Between the years 184 and 1850 no fewer than 227,000 deaths had occurred in the poorhouses in Ireland that was to say, in those four years more than 1,000 individuals a week had died in those houses. For his part He wished that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Col. Dunne) who had been recently appointed Clerk of the Ord-

617
nance, would send some pieces of his artillery over to Ireland, and blow every workhouse in the country to the ground. It was said that the potatoes in Ireland were dying, and that so were the people; and those words had been unfortunately followed up by facts which bore them out. But how they were to get out of this difficulty was not easy to say. There was only one hope for them, and that was a confession on the part of the late Government that the calculations as to the value of the property rated to the relief of the poor in Ireland were erroneous. He acquitted the present right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), of any share in that miscalculation; but what he (Mr. Grattan) said was, that the Government, whether Whig or Tory, who had managed the country for a great number of years had done as much mischief in Ireland as they possibly could. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) had alluded to 1822. He (Mr. Grattan) would remind the House that in that year 60,000 l. was sent from England for the relief of the starving poor in Ireland, and that a large surplus unappropriated in that way was afterward advanced in small loans to the fishermen on the west coast of Ireland. Let the House Contrast that circumstance with the present state of things. The people of Ireland were actually called on to pay interest at the rate of 7l. per cent on the loans which had been made to them in late years. He, therefore, asked the House to pause in that career of extravagance, to get rid of the workhouse system, and the whole staff by which it was carried on. They were demoralising the whole country, destroying the virtue of the women, and paralysing the industry of the men. The devastation that had been already committed was fearful to contemplate. He felt, if he were to proceed further in the discussion of this painful subject, that he should only disgust the House, and he would therefore content himself with repeating the hope he had already expressed that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Col. Dunne) would do his best, in his official capacity of Clerk to the Ordnance, to get rid of the workhouses, so detrimental to the morality and industry of the people of Ireland.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, what he was anxious for, was not to get rid of the Poor Law, but to see it work well. It was intend-
618
ed by this Bill to legalise the Treasury Minute issued in October last. That Minute was stated to have been issued on a full consideration of all the circumstances connected with the Unions in Ireland; and it directed the treasurer of any Union, instead of paying the annuity as the law required, to retain in his hand any sum which he might have received from any electoral division in which the expenditure for the relief of the poor in the year ending September, 1851, had amounted to 4s. in the pound on the valuation then in force, and not to pay over the annuity due from such electoral division for the current year; and when the annuity for the current year, added to such expenditure, amounted for any electoral division to a sum exceeding 4s. in the pound on such valuation, to pay over such sum only in respect of the annuity as, together with the charge for the relief of the poor in the past year would amount to 4s. in the pound, and to retain the remainder in his hands. He might observe, in passing, that, inasmuch as each Union was liable to County Cess, which was on the average 2s. in the pound, the Treasury Minute contemplated at least 6s. in the pound for local taxation. Now, in England the average amount of local taxation was not quite 2s. 6d. in the pound, including poor relief and highway rate. But he quite admitted that if it was practicable to carry on the administration of the relief of the poor in Ireland with a payment equal to 4s. in the pound, they were bound to pay that sum. He did not wish in the slightest degree to repudiate any engagement they had entered into; but he maintained that the Treasury had always kept the House and the country in the dark as to the real state of the case in Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House that during the famine the cause of the failure of the labour rate was not so much the indiscriminate manner in which applicants were admitted by the relief committees, as the attempt made by the Treasury to pay more than the ordinary wages to the people engaged in the works: wages such as were never heard of in that country were paid to the people engaged in those works. The whole reasoning employed in Sir Charles Trevelyan's Report assumed, not only that it had been attempted in Ireland to get rid of those debts, but that the arrangement made by the Treasury to remit the payment of those debts in certain cases was a fair and equitable one. It was well known that the province of Connaught was the most

619
distressed in Ireland. The arrangements with respect to that province will be a fair illustration of the working of the Treasury Minute. A Return made to that House at the commencement of the present Sesssion showed that the expenditure during the last year in Connaught amounted to the very large sum of 197,000 l. But the amount collected during the same period was only 150,700 l., thus leaving a deficiency of 46,300 l, Notwithstanding this deficiency the Treasury had required the payment of 27,200 l. for these annuities, thus making a gross deficiency of 73,500 l. Yet it would be imagined by any one reading the Minute detailing the arrangements made, that an abatement had been made in every case deserving it. The way this arose was, that the Treasury had required payment of the annuity from every electoral division where the expenditure did not amount to 4s. in the pound rated. Thus the solvent divisions were made to pay, and the insolvents were excused; but as the solvent and insolvent were in the same Union, this money from the solvent divisions would have gone to meet the expenses created by the insolvent, for the House was aware that as a rate was collected it was paid into the hands of the treasurer, and at once became available to meet the general expenses of the Union from whatever electoral division arising, so that however much a division was in debt to the general fund, that fund was available for its expenses. It frequently happened that divisions were very much in debt, the collection being deficient, and the rates being also sometimes insufficient to meet the expenses; but so long as other divisions were in credit, the sum so available was expended for all. Thus, in this most distressed province, where they had not yet succeeded in making the collection equal to the expenditure, an existing deficiency had been materially increased. He felt persuaded that if Members generally understood the real state of the case, as he had endeavoured to explain it, they would agree with him that the Treasury were misleading the country, and that nothing could tend more to prevent these Unions from becoming self-supporting than the course they were pursuing.
MR. MOOREsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) had introduced this Motion for no other object than to make a speech upon it. He thought it would be well for
620
the Government to explain somewhat further their intentions towards Ireland. The most melancholy attempt at legislation of the late Administration was to be found in their measures relating to Ireland, and certainly the least respectable proceeding of the present Administration had been when, on a question relating to an Irish charity, their own Attorney General for Ireland had been obliged to Vote against them. He (Mr. Moore) certainly had expected something different from this Bill from the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches. It acknowledged a principle which had been condemned by their own supporters, the gentry, the country party in Ireland. He recollected, too, that not very long ago the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his views regarding the burdens on land, and had then given his opinion that those taxes ought to be entirely defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly said that the greater part ought so to be defrayed, and he (Mr. Moore) hoped, now that he was in office, he would act up to his principles. He also saw that the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had stated his intention in another place of bringing in some measure for the relief of the impoverished agricultural classes; and he (Mr. Moore) thought those measures ought not to be deferred. And if the principle was of any value that the relief of the poor, which was a fluctuating and variable charge, ought to be a general one, surely so much the more ought the calamitous consequences of a disaster which defied all investigation, and uprooted all society, be endured by the community at large. It had been urged in favour of local taxation that local supervision was necessary in order to moderate the inroads of pauperism, which a centralising policy would be likely to increase; but wag not the present system founded almost exclusively on the centralisation principle? The local Poor Law Boards were altogether controlled by a central body. In conclusion, he begged to disclaim any intention of passing a censure on Her Majesty's Government; but he hoped they would investigate this important question, and act up to the promises which they had made.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I wish to recall the attention of the House to the real question before

621
us. The Bill before us is really a Bill of Indemnity, and the facts are these. The late Government, with, under the circumstances, a wise discretion, performed certain acts which the law did not justify. They embodied in a Treasury Minute measures which they deemed necessary in a period of exigency; and it should be recollected that all the propositions on that Minute, though they may not have been so comprehensive as may have been desired, or so extensive as some persons may have hoped, were all propositions of a remedial and mitigatory nature. Whatever may be the differences of opinion on the great question which 1ms been touched upon in the course of this debate—namely, the relations that should exist between England and Ireland with reference to claims made under remarkable, and I may say unprecedented, circumstances, which will be fresh in the recollection of all present—there can be but one sentiment as to the character of the measures with which the Bill under discussion is connected. They were remedial measures—they were measures devised to soften, and to relieve; and, therefore, I could not have imagined that a Bill like this would have met with any opposition in this House, and least of all could I have conceived that an Amendment to read this Bill a second time this day six months, would have come from an Irish Member, and a Member for an Irish county. We can lay no claim to any credit in connexion with this Bill, save the humble credit of not shrinking from doing justice to those who have preceded us. The Bill was prepared by the late Government; it was submitted to my consideration when I first entered office by my predecessor; and it appeared to me that it was more than a just, that it was an equitable and a kind, Bill. It did not appear to me that in sanctioning it, I gave any opinion upon the large question of the state of Ireland with respect to public grants, It simply appeared to me, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances of the Session, and notwithstanding the anxiety which we felt not to crowd the paper with numerous Bills, but merely to carry out the measures which were absolutely necessary, that this was an absolutely necessary measure, and that it might be passed without opposition, and even with cordial feelings on the part of Irish Members. Indeed it is unnecessary for me to vindicate this measure. I have not heard as yet a murmur against it.
622
It is not pretended that this is a Bill to add to the taxation of Ireland. The relief which it secures may be less extensive than is desired, but it is a measure of relief, and it stands on its own merits. Those who support it are in no way pledged not to consider the larger question, and it is therefore quite needless for me to vindicate a law, not a portion of which has been challenged, questioned, or criticised. Some hon. Gentlemen have intimated that they would have preferred that the whole question should have been considered through the medium of some larger proposition. All I can answer is that this is a proposition founded upon an examination of the facts, and is a direct remedy to a certain extent for a peculiar and overpowering grievance. Those who support it are not stopped from bringing forward their general views on the subject; but I cannot understand how any one can desire that the passing of this Bill should be postponed, as suggested by the hon. Member for Roscommon. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) has made an appeal to me, couched in very ornate and courteous language, which I cannot comply with, because I cannot see that it bears any reference to the question before us. It is enough for me to say that I shall always be ready to uphold generally those opinions with respect to taxation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Such principles as I have laid down I trust I shall always assert, being convinced of their justice, and feeling convinced that if applied in a spirit of justice they would conduce to the advantage of the community. Undoubtedly, in the consideration of a question of that kind Ireland is not to be omitted. I have never considered the question of local taxation and omitted Ireland. On the contrary, I have always kept Ireland under such circumstances before the House, and I have shown how Ireland has suffered from an inequitable system of local taxation. With regard to the general condition of Ireland—as to the distress under which she labours; as to those burdensome engagements incurred in consequence of an unprecedented combination of circumstances, from which she has not yet successfully emerged—I have no hesitation in saying that there is, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, a sincere desire to review the state of Ireland in a comprehensive manner, with the hope of supplying some effective remedies to those social grievances of which there has been such

623
loud complaint. But I must tell the hon. Member for Mayo that that is a task which is not to be undertaken in a hurried manner, and it certainly cannot be done in a Session in which on every occasion Her Majesty's Government, like other Governments, are exposed to being "worried." In serener hours we may he able to survey the circumstances like statesmen, and to see the different bearings of all these various questions one upon the other; and with such opportunity, I should certainly feel it to be the duty of the present Government—and I should certainly exact it from any Government, as one of paramount urgency—to consider the social grievances of Ireland, with the object of applying adequate remedies. It was no idle boast of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier), on Wednesday, when he said that we were prepared to deal with the long-vexed question of landlord and tenant. That is a subject which had engaged my hon. and learned Friend's attention long before the formation of the present Government, and, undoubtedly, there is much anxiety to settle that great controversy. But that also is a question unconnected with the present one. It is an easy thing to come forward to this table and to propose Votes of money to necessitous proprietors. That, however, is not to my mind the manner in which we should deal with the burdens on land. We must view that question under its various aspects. We must endeavour to penetrate the deepest recesses of the question, and to grapple with all its most complicated relations. It is quite useless to attempt to relieve the proprietor or even the occupier in Ireland either from the burden of an imperial loan or from the weight of local taxation, unless, at the same time, the tenure of that land is placed in a more rational and satisfactory state—unless all those questions which arise from the tenure of land are, at the same time, put in a position which may offer some chance of a more satisfactory state than that which for many years has been experienced in that country. It is with those feelings the Government are anxious to deal with what is called the "Irish question;" and when we have the opportunity of viewing that question in all its various aspects, and in all its relations, we: tare prepared to consider the whole question of the local taxation of that country, and of the particular burdens under which society now labours. We shall do it with an earnest desire to do
624
what we can to alleviate the condition of that country, and to remove the real sources of social grievances. This, however, has nothing to do with the Bill now before the House. For that Bill we are responsible only officially. It is a Bill of Indemnity for measures undertaken fertile relief of a class which is less grateful than might have been anticipated; and under these circumstances I hope hon. Members from Ireland will perceive that this is not the happiest opportunity for a discussion of the character which has prevailed during a large portion of the debate.
MR. MONSELLthought that the Government should make some specific statement as to whether they intended to proceed further in carrying out the principle of the Bill. That principle, he thought, would he most injurious in its effects. For what would be the result? Those Boards of Guardians who had previously exerted themselves to keep the rates below 4s. in the pound, when they saw no remission was made to them, would become careless. They would soon have the rates above that limit, since this Bill almost gave them an actual encouragement to it. Self-reliance had always been preached up as the great panacea for Ireland; but the principle of this measure would strike at the very root of self-reliance. He thought, therefore, that either the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer or the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland should give them some assurance that the Government only intended this Bill as a temporary expedient, and that they would not proceed further on the same principle. He would now say a few words to show of what vital importance the whole question was to Ireland. The yearly value of the land there was 11,500,000 l., whilst the amount of the annuities, which was a local taxation, was 4,500,000 l. Now let hon. Gentlemen fancy an impost of 40,000,000 l. on the 103,000,000 l. rental of England, and then they would have some idea of the comparative nature of the burden on Ireland, The weight of the recent calamity had principally fallen upon Munster and Connaught, the two most distressed provinces, and on the most distressed districts of those provinces. The county of Clare he might instance in particular, where the amount of those loans, was three times that of the valuation, of the whole county—that was, 60 s. in the pound. And all this debt, he might further add, was contracted in the amazingly short period of five months. He again called

625
on the noble Lord the Chief Secretary to give some more decided explanation of the future policy of Government in this matter.
MR. ROCHEwould have suffered the Bill to pass without his opposition, had it not been for the observations of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he still recollected the speech of the right hon. Gentleman about burdens on land last Session, and not considering the present explanation satisfactory—it was as unsatisfactory, indeed, as all the other explanations of Her Majesty's Government, especially about land—he, too, would call on the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make the matter clearer. Or perhaps his hon. and gallant Friend (Col. Dunne) would volunteer, who, even while supporting the Whigs, had always been most energetic in denouncing their measures for imposing local taxation.
SIR HENRY BARRONheard with great satisfaction the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche). That hon. Gentleman had always been a steadfast, an abject, supporter of the Irish policy of the late Government.
MR. ROCHErose to order. It had been said that he had been an abject supporter of the late Government. Now, so far from being a abject supporter of theirs, he had not even been a consistent one.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cork has already spoken, and is quite out of order in now addressing the House.
SIR HENRY BARRON: The hon. Gentleman had said he was not an abject supporter of Whig policy towards Ireland, but at all events he (Sir H. Barron) asserted he was a steadfast one. Now he, on the contrary, would be a steadfast opponent of Whig policy in Ireland, and that was the reason for not moving over with the Whigs to the opposite side of the House, as he considered that would be a tacit identification of their policy and the whole course of his career. In the whole course of his reading he had never met nor read of anything so completely ruinous as the policy of the Whigs towards Ireland. He did not want to state that to Her Majesty's late Government in a roundabout way, for they deserved to hear it emphatically. Again he told them that they had ruined Ireland, for their only remedy for all her calamities was the same for ever, and that was taxation!—taxation!—taxation! When the late Government came into power, the local taxation of Ireland was 316,000 l., and this year it amounted to 1,100 000 l. They had brought in alterations in the Poor Law by which the taxa-
626
tion of the country had been quadrupled; they had brought in a Rate in Aid for the comfort of a people ground to the dust, and on a people just rescued from famine they had inflicted new taxes. This they had done, knowing well that the resources of a country purely agricultural as Ireland was had been seriously diminished by the change in our commercial policy in the year 1846, a change by which 300,000 farmers in Ireland were driven off the face of the land. This they had done knowing that the population of the country was reduced by 2,000,000, and that at the present time 1,000 persons were weekly emigrating from the land of their fathers. Such was the state to which Ireland had been reduced by recent legislation; and yet the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roche) called on a Government scarcely in their seats to bring forward remedial measures for his distressed country. Did the hon. Gentleman who preferred this request forget that he and his friends were forcing—nay, irritating—the Government, on every possible occasion, to name the very day on which they would dissolve Parliament? and in the face of all this call on the Government for remedial measures for Ireland, the discussion on which would occupy not months but years. True to his principles, and true to his policy, the hon. Gentleman asked those in power to do that at once which his friends when in power had never even attempted. He believed the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) never intended to divide the House on this question. He thought, however, the, opportunity was a fair one for giving expression to the sentiments of the Irish people on this subject. They were entered on the books as debtors to the Imperial Exchequer to the amount of 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l. Now, the Irish people did not deny that the money had been advanced, but they said that the circumstances under which it had been advanced were not such as to have brought in the Irish people as debtors to the Exchequer of the Empire, but were such as to call for grants from the Exchequer to meet the disasters as far as practicable. It had been variously stated, by competent authorities, that the failure of the potato crop had entailed on Ireland a loss of from thirty to fifty millions sterling. He held in his hand official returns which proved that since the introduction of free trade, during the last five years, there had been a loss in the other produce of the country—in wheat, oats, swine, lard, and bacon—of 5,000,000 l. annually, amounting in all to 35,000,000 l.

627
besides the loss of the potato crop; and in addition to this, the Irish people had, during the last five years, imported food to the amount of 4,000,000 l. annually. Now, under such a system it was utterly impossible that the country could prosper. Thus you find the production diminished by 65,000,000 l., and food imported to the amount of 20,000,000 l. This in a country purely agricultural must lead to ruin. Did America, a shrewd calculating people, act in this manner to her agriculturists? and their neighbour, France, afforded to a certain extent protection to her manufactures. He would not deny that the repeal of the corn laws had conferred a great advantage on the manufacturing population of this country; but Ireland had no manufactures to sustain her. When famine impended over the people, that House had unanimously consented to open our ports for the admission of foreign corn, and also to the temporary abolition of the Navigation Laws. No one could resist such propositions to meet such a state of things. He supported their views, and would do so again under similar circumstances. He wished now to state distinctly to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the issue between the people of Ireland and the late Government. They maintained, first, that such charges as the Consolidated Annuities should never have fallen Solely on Ireland; and, secondly, that accordingly as they raised the taxation of the country, they had diminished her means of supply. An able Member of the late Government, in a pamphlet called Taxation, Finances, and Trade, had claimed for the Government a triumph because they had effected a reduction in the poor-rate of Ireland from 2,150,000 l. to 1,100,000 l.; but the hon. Gentleman compared the reduced taxation, not with the year 1845, before the late Government took office, when the poor-rate was only 316,000 l., but with the highest rate of the tax during the raging of the famine—a comparison which gave a very fallacious conclusion, and was not just. He Contended that one-fourth at least ought to be deducted from the present valuation in Ireland. Land that in 1844 sold for twenty-four years' purchase, was now selling at not more than fourteen years' purchase. Last year they had introduced a measure—the Medical Charities Relief—by which the taxation of the country was increased 100,000 l. per annum; and the hon. Gentleman, in his pamphlet, had also committed an error in
628
treating of this question, for he stated that the measure was merely a transfer from the County Cess to the Poor Law Cess. The fact, however, was, that only one-half of the County Cess had fallen on the ratepayers, the other half being voluntarily subscribed by those who could afford it, but now the whole tax fell on the ratepayers. He would affirm that instead of the valuation of Ireland being as Mr. Griffiths stated it to be, 11,500,000 l., it was more like 8,500,000 l. Hon. Gentlemen should recollect there was this difference between the English and the Irish farmer. The former when rated at 100 l. per annum, had 800 l. or 1,000 l. of capital, which enabled him to improve his farm, to meet the rate; but the latter, rated at the same amount, had seldom more than 200 l. for the same purpose. It was, therefore, a false criterion to go by, that a man in Ireland could pay the same rate on the same amount of rating as a man in England could. They were taunted with not having capital in Ireland. Who, he would ask, would invest capital in a farm where the taxes for local purposes were in some districts 5s. or 6s., and in others as high as 20 s. in the pound? By crossing the Atlantic, a man could get land for much less than the bare taxation upon it in Ireland. He implored the House to think on this subject, and he would implore the Government to think on it also. He, for one, would support no Government on account of their professions; and he would oppose those now in power as consistently as he had opposed their predecessors, if he found they did not legislate for the benefit of Ireland.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYbegged to remind the House that the sole matter before it upon the present occasion was—whether it would adopt a Bill introduced by the late Government, the simple effect of which would be to remit a small portion of those poor-rate annuities which had already been imposed upon the different unions in Ireland by an Act passed in a former Session. By that former Act certain Government advances, amounting to near 4,500,000 l., had been consolidated, and the repayment extended over periods varying from ten to forty years. The entire debt, with compound interest at 3½ per cent amounted to about 7,500,000 l., which sum was charged upon Ireland under the former Act. In respect of that sum the annuity imposed for the past year, 1851, was 245,000 l.; out of which single annuity it was merely proposed by

629
the present Bill to remit so much of it as was charged upon those electoral divisions whose poor-rate expenditure for that single year exceeded 4s. in the pound. It appeared from the Treasury report, dated March 27, 1852, prepared by Sir C. Trevelyan, for the purpose of justifying and sustaining these Consolidated Annuities, that the full sum proposed to be remitted by the present Bill was just 75,858 l., being about 1 per cent upon the entire charge of 7,500,000 l., or 2½d. in the pound. Now, the only matter for consideration was, whether that small remittance of 1 per cent should be accepted at present, leaving the remaining ninety-nine parts open for future discussion. He, for one, upon the instalment principle, would not object to accept this 2½d. dividend in the pound, from the exuberant generosity of the late Government; and, relying upon the professions held out by the present Government of their benevolent intentions towards Ireland, as well as upon the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the acceptance of the proposed remittance should not in any manner preclude the Irish ratepayers from desiring such further relief as it could be shown they were justly entitled to, when the proper time should arrive for discussing the whole of these consolidated charges. They would hereafter be in a better position to consider the extent to Which the Irish ratepayers were fairly entitled to be relieved from a further portion of these annuities—not as repudiating any just debts, but as charges to which they should not have been made liable.
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, a notorious fiction existed, which, if it were possible to realise, would involve the public at large in interminable confusion—the fiction being that a stranger sometimes found his way into the House, and that in Consequence their proceedings became matters of public notoriety; and on the present occasion he had listened to speeches from those he regretted to call his countrymen, which, in his opinion, would subject them in the minds of an honest Englishman, or an honest Scotchman, to the imputation of being either rogues or fools. Now, that was a kind of confusion he was most anxious to avoid, and therefore he disclaimed all identification with either of these classes. He severed himself from those who got up in the House and said they were not grateful for the relief which had been held forth to their country, and also from those who would not recognise
630
as a boon the remission of those claims by which that relief was afforded. He was grateful to the givers of that relief—he was grateful to those who were desirous of remitting the burdens which were imposed on his distressed country; and he would say, expressing at the same time his regret that he was obliged to sever himself from those men who were not consistent to any principles, or to any form of government. When he first entered that House, he had taken a certain stand; he had attached himself to those who, when called on, had generously administered to the wants of his country, and had rendered them responsible for the relief they had afforded her. He had supported the late Government, and that he would, without fear of those now in power, continue to do. At the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer realised the pledges which he had held out, of realising the benefits to Ireland which had been promised by the other party, but which had not been realised, probably because they were impeded by the party which was now in power, he could assure them that the gratitude of Irishmen would not be wanting. He called upon the House then to return to what was the real question, which was simply this—were they to support a measure which offered a boon, however partial, to Ireland; or were they to join in a cabal that endeavoured to defeat it? He, for one, said no; and he called upon his countrymen now in the House to sustain the Government in passing this Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed surprised that a Bill which was so very simple in its object should have led to so much discussion; but if he had had a larger official experience, he would have found that this was usually the case with Bills relating to Ireland, more especially when it was proposed to remit a portion of taxation. The present Bill had this very simple object—that whereas the sum of 245,000 l. for the year was due according to the Act in reference to Consolidated Annuities, the late Government, in October last, finding many of the Unions greatly distressed, proposed to remit 75,000 l., of which 48,000 l. was from Munster, 24,000 l. from Connaught, and 3,000 l. from Leinster. The money advanced according to that Treasury Minute had not been paid into the Exchequer, and the present Government had thought fit to confirm the arrangement, and pro-

631
posed to sanction it by Act of Parliament. He did not see that there could be any question with respect to that proposal. The late Government might be blamed for making the remission, but he did not think the House could hesitate to assent to that remission. A question, and he thought a very natural and very proper one, had been asked by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), though, perhaps, it would not be wise in the Government to answer it—namely, whether the principle of the Treasury Minute last year was to be carried out further? Now, he was not prepared to defend the principle of that Minute; it was one, indeed, that could not be defended as a regular and permanent principle. But with regard to the whole State of Ireland, he thought any Government would find that they must depart from time to time from regular principles of economy, and that they must also from time to time apply remedies which might be useful at the moment, even though they were not in accordance with the ordinary rules upon this subject. Now, the present Government must, of course, exercise their own discretion in considering whether it would be mischievous to act again on the same principle, and whether, if they proposed to extend relief further, they might not do it in some other shape, and in such a manner as not to encourage improvidence on the part of the Unions. So far Government would do well to consider; and he should not blame them for departing from the principle of the last Treasury Minute, and adopting seme other. With regard to the several questions which had been raised to-night, he did not mean to enter into them, except to protest against the injustice shown by the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford (Sir H. Barron) with regard to this subject. The hon. Baronet said, that in the time of Ireland's great calamity no remedy was applied but that of taxation. The case was really very different, for of the relief afforded to Ireland, 3,500,000 l. was thrown upon the taxation of the United Kingdom, so that the taxation was paid by Great Britain, and not by Ireland. Besides this, other measures had been adopted. Loans had been granted, assistance to railways had been given, and other steps had been taken by which that House had attempted in some degree to meet the great calamity under which Ireland was suffering. When, too, they complained of the state in which Ireland had been placed by the calamity of 1846 and 1847, let hon.
632
Gentlemen who represented that country always remember the state to which Ireland was reduced by the previous condition of society there. We all knew with regard to England and Scotland that there was in those countries, in the first instance, a regular system on the part of the landlord of making permanent improvements for the benefit of his land and of his tenantry. We also knew that the only food of the people in these countries was corn. Now, there was a total change of circumstances as regarded Ireland. In the first place, it was not usual for the landlord there to make a permanent improvement in his land. In the second place, there was in 1837 no system for the relief of the poor. Lastly, and most important of all the food of the people of Ireland was principally potatoes; and those who had thought most on the subject had little doubt how dangerous the state of the country was with so great a part of her population depending upon a crop below which and beyond which there was nothing; so that any failure in it must subject the people to great distress, accompanied by all the horrors of impending famine. The condition of Ireland did not, therefore, arise from a single calamity; and therefore, admitting after charge against the Government, there were; in these circumstances difficulties which no one could meet, and which nothing but time would remedy. He should not enter into, or attempt to defend, the measures taken by the late Government on the subject of Ireland, which would be properly reviewed by those who calmly and impartially looked into the history of the period; but with respect to this subject in general, he left it in the hands of the present Government, though, he thought they were perfectly justified In not declaring at the present moment what their measures would be during the current Session. He was very sorry to hear tonight that the system of threatening letters had not ceased, and seemed likely to spread. This was one of those evils which from time to time afflicted Ireland, and he had no doubt that object would receive the deliberate attention of the Government. He had no doubt also that the House Would readily agree to the Bill now before it, to which, in fact, there did not seem to be any objection. When the general question, as to the sums payable by Ireland in consequence of those annuities, had to be considered, he should be prepared to give his attention to any measure of the Government on that subject. With regard to the future, he had no doubt that the present

633
Government, having inherited in the condition of Ireland a mass of difficulties and misfortunes, would give their best attention to the whole question, and that they would, at the proper time, declare what measures they proposed to remedy them. He was satisfied it was right that the landlords of Ireland should bear a share of the burdens which had befallen that Kingdom as well as the people of this country, though whether there might not be districts which were entitled to relief, was a subject well worthy of the consideration of the Government. He was happy to hear from the hon. Member for Limerick, what he had previously heard from other authorities, that there were districts in the west of Ireland which a few years ago were supposed to be irrecoverably ruined, that were now in a better condition than they had ever been before. He hoped the same thing would speedily be found true of other districts, and that happier times were coming for Ireland.
MR. H. HERBERTthought the remarks of the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat contained a warning to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Lord had distinctly disclaimed the principle of the Treasury Minute which rendered this Bill necessary. It must be felt by Irish Gentlemen to be odious to refuse payment of claims upon them, and he had himself done all he could to prevent resistance to the law in regard to the repayment of these advances; but the Irish were aggrieved, and men could hardly be blamed for expressing dissatisfaction at being called upon to repay money when their suggestions as to its employment had been disregarded. A third of the advances under the Burgoyne Relief Act, as was stated by Sir Charles Trevelyan, were made to electoral divisions; and a change in those divisions had long been asked. The Irish asked for the same facilities as there were in England for working a Poor Law. He would recommend the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the declaration of the noble Lord the late Prime Minister, who, in approving of the Bill, stated his total disapproval of the principle on which it was founded; and he implored the right hon. Gentleman, in his future dealings with Ireland to act upon principle, and bear in mind that what was right and just in England, could not be wrong in Ireland.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he could not see the good which was to result from this discussion. In fact, it reminded him rather of a consultation of another description
634
than those which were usual in that assembly. There were actually three doctors in this consultation. There were those who had been discarded, those who had been called in and who had received the fees, and those who would no doubt gladly become recipients of the fees. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Barron) was acting with the doctors who were in, and the only prescription which had been presented to the House was one which had been recommended by the doctors on the other side—in fact, it was actually found on the table of the discarded doctors. The hon. Baronet thought that prescription a wise one; the best that could be offered in the present condition of the patient. The State doctor, a master of language, intimated in a seductive tone what he intended to do; but that amounted merely to this: That he intended to make a close examination of the ailment with which the patient was afflicted, often a very rough process, producing much unnecessary agony. He had expected, after so much talk, to see some measure of a better description brought forward. But the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Barron) was constantly abusing the Legislature with regard to Ireland, without exhibiting that constructive power of mind which might be useful to his country. There was every anxiety to do justice to Ireland, for there could be no better policy in reference to the prosperity of this country than to raise Ireland to a perfect equality with England. The hon. Baronet had said that free trade was the fatal blow to the prosperity of Ireland. But what had protection done for that country? Was Ireland in a state of prosperity when more than half of the population was reduced to live in mud hovels and feed upon roots? Ireland had not been true to herself. No country could be elevated to the position of this country by Acts of Parliament. It was by acts of intelligence, by holding out inducements to the people to exert themselves, and by love of country, that England had obtained such an exalted character, and had risen to such a pitch of prosperity. He considered that the people of Ireland were much indebted to the noble Lord at the head of the late Government for the Poor Law, and he was of opinion that if protection were restored, nothing but misery, poverty, and ruin would be the result for Ireland.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would not trespass long on the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken in such a very professional spirit, laid upon the

635
gentry and people of Ireland the blame of the condition in which that country was now placed. If it was necessary that Ireland should have had a Poor Law half a century ago, who had the power to pass such a law? The English people and the English Legislature had that power. True it was that the Irish representatives formed a part of the House of Commons, yet still the great majority was composed of the representatives of England. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) then said, why did not the Irish representatives produce more large measures for the improvement of their country? As the hon. Gentleman had spoken so ably on the subject of Ireland, perhaps they might expect from his (Mr. Wakley's) statesmanlike abilities the introduction of such a measure. But when the hon. Gentleman censured the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he (Mr. Wakley) had, in somewhat unusual language, styled the State doctor, for not bringing forward such a measure, he ought to have recollected that the Government had been but a very few days in office. Many hon. Members declared that they ought to dissolve Parliament forthwith; others, that there was urgent necessity for the immediate introduction of large measures for the improvement of that country. In the few weeks they had been in office, they had not had time to submit to Parliament those great measures with reference to Ireland which they intended. When they were introduced, he trusted that they would meet the views and obtain the support of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, he would not have risen but for the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord had no more right than any other Member to criticise unfairly the debates of Irish Members on Irish questions. It was open to every Irish Member to debate a question, no matter whether English or Irish, independently and without regard to the feelings of the noble Lord, however great might be their respect for him as an individual. The noble Lord had no right to taunt Irish Members; and he, for one, would not submit to it from the noble Lord or any other hon. Member. With regard to the observations of the right hon. the Attorney General for Ireland respecting the Ribband system, and its extension throughout all Ireland, he (Mr. O'Flaherty) begged to state that the west of Ireland was entirely free from it, and that a more peaceful and industrious province than Connaught did
636
not exist. He called on the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to say that he did not mean to prescribe any limit to hon. Gentlemen in their speeches. He had only wished to express his surprise at the nature of the discussion, and to say that such discussions were not unusual on Irish questions.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was not aware that he had said anything about Connaught. At an earlier part of the evening he had stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Cavan (Sir J. Young), that threatening notices were being given in many parts of Ireland, and that the system was extending. There was no part of Ireland of which he had a more lively hope than the west.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put and agreed to;
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill 2°.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1. (Upon Address of House of Commons Her Majesty may appoint Commissioners to make inquiry into Corrupt Practices at Elections.)
MR. JACOB BELLsaid, he was anxious to make one or two observations on the Bill now before the Committee, in order to point out some defects in its provisions. The measure, to be serviceable, should increase the facility of conviction, so that the offence should be as certainly as possible, followed by punishment; whereas, by the provisions of this Bill, considerable difficulty might be found in that respect. If the proceeding was to originate on an Address moved in that House, the plan would be open to great abuse, inasmuch as a party would only have to single out a borough liable to exception, and propose an Address to Her Majesty relative to that borough. If a Commission should be sent, another obstacle would arise under the 9th Clause, which stated that all witnesses are to be exempted from punishment, provided they make a disclosure of every circumstance connected with the inquiry. It appeared to him that the indemnity should only apply to cases before the passing of the Act, because in the case of prospective Acts a premium would be held out for the commission of the offence. The 500 l. penalty was still to remain in force; but un-

637
less that penalty should be repealed, and a smaller one substituted, the Bill would be inoperative. The first case of corruption and bribery on record was that of Esau, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, but he never had the opportunity of selling it again; and every elector who sold his privilege ought to be treated in the same manner. If it were known that punishment would be inflicted in every case, the people would soon cease to commit the offence.
MR. WALPOLEthought the clause, as it now stood, gave a power to the majority, which might be abused to a very great extent, and he proposed, that before any inquiry should be instituted, there should be either the Report of a Committee appointed to inquire into the Election return, or a Committee generally appointed by that House to inquire into corrupt practices in the borough in which such practices were alleged to have been committed. If the Committee should entertain that opinion, a fair foundation would be laid for the issuing of a proper Commission. He would therefore move the following Amendment:—
"To leave out from the beginning of the Clause to 'it shall be lawful,' in line 6, for the purpose of inserting the words 'when by an Address of the House of Commons it shall be represented to Her Majesty, that a Committee appointed to try an Election Petition, or a Committee appointed to inquire into the exercise of corrupt practices in any Election or Elections of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, have reported to the House that corrupt practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have, extensively prevailed in any City, Borough, or place in the United Kingdom electing or sharing in the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament at any Election or Election of such Members or Member; and the said House shall thereupon pray Her Majesty to cause inquiry to be made under this Act,' instead thereof."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLobjected to placing the matter in the hands of an Election Committee to report upon, but said he should have no objection to a Report from a Select Committee. He also thought it would be sufficient to insert the words "extensively prevailed," without using the word "generally."
MR. WALPOLEintimated that he acquiesced in the suggestion of the noble Lord.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, the object of the right ban. Gentleman the Home Secretary appeared to be to check the improper conduct of a majority. But surely, as the House pretended in theory to represent the people, it ought to be guided by the ma-
638
jority, and not by the minority. Such a change was extremely objectionable, and ought not to have been proposed without due notice.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, as the Bill was drawn, a simple majority might address the Crown, without any allegation or proof whatever. The object of his proposition was to protect the minority in case a majority should be inclined to proceed in an unconstitutional way.
MR. HEADLAMwished to know whether any public prosecutor would be appointed to bring the cases of corruption before Committees, and whether the expense of the proceedings would be defrayed by individuals, or provision would be made by the Bill for their payment?
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYbelieved the proposed Amendment would defeat the object of the Bill, for if it should be adopted the Bill would not meet such a case as that of St. Albans. In that case the Committee reported that there was no proof of bribery or treating, but that they had been prevented from inquiring by the corrupt withdrawal of witnesses. If this Bill had been the law at that time, the Queen would have bad no power to issue a Commission. This showed how dangerous it would be to narrow the clause, and he trusted the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would not consent to the change. He thought such an important Amendment ought not to have been proposed without due notice; and he should, therefore, move that the further consideration of the clause be postponed.
MR. MILESdefended the Amendment, considering that the House itself was not the place where a discussion should take Parliament at any Election or Election of such place whether a Commission should issue or not.
MR. VERNON SMITHsupposed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary meant to guard a rash vote of that House, or the vote of a majority in a small House; and for that he suggested an inquiry before either an Election Committee or a Select Committee. Now, he feared that neither of those Committees would answer the purpose, especially as a Select Committee was without the power of taking evidence on oath, or giving an indemnity to witnesses. He thought, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman had intended to propose this Amendment, he should have given some notice to the House.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that when they went into Committee on a former night, pro formâ, in order that the noble Lord

639
(Lord J. Russell) might introduce Amendments into a Bill, he (Mr. Walpole) stated that he should in Committee propose the very Amendment or an Amendment almost to the effect he had just moved. It was very far from his intention to take the House by surprise, nor would he thrust anything forward if any serious objection were made to it on that ground. As to the clause, he was perfectly sure they ought not to give the enormous power of these Commissions of Inquiry unless upon something like a previous allegation of proof. He wished to throw a guard round places sending Members to Parliament, so that a small majority of that House, by an inconsiderate or single vote, should not have the power of putting in motion Commissions of this description, the powers of which were so great, that nothing but the necessity of the case could justify them.
Mr. T. BARINGfeared that this clause would allow an interference with the constituencies of the country by a majority of that House, because it was impossible not to see that it was in the power of the House at any time, upon any representation, without any evidence, to institute an inquiry into any borough for party or particular purposes. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said, there should first be the decision of either an Election Committee or a Committee specially appointed. An Election Committee would, of course, be according to the forms and acts of the House, but a Committee specially appointed might be carried and appointed and selected by any majority actuated by any hostile, personal, or political feelings. That was a very formidable power to place in the hands of a majority, and if they once established that a majority of the House might decide either on the tenure of a seat of a Member, or of the power of a borough, they would expose the rights of constituencies to a most tyrannical interference. The clause went to place in the majority of the House the power of deciding on the return of any Member. ["Hear, hear!"] What a premium to boroughs to send Members connected with the majority! for it was telling them, "You will have no Commission of Inquiry if you return a Member connected with the majority; but if you return one connected with the minority, you will be exposed to most vexatious proceedings, and have your rights taken from you." He would refer to the opinion of one who would be acknowledged by hon. Gentlemen
640
opposite to be a statesman. It was an opinion expressed in reference to the Grenville Act, and was to this effect:—
"That Bill originated in a belief that this House, in the aggregate, was an unfit tribunal to decide on contested elections. It viewed this House as every popular assembly should be viewed, as a mass of men capable of political dislike and personal aversion, capable of too much attachment and of too much animosity, capable of being biassed by weak and wicked motives, liable to be governed by Ministerial influence, by caprice, and corruption. Mr. Grenville's Bill viewed this House as endowed with those capacities, and judged it therefore incapable of determining upon controverted elections with impartiality, with justice, and with equity. It deprived it of the means of mischief, and formed a judicature as complete and impartial as human skill could conceive."
Those were the words of Mr. Fox with regard to the impartiality of that House as to controverted elections. Let him (Mr. T. Baring) ask, whether the House would be entirely free from those improper motives in its decisions when it came to decide upon constituencies?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) had taken unnecessary alarm respecting the measures that might be resorted to under this Bill. According to the Amendment, there must be in the first place the Report of a Select Committee that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, and they would have great difficulty in obtaining evidence, even in the case of boroughs where corruption had notoriously been practised. But, suppose the evidence obtained to induce a Select Committee to believe corruption had extensively prevailed, the House would next be asked to agree to an Address to the Crown to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Supposing the House agreed to that, and the Commission, consisting of certain barristers, well qualified to take evidence, was appointed, they would go to the borough, or in certain cases would sit in London, and take evidence on oath, and, if they were not provided with legal evidence that corruption had extensively prevailed in the borough, the whole case fell to the ground. For his own part, he had so much reliance on proceeding by Commission, he thought no mischief could haw been done under the Bill as it originally stood, for, while he believed there were many boroughs in which corruption, prevailed that had never been subject to inquiry, and still less to punishment, he was also of opinion that the common belief on this point went further than the fact, and it might be useful to show that general

641
allegations of corruption were unfounded. But, supposing the great majority of the electors of the borough were corrupt, and were in the habit, election after election, of receiving bribes, then there must be a report from the Commissioners laid before the House. Did that disfranchise the borough, or inflict any punishment on it? None whatever. There must next be a Bill brought in founded on the Report, and passed through all its stages; it must go up to the other House, and, having been passed, must receive the Royal assent. He really thought sufficient precautions were thus taken that no unnecessary disfranchisement would take place. So far from that being probable, he, on the contrary, was afraid they had not yet sufficient means to enable them to meet the evils that existed. But the hon. Member was not right in supposing that this would strain the powers of Parliament further than they at present existed. He (Lord J. Russell) remembered many years ago, in the case of Grampound, moving for an inquiry at the bar of the House on the ground of a conviction obtained in a Court of Law. The Motion was carried—witnesses were examined at the bar, the corruption was proved, and a Bill was brought in founded on that inquiry. Grampound was disfranchised on that evidence, combined with the proceedings in the Court of Law. Now, there was nothing whatever to prevent the House, if it chose to inquire if corruption was practised at Harwich or in any other borough, to appoint a Select Committee, and to introduce a Bill to disfranchise it. The Bill did not confer any power on the House that was wanting; but evidence taken in that way at the bar, without further circumstances to corroborate it, would not be sufficient for the House of Lords, who would enter into a fresh inquiry, and take evidence on oath, and this proceeding would take a vast deal of time, and, after all, would not be entirely satisfactory. It appeared to him nothing was so satisfactory as the course adopted in the cases of St. Albans and Sudbury. The Bill only gave a better mode of inquiry, and he did not think it could be denied that it was better to take evidence on oath before impartial Commissioners appointed by the Crown, than to take a course of proceeding where parties accused of corruption had the means of suppressing a great deal of evidence. If the Bill was rejected, the powers of the House would remain the same as before; but there would
642
not be the same means of ascertaining the state of the boroughs. If a borough was proved to be thoroughly corrupt, they could not do better than disfranchise it; if not, they ought to remove the disgrace which attached to it.
MR. T. BARINGhad one suggestion to make. Let the evidence before the Select Committee be taken on oath.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwished to know if the noble Lord agreed to the Amendment? [Lord J. Russell was understood to say he agreed to it.] The objection to the Select Committee might be obviated by acting on the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Baring), of giving the Select Committee power to examine on oath. The only precedents which existed for the issue of Commissions were St. Albans and Sudbury, in both which cases the Committees reported that extensive bribery had prevailed, and the Commissions were issued with the sanction of Parliament.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, he thought it would be an improvement to give the Committees the power of examining on oath, and he would suggest that the Commissioners should have the power of indemnifying the witnesses, as at St. Albans. That power was the reason of the success of the Commissioners, and the want of it accounted for the failure of the Select Committee.
MR. R. C. HILDYARDsaid, that if the Committee adopted the plan proposed in the Bill as it stood, he had no doubt that its proceedings would be marked by the calmness and deliberation which were so highly to be desired.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Baring) were founded on a mistrust of that House in a judicial matter. His (Mr. Wakley's) object was to retain the Bill in its present shape, and he, therefore, would entreat the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to allow this discussion to be postponed, in order that his alterations might be printed.
CAPTAIN HARRISthought the Bill should be framed with a view to practical results. Select Committees were appointed by political feelings, though an appearance of fairness was attempted. The present law should be strengthened. Election Committees ought to be instructed to report on general bribery, and on that Report a Select Committee of men of experience should then be appointed to investigate the

643
evidence on which the House could proceed.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNconsidered that the hon. and gallant Member had forgotten that as soon as bribery was discovered by an Election Committee, one or other party withdrew the petition. He did not think a majority of the House would depart from fairness and justice to issue a Commission against particular boroughs; and he hoped, looking to the important object of the Bill, it would be received by the Committee in its present shape.
CAPTAIN HARRISbegged to explain that he meant that Election Committees should be strengthened in point of numbers.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwould remind the Committee, that the evil this Bill was intended to obviate was the expenses of inquiry previous to appointing an Election Committee, and this clause would not at all tend to diminish those preliminary expenses. He intended to move, that the further consideration of the clause be postponed until there was a fuller attendance on that side of the House.
MR. BERNALbegged to inform the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, that he could not propose that Motion until the present question before the Committee had been disposed of.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, he did not entertain the same apprehensions as some of his friends as to the tyrannic exercise of their power by majorities in that House, though he admitted that there had been occasions when an oppressive use of their power had been made by majorities. However, he did not think that, where the object was merely inquiry, majorities would be found in that House to act oppressively. Considering, then, the importance and value of the Bill for the purpose of preventing corruption, he thought hon. Gentlemen would do well not to peril the Bill, by refusing to accept it as presented by the Government. He would suggest that, in the clause referring to an Address to the Crown, an alteration should be made so as to prevent its appearing that the Address to the Crown should be forwarded on the Report of the Committee, as would be the case if the clause remained unaltered, instead of being founded upon the decision of the House itself. Under this Bill the expense would be immense, and the delay prodigious, and at the same time the effect would be futile. He would test
644
the sincerity of the friends of purity of,. election, and divide on the clause.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the sole result of this Bill would be to give power to the Crown to issue a Commission, without the form of an Act to inquire into oases of bribery, after two votes of the House had been in favour of inquiry. There were two kinds of Committees at present—the Election Committee and the Select Committee; and no one who had sat on either of those Committees to try a case of bribery would deny the extreme difficulty of getting the Committee to agree to any report which might lead to ulterior proceedings against the borough. An Election Committee was composed of two Members from either side of the House, and one Member alternating between them. That tribunal was, perhaps, as impartial as the House could make it; but still the Member whose case was to be tried always considered it a favourable circumstance, if the Chairman of the Committee was chosen from his side of the House. That was a proof that they were not free from party motives, however they might intend to be so. If the Select Committee was composed of five, seven, or nine Members, the same state of things would arise; and if fifteen or sixteen, it would still be a party fight, without that feeling of responsibility which attached to a smaller Committee. He approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood), and he was very sorry the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had consented so speedily to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he really despaired of inducing the Opposition to pass any measures during this Session. This was the fourth time that the Government had been defeated in their efforts to accelerate the progress of public business. They wished the Militia Bill to be read a second time after the Easter recess; and who, above all other persons in the world, should rise up to protest against it but the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden)? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) then stated that he wished to make some arrangement for fixing a day on which to make the financial statement of the Government; upon which a distinguished Member of the Opposition, in the name of the Irish Members, implored him to give them at least a week to consider it. Almost the whole of the even-

645
ing had been spent on a Bill which was only a proper indemnity to the late Government with respect to the Consolidation of Irish Annuities. At half-past eleven o'clock, having fixed to go into Committee upon that Bill, another Irish Gentleman (also a Member of the Opposition) asked the Government to postpone that stage of the Bill. Then they took up a Bill of very great interest and importance, also prepared by the late Government, and a Bill which certainly, as a dissolution was impending, ought not to be neglected; but they were told that it was of no use whatever, because they had proposed an Amendment, in which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), the highest authority on such subjects, acquiesced; and they were asked not to press the Amendment. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would only say, that the Government being sincere in its desire to accelerate as much as they could the progress of public business, he could not accede to that request. Feeling assured that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was one that would render the Bill much more a security to the liberties of the people, and much more available for the objects which they all desired to accomplish, he called upon the Committee to adopt it; and if the other Motion—threatened also by another Member of the Opposition—should be proposed, he should ask the Committee to divide against it.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 137: Majority 111.
Clause agreed to; as were also the other clauses up to Clause 5 inclusive.
Clause 6.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, as the Clause was then drawn, the Commissioners would have power to inquire into corrupt practices at previous elections, dating, it might be, ten or twenty years hack, and by coupling those practices with the practices at the last election lay a foundation for the disfranchisement of a borough—though there might have been an intervening election at which no corruption had taken place. His Amendment would have the effect of allowing the Commissioners, if they found corruption at the last election to go back to the previous one, and so on until they came to an eleection at which those practices had not been proved to exist, when the inquiry should stop. With
646
this view he begged to move, first, the omission of the words in the clause, "for such a period retrospectively as they think proper."
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNconsidered it a most mischievous Amendment. As he understood it, if there had been one single election where bribery had not taken place, the Commissioners were restricted from going behind that election. Now, they were all aware that the parties sometimes agreed that neither should bribe, or there might be a compromise. This Amendment, then, would defeat the object of the inquiry; therefore, he would suggest that if the Commissioners found an intermediate election, at which bribery had not taken place, they should report such fact to the House.
MR. STANFORDsaid, the object of the Amendment was to fetter the Commission, so that they would not be able to elicit the truth.
MR. BRIGHTconsidered that there wag great inconvenience in discussing questions of this nature without the Amendment being printed. He would therefore move that progress be reported, and that the Committee ask leave to sit again.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthought it would be better to have the Amendment printed. In his opinion, it would be unwise to fetter the Commission in their inquiry.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

MILITIA BILL.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he had consolidated the former Acts relating to the militia by way of reference, and in order that all the provisions of previous Acts might be contained in a small compass. He wished upon this occasion to state his intention of introducing an important alteration into the Bill. He, therefore, gave notice, that should the House agree to the second reading of the Militia Bill, he would move the insertion of a clause in Committee providing that any person who served two years in the militia should be registered as a voter for the county in which he resided.
MR. MILNER GIBSONgave notice that upon the Motion for the second reading of the Militia Bill, he would move that it was not expedient to proceed with the Militia Bill in this Parliament.
Bill read 1°.
The House adjourned at half-after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First.—The Marquess of Northampton, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Bishoprick of Quebec.
2a Indemnity.

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving, according to the notice placed upon the paper, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Operation of the Act 3rd and 4th William IV., chap. 85, for the better government of Her Majesty's Indian Territories; and to report their Observations thereon. My Lords, the Motion which I have now to submit to your Lordships is for a Committee to inquire into what, in common parlance, is called the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. I say, "in common parlance," because, not only does that phrase not correctly express the real facts of the case, but because, In reality, it expresses what I may almost say is the reverse of the fact. For, my Lords, up to a comparatively recent period, the East India Company was a commercial besides being a political body, having a charter which placed them in the enjoyment of certain rights and privileges as a trading company. The Act of 1813, however, materially modified those privilege; and a subsequent Act, that of 1833, went still further, and, as I shall have occasion to show, did not only diminish but alto-

547
gether took away from the Company the powers which they possessed of trading as an exclusive commercial body; and after the expiry of a certain limited period, the power of trading at all. But when I say that it took away this power, I mean that so long as the political powers and authority with which the Company was invested by the Act of 1833 continued, so long the commercial privileges of the Company as a trading body were put in abeyance. If, however, your Lordships should now think fit to withdraw the political power vested in the Company, their commercial charter would be re-established; and if your Lordships should decide to continue to the Company the political power which they now enjoy, so far from that being a renewal of the Charter, it would he but a renewal of the condition under which that Charter remained in abeyance. My Lords, in bringing forward this Motion, it is not my intention to weary your Lordships, or to take up the time of the House, by tracing the rise and progress of this great Company—a career to which I will venture to say history presents no parallel, when we look to its humble beginning, and to the comparatively short period during which this commercial Company has laid the foundations of and established one of the mightiest empires under the sun. My Lords, it is now little more than 200 years since the leaders of this then infant commercial community thought it advisable to refrain from landing a single battalion or from acquiring a single fort on the shores of India, for the purpose of protecting their trading operations, partly from the fear of exciting the jealousy of the native Sovereigns, and partly because they were apprehensive that the maintenance of that fort would entail upon them an expenditure which the profits of their commerce would be inadequate to meet. I will not attempt to trace the various steps through which this Company, from such an humble beginning, has gradually extended its power, by its negotiations, by its arms, and by the wisdom also of its counsellors; and if, under some of the early circumstances of its progress, any signal instances of a large rapacity and lust for wealth occurred among its servants, in later times it has been distinguished by prudence and ability: it is by a wise government and a feeling of enlightened humanity that it has achieved a dominion absolute and uncontrolled, whether by the direct exercise of its authority, or by an influence not less absolute than
548
actual authority, over a district of country extending from Cape Comorin on the south, to the borders of Burmah, of Cashmere, Cabul, and Afghanistan on the north, and embracing, I think, in its broadest part, something like 28 degrees of latitude—a vast district, inhabited by a population which I believe I am within the mark when I set it down at 150,000,000—exercising its authority over a population of various descent, and of various religions, who have been constantly in hostility to each other, but who now, conquerors and conquered, agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a comparatively small body of Europeans—a Company which has secured its power, not so much by the sword as by the wisdom of its counsellors—which has seen succumb to it, one after another, the mightiest monarchies of India, and which, without any desire for conquest, without any lust of power, nay, contrary to its wish—has seen the populations of those monarchies gradually forcing themselves under, rather than submitting to the protection of its authority. And, my Lords, with this gigantic dominion it is not less extraordinary that although for the maintenance of its vast empire this Company possesses an army of 285,000 men, yet that immense army you find composed mainly of natives of those territories which they have conquered, Mahomedans and Hindoos; every variety of religion and of grade alike vie in loyalty and attachment to their conquerors, and in their service exhibit as much of interest and of devotion as that small but noble army drawn from the mother country with which it is their pride and glory to be associated. My Lords, when you look to the vast extent and to the great resources of this empire, you will see that it is no light and unimportant task to which I am now about to call your serious consideration. You are calmly and deliberately to investigate the machinery by which the affairs of this great empire are conducted—a machinery which, formed for far different purposes, has gradually been diverted from its original intentions, and applied and adapted to the change of circumstances in which it is now placed—an institution and a machinery which would seem at the outset to be anomalous almost to the extent of absurity, but which has yet operated, as I think, and as I believe your Lordships think also, most beneficially to the interests of humanity and to the advancement and progress of that mighty empire which it superintends. My Lords, I stated that,

549
since the Committee of 1832, the East India Company has ceased altogether to be a commercial body. Up to 1813 they possessed, as you are aware, not only the right of trading to India, but the exclusive right of trading with India and of trading with China. By the Act of 1813, for the first time, a modification was effected in this Company's commercial monopoly. Under certain limitations British subjects were permitted to settle in India, and the Indian trade was thrown open to other than the servants of the Company, at the same time not depriving the Company of a participation in that trade. In 1833 we went a step further, and not only took away altogether the privileges of the Company with regard to the right of trading with India, but we also threw open to the public in general the trade with China, which had been up to that time a close monopoly in the hands of the Company. The question of the settlement of Europeans in India, and of their right to acquire land, was also adjusted; but with regard to commercial affairs, these were the material alterations. Now, my Lords, by the law of 1833, the Court of Proprietors, the foundation of the whole machine, ceased, in point of fact, to have any interest whatever or any control in the management of the affairs of India; because, by the arrangement then made, the East India Company were deprived of all their commercial property—not only of the right of trading, but deprived of all their commercial property whatever, which was made over to the Crown, there being at the same time a provision made, by which the stock of the Company, to the amount of 6,000,000 l., or the dividend upon that stock, was made a primary charge upon the revenue of India; and a sum of 2,000,000 l. was set aside for the purpose of accumulating, in order, under certain conditions, to buy up, if it were found necessary, that amount of stock. I will here mention, en passant, that the Act of 1833 appears to have contemplated—though the Act expired at the end of twenty years—but it appears certainly to have contemplated a continuance to the Company of its political powers for a period, not of twenty but of forty years; inasmuch as the Company, if the political rights which were accorded to them should be taken away at the expiration of twenty years, were then entitled to demand from the Government at home the repayment of their stock at the rate of 200 l. sterling for every 100 l. of stock—they had a right to
550
require that upon their political power being taken from them their stock should be bought by the Government at that amount, and this within a period of three years. Now, my Lords, undoubtedly it is not very probable that, even if its political powers were taken away, the Company would make such a demand for the repayment of its stock; because, although the obligation to purchase up the stock was fixed at the rate of 200 l. for every 100 l. stock, their stock is now worth, I believe, about 260 l., and, therefore, it would evidently not be their interest to demand that purchase. On the other hand, however, you have no power, by the Act of 1833, to pay off that stock at present; until 1874—that is, until the expiration of forty years from the Act of 1833—you have no power to call on the Company to accept that bargain, and to have that stock paid off. But if the Company's powers should continue up to 1874, that is, for the second period of twenty years—the Crown has then the power of insisting upon paying off that stock upon the terms I have already mentioned, upon giving one year's notice; and for the purpose of paying off that stock, the 2,000,000 l. at first set aside, and which has now accumulated to between 3,800,000 l. and 3,900,000 l., was to go on accumulating at compound interest for the purpose of forming the necessary fund at the expiration of forty years. Such were the arrangements of the Act of 1833, which evidently contemplated a reconsideration of the question, and of the whole principle of government, as between the Crown and the East India Company, at the end of twenty years; but which undoubtedly contemplated the continuance of the political powers of the Company, with such modifications as might be suggested, for a period of forty years, because till the expiration of that period the Government had no power of extinguishing the stock by paying off the principal. But, my Lords, with that Act of 1833 the Court of Proprietors ceased, as I have said, to have any control or interest whatever in the affairs of India. The whole business of the Court of Proprietors at this moment consists in receiving the dividends upon their stock, which is fixed, I think, at 10½ per cent, and also—and it is no doubt a material part of their duty—in electing the members of the Court of Directors. Further than that, the Court of Proprietors have no functions whatever to perform. It is true they may meet and dis-

551
cuss together; but, with regard to the legislation of India, with regard to any single instruction to be given, any order issued, or any decision to be arrived at, the unanimous vote of the whole Court of Proprietors need not exercise the slightest influence over the conduct of the Government. And, indeed, when you look to the present position of the Court of Proprietors, there is some reason why they should not exercise any power over the affairs of India. They have no interest in them except such as they derive from the payment of dividends, which are made a first charge upon the revenue. The number of proprietors is, I think, 1,800; as to the qualification for a seat in the Court of Proprietors, the possession of 1,000 l. stock gives one vote, and the possession of larger sums gives two, up to four votes; the total number of votes possessed by the 1,800 proprietors being 2,500, of which something like one-fifth are held by native proprietors. The power which devolves upon these proprietors in electing the Directors, is in itself a material element in the machinery by which Indian affairs are conducted; but that is the sole power which they possess, with the exception, I believe, of a very insignificant though a very proper power, of putting a check upon some gratuities, to the amount of not more than 500 l. or 600 l.; a power, which, no doubt it is quite right that the Court of Proprietors should exercise over the Directors, but which does not afford any special reason for its continuance. As I have said, the chief business of the Proprietors consists in their receiving the annual dividends. I have been speaking throughout of the Court of Proprietors; I now come to the Court of Directors, elected by them. That Court consists of twenty-four members, and I believe the only qualification is the possession of a certain amount of stock, I forget precisely to what amount; I believe 2,000 l.—and persons are disqualified if Directors of the Bank of England or of the South Sea House; but where these objections do not exist, the holding of a certain amount of stock qualifies for a seat in the direction of this Company. The Directors, generally speaking, are, the great majority of them, men whose lives have been spent and whose fortunes have been accumulated in India, and who must therefore be familiarly acquainted with the working of the system, with the country, and the character of the inhabitants, and who are, practically, I believe, well quali-
552
fied to advise the Government in the direction of the affairs of India. One-fourth of the twenty-four Directors go out of office every year; but, as they are generally re-elected, the whole body of Directors may practically be said to sit for life. Most of these details will probably be very familiar to some of your Lordships; but I did not think upon such an occasion that it was unfitting to me to state, as shortly as I could, what is the nature of the system, and how far its practical working may seem to compensate for some of the anomalies which may be found in it. My Lords, as to the power of the Directors, it is apparently exceedingly great—I am not prepared to say that it is greater than it ought to be, considering their great experience and their great knowledge of Indian affairs. The Directors, for convenience sake, divide themselves into three Committees—one the Finance Committee, another the Political and Legislative, and the third the Home and Judicial Committee; I am not sure, but I believe I am correct in stating that the Court of Directors is thus divided—one of these Committees has eight, and the two others seven members each; the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are members of all these Committees; and these form the whole governing—if that is not a wrong expression—the whole governing body of the Company. In these Directors has been vested from the earliest period, both nominally and substantially with regard to most of the offices, the power of making the appointments in the civil service of India. The exceptions, which are real, are the Governor General, the Judges, the Bishops, appointments which are reserved to the Crown; and a small number of the subordinate appointments, which by custom or by courtesy (I do not know whether by law) are with the President of the Board of Control. The appointments nominally proceed, and many really, from the Court of Directors; but the real and substantial power which the Court of Directors possess—a power which I know may lead to considerable difference of opinion, and which ought to be carefully and deliberately considered—is that of recalling each and every servant of the Company, from the Governor General down to the lowest clerk, without any communication or concert with the Crown. I believe I am correct in stating, that for every appointment they must have the concurrence of the Crown. I believe it is so; the Crown has the power of recalling any or every servant of the Company in

553
India, and the Company have also a like power of recalling, without concert or communication with the Crown, as the Crown has the power without communication with the Company. There may be occasions—there have been—upon which the exercise of that authority may practically lead to some inconvenience. But, my Lords, when we come to the legislative power of the Court of Directors, great as it may appear, and great as undoubtedly is the influence they exercise, their legislative power dwindles down to nothing; for not only have the Court of Proprietors no power, by a unanimous vote, to issue a single order, but the Court of Directors themselves can issue no order with regard to the legislation or government of India without the consent of the Crown signified through the President of the Board of Control. They have no power of issuing a single despatch, and, more, no power of refusing the issuing of a single despatch which the President of the Board of Control may think it his duty to insist upon their transmitting. If the President of the Board of Control sends to the Court of Directors a despatch upon a particular subject, and they refuse to deal with that question, he may then, in one fortnight, compel the transmission of that despatch; and the single exception is the very improbable one, in which the orders of the President of the Board of Control may be contrary to law, in which case the Court of Directors hold that they have an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, to know whether they ought or ought not to execute those orders. But, further, supposing, in dealing with one particular question, the Court of Directors should think fit to send out particular orders and particular instructions, and the despatch bearing those orders and instructions, when submitted to the President of the Board of Control, should be by him disapproved of, not only are they compelled not to send out the despatch they intended, but the Board of Control exercises the power of altogether modifying and altering the despatch, so as, if he thought fit, to reverse the whole sense and meaning of the instructions, and, under the hand of the Board, to give instructions altogether at variance with those which the Court of Directors desire to go out to the authorities as having the fiat of the President of the Board of Control, in whom, after what I have said, your Lordships will see that, virtually, the administration of the affairs of India in this country is vested. The constitution of the
554
Board of Control has undergone various alterations since it was established in 1784; the last, in 1833, at the time of the last Act of Parliament, by which, instead of three paid Commissioners and Secretaries, it became what it now is having a President and two secretaries, who usually have seats in Parliament. That has been the constitution of the Board of Control since 1833, and in that Board, practically speaking, the whole administration of the affairs of India rests. Now, my Lords, when looking to the working of this anomalous machine, conducted, in the first place, apparently by Directors, elected by a body of proprietors who have little or no interest in the affairs of the country which the Directors are to govern—conducted again by those Directors under the control of the President of the Board of Control, and thereby reduced to be in fact a subordinate Government Board—the question naturally suggests itself, to what purpose is it to continue this complex and anomalous machinery? Why not vest the nominal authority in the same hands which are now possessed of the real? and why not dispense altogether with the unnecessary intervention of the Board of Directors? That is a very important question, and one which the Committee will have carefully and seriously to consider. I think, for my own part, that very valid and strong reasons may be given for not departing from the practical working of that which we find in existence; but it is undoubtedly a question which will be open to the consideration and judgment of the Committee; and they ought to be satisfied, if they recommend the continuance of this system, either that it is one which in itself works well, or else, that it works at all events better than any modification or alteration which can be introduced, by giving a more direct power to the Government of this country. I ought to mention that, independent of the Court of Proprietors and Court of Directors, there is also, as your Lordships are aware, the "Secret Committee," which is charged with all negotiations and affairs which have to be transacted between the Company and the Native Princes, as well as other business which it may be thought expedient to preserve in secrecy. This Secret Committee is appointed by the Board of Directors, and usually consists of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, with, I think, the senior member of the Court of Directors; and, in conjunction with the President of the Board

555
of Control, this Committee administers practically all those affairs which come under the political head to which I have adverted, of negotiations or dealings with native and foreign Princes. Now, my Lords, having stated the matter to be inquired into, I think it may not be a waste of your Lordships' time if we just see how this system has practically operated in India, and what has been the progress made in that country since 1834; I have spoken hitherto, of course, only of that operation of the machinery which is limited to this country. In India, I think, up to 1833, the three Presidencies were distinct and separate. By the language and by the spirit of the Act of 1833 it was contemplated to give to the Presidency of Bengal an overruling and preponderating influence and supreme authority over the other two. I think it was even contemplated at that time that the Council of Bengal should be a sort of ambulatory Council, to visit the different Presidencies, to overrule the administration of their affairs. That practically has not been the case. The Governor General in Council has administered the affairs of the Presidency of Bengal. In 1833 there was also a proposition for the institution of another Presidency, of Agra; but that was done away with, and I believe since that time there has been a Lieutenant Governor for that district; and the Governor General, with the assistance of the Lieutenant Governor of the north-west provinces, has administered the affairs of that vast district of country which forms the intended Presidency of Agra, and the newly conquered provinces in that direction. Now, my Lords, undoubtedly the Government of India has been, and I think for many years must be, that which has been spoken of in terms of praise by a noble Friend of mine, whom I do not see in his place (Earl Fitzwilliam), "a mild despotism." I apprehend none of your Lordships would dream that the time has arrived at which popular institutions can be applied to the government of India, and that, practically speaking, it is necessary that the power of governing these vast dominions, subject to the control of the Government at home, should be vested, as it is at present, in the separate Councils, and, more especially, in the supreme authority of the Governor General in Council. In the formation of that Council, however, in 1833, there was, for the first time, introduced a new element, by the addition of a new Councillor,
556
not in the civil service of the Company. Previously to that, I think, it consisted of the Governor General, the Commander of the Forces (not necessarily, I think), and another, who was a member of the civil or military service; with them was associated, by the Act of 1833, a fourth Councillor, not a servant of the Company, appointed directly by the Crown, and charged with peculiar functions, having only the power to attend the deliberations of that Council when they enter upon the discussion of judicial and legislative business. Now, I do not lay any stress upon the extent of territory acquired by the Company since 1834, because I am by no means sure that the acquisition of all that territory has been by any means an unmixed advantage; and I am sure that the possession of great portions of it was forced upon a very reluctant Government by circumstances over which they exercised no control; but the fact is that since the last time this question came under the consideration of Parliament there has been added to the territories of the Company an area of no less than 165,000 square miles, comprising a population of 8,380,000. In the course of that time it has been necessary, no doubt, materially to augment the expenditure and establishment of the Indian service; but I am happy to Bay that with the advance of that establishment, although I confess there has been a certain addition to the annual interest of the debt, the revenue has increased from 18,500,000 l.in 1834, in round numbers, to about 25,000,000 l. in 1849–50, while the charge has increassd from 18,600,000 l.(rather in excess of the revenue) to 24,806,000 l.in 1849–50 (being rather below the revenue); the estimated charge for 1850–51 is something in excess, arising from circumstances which it is not necessary to detail. But I think it will be gratifying to your Lordships to learn that, while there has been an increase in the territories of the Company, and an increase of revenue equal to the increased charge to be borne, the commercial prosperity of India has made rapid and immense strides during that period. I hold in my hand an account—I will not trouble your Lordships except by stating the first and last years of this return—showing the state of commerce at the first and the last of these two periods. I find the tonnage of British vessels between this country and India stands thus: The arrivals in 1834–35 were 108,000 tons; in 1849–50, 252,000 tons. The departures

557
in 1834–35, 83,776 tons; in 1849–50, 280,897 tons. The imports, in round numbers, had risen from 61,000,000 r.—6,000,000 l., in 1834–35, to 12,000,000 l.in 1848–49, the last year for which there is a return; and the exports of India have, in the same time, increased from 8,000,000 l.to 18,000,000 l.My Lords, in the course of that time it is not only the material and commercial prosperity of India which has made rapid strides—it is not only that large territory has been added to your dominions, and new nations subjected to your sway, but I am happy to say, that in the arts of peace there has been a great and salutary increase in the period between 1834 and 1850. With regard to that which I must look upon as one of the most leading objects connected with the affairs of India, though it is an establishment which has to contend with many obstacles, and work its way gradually through a mass of ignorance and superstition, and of conflicting difficulties, which render its advance slow and almost imperceptible, it is satisfactory to know that, whereas through the whole of the vast territories of India there were only employed in the service of the Company 31 chaplains of the Church of England, in 1813, when the episcopal authority was first introduced, in 1832 there were a bishop and 75 clergymen. The Act of 1833 multiplied the number of bishops, assigning its bishop to each separate Presidency. There are now, instead of 31 chaplains, as in 1812, or 75, as in 1832, three bishops, and no less than 130 chaplains of the Church of England, independent of the ministers of the Scotch Church. Of the great social improvements which have taken place, cautiously and gradually introduced, since 1834, I cannot but mention, in the first place, that which had been the object of the constant and earnest attention of this country, namely, the total and entire abolition of slavery throughout its dominions; and, although great difficulties have had to be encountered, yet, by the Act passed in 1843, in India, as in the rest of Her Majesty's dominions, slavery was at once and completely abolished. Another not less gratifying change has taken place with regard to the administration of justice in India. In 1833 it was contemplated to establish, and there was established, a Legal Commission for the purpose of examining into the whole system of jurisprudence in India; the whole system of the penal and civil law, and reporting generally their opin-
558
ions with regard to the necessary alterations. In India you have to distinguish between the Crown Courts and the Courts under the control of the Company. The Crown Courts consist of a Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges; I believe, practically, in two Presidencies, they have for some time consisted of a Chief Justice and a single Judge. These have very large and extensive jurisdiction. Recently, since 1833, there have been introduced, I think under the control of the Company—I must beg pardon if I make any errors in speaking upon a subject with which I have not been very familiar—there have been established minor Courts, like the County Courts in this country, for the purpose of adjudicating in matters of small amount. But, although the Commission sent out in 1833 sat for some time, and laboured very industriously, and produced a most elaborate penal code, which is at the present moment, I believe, under the consideration of the Government of India, that Commission, from various circumstances, did not enter upon the discussion of the whole of the extensive subject committed to it; gradually, I believe, it has been permitted to lapse, the vacancies occurring upon it not being filled up, and the labour has since devolved upon the Members of the Council appointed under the Act of 1833. But there also courts of justice of various gradations and rank authorised to deal with questions of various amounts and moment, with more or less of appellate jurisdiction. I think I ought not to waste your Lordships' time by giving you details respecting the Zillah Courts and the Sudder and other Courts, and the various gradations of jurisdiction, but that to which I desire to point your attention is, that in the course of the period which has elapsed since 1833 there has been a very great increase in that which I look upon as a matter of signal importance, namely, the employment of the natives of India themselves in the minor courts, and a considerable extension of the judicial authority conferred upon those Courts. I have said that I think the time is far from being come at which anything like popular institutions could be safely conferred upon any portion of India; but of this I am quite sure, that this is your bounden duty in the interests of humanity, of benevolence, and of morality and religion—that as far and as fast as you can do it safely, wisely, and prudently, the inhabitants of India should be gradually intrusted with more and more of the superintend-

559
ence of their own internal affairs, under the control of British authority, and taught to respect that authority which is vested in the law, and which they see judiciously and firmly enforced, temperately enforced also, by the superior British authority, which they may by long habit and practice learn to imitate, and, I would hope, even to surpass. And, my Lords, even if this gradual admission of the Indian race to the benefits of self-government, slowly and cautiously, should have the effect, not of consolidating and extending the great fabric of British dominion which has been built up in that country, but of leading a people accustomed to self-government to desire something more of control over their political, as well as their judicial affairs—I say that, even if the gigantic power of Britain over India should in the course of years, but centuries must first elapse, fall to the ground by the operation of our own hands, it will have been an achievement worthy of a nation like this to have rescued the native population from the state of ignorance, superstition, and debasement in which we found a large portion of them sunk, and to have placed them, at the expiration of the period of our dominion, in the capacity of administering the affairs of their own country as an independent nation, but under the influence of those laws, those principles, and those sound maxims which they ought ever to entertain gratitude to this country for having with care and pains instilled into their hearts. My Lords, I say this is not a work of months, or of years, nor it may be of centuries; but, though we may not live to see it, that does not absolve us from the duty, while we carefully abstain from placing in the hands of an ignorant population power which they are incapable of yielding for their own benefit; it does not absolve us from the obligation of endeavouring to raise that population in the social scale, and of carefully intrusting them with such an amount of the administration of their own local affairs as, not to their detriment but to their benefit, they may safely be enabled to carry on under the superintendence of this country. The whole details of the judicial arrangement, and the extent to which the admission of natives to offices has gone, every detail which Parliament may desire, will freely be laid before the Committee, should it be your Lordships' pleasure to appoint one to inquire into the working of the existing system. There will also be laid before you matters of not less importance than
560
those which I have enumerated—the steps that have been taken for promoting the material prosperity of the country, the improvement of the communications, the formation of roads and canals, the clearing of the country, the irrigation of districts, which from the want of it were subject to all the horrors of periodical famine—these will be set before you; and it will be for you to consider whether the Directors of the East India Company, under the control and superintendence of the Government here, and through the administration of the various Governors General who since 1833 have held the supreme power in the country, have or have not been faithful and efficient stewards of the great interests committed to their charge. It will then be for you, my Lords, having inquired into the practical working of the existing system, to consider how far it is wise to continue, either in the whole or in part—how far altogether to abrogate—how far to alter or to modify in detail—the system which at present prevails. But, undoubtedly, one principal point which you will have to consider is, whether there be advantage or detriment to the public service in retaining that intervening authority between the Board of Control, or the Government of the day, and the people or Government of India, which now subsists in the Court of Directors. The Court of Directors have little substantial power, but their functions are neither few nor unimportant. They meet weekly for the purpose of considering and replying to the various despatches which are received from the Governor General of India in Council, and from the various Committees by which the affairs of Government are conducted in India. They give to Her Majesty's Government on all occasions their willing and cordial co-operation and assistance. I believe the noble Baron opposite (Lord Broughton), and all those who have filled the high situation which he lately held, will cordially and readily acknowledge how much advantage they have derived in the administration of the affairs of India from the talents, abilities, and experience of those gentlemen with whom they have been brought into contact, and by whose advice they have been in many respects guided. But, as I said before, the Court of Directors, if they have no substantial power, have a large amount of patronage. Now, my Lords, is it desirable, or is it not, that that patronage should rest in the hands which now exercise it? Is it desirable that the patronage

561
of an empire like India, extensive as it is, and comprising every variety of employment and profession, should ho vested in those who now exercise it, or should be placed in the hands of the servants of the Crown, changing from time to time according to the political changes in this country? In the first place, my Lords, I think that to bestow upon the Government of the day the whole amount of the patronage of India would be to place a very dangerous and unconstitutional amount of power practically in the hands of irresponsible Ministers. I am quite sure that no Minister of the Crown, however honest might be his intentions, and however true and sincere his desire to administer that patronage for the benefit of India, could administer it with as much knowledge of the circumstances and exigencies of the country as a permanent body, the great majority of whom are intimately and personally connected with the affairs of India, and who have an accurate knowledge of the country, of its legislation, and of its inhabitants. I have said that the Board of Directors consists at this time of thirty gentlemen—that is, including the six who went out last year; and the fact is, that of these thirty gentlemen—although there is no necessary qualification for the office except that of being the possessor of a certain amount of stock—of those thirty gentlemen there are no less than twenty-one in office at this moment, who have served the Company with distinction in the various branches of the civil service, and who bring consequently to the discussion of Indian affairs the whole of their experience and knowledge with regard to the condition and requirements of that country. With regard to an empire like India, it is a matter of infinite importance that the controlling power should, as far as possible, be kept aloof from political squabbles and party contests. That object, as is well known, is practically obtained by the system which now prevails; for, although undoubtedly there may be, and there are, influences connected with the patronage of that department which may connect it in a certain way with political considerations, yet it is notorious that, although the polities of the Directors, some of whom have seats in the Legislature, are of various shades, there is no political bearing whatever influencing their conduct with respect to the affairs of India. But is there no further advantage from this system with regard to the selection of
562
those who are to form the civil service of India? The civil service of India is a service altogether apart. Be it the civil service or the military service of India, it is a profession taken up at the earliest age; and, to become qualified for that profession, to rise in that profession, to receive the honours of that profession, is the first and early ambition of the youngest cadet or writer who goes out to India. Now, there surely is a great advantage in this respect with regard to India. I know, with regard to the colonial administration, with which I was long familiar, how great is the disadvantage arising from the impossibility, within the limited scale of each colony, of finding persons in the colony, or connected with it, properly acquainted with the colony, and able satisfactorily to assist in conducting its affairs. But the small scale of each of these colonies—the small scale, comparatively speaking, even of the Colonial Department altogether—independently of the widely different interests of different colonies, precludes the possibility of setting aside such a school for colonial service as is wisely and most beneficially set aside by existing arrangements with regard to the Indian service. Nor do I think it is a matter of any complaint, a matter of any grievance, a matter to be deplored, much less condemned—nay, on the contrary, I think it is the subject of congratulation and rejoicing—if we find a man who, at the age of 15 or 16, has entered the East India Company's service, who has been himself educated for the special service of that Company in establishments maintained—and most liberally maintained—at the expense of the Company itself, whose fitness to enter upon his duties has been tested by an examination, the strictness of which has been much increased, before he was even permitted to go out to the scene of his future life, who has spent the best years of his life in India, who takes a deep interest in the affairs of that country—though, like all Englishmen, he has always looked forward to the period when lie might return to this land, which he never ceases to consider as his home—who, upon his return, bringing with him Indian recollections and Indian interests, and able to apply to the administration of the affairs of India the knowledge and experience which he has there acquired, should at the same time, obtain personal distinction and reward for his past services by a seat in the Direction—I consider that,

563
so far from its being cause of regret, it is a subject of congratulation that there are the means of bringing forward within this country a body of men so formed and constituted to advise and assist the Government. It is also a matter of congratulation and rejoicing that, at the close of his life, each of the old and faithful servants of the Company has, by the exercise of his patronage, the means of introducing to the same honourable career, and launching upon the same creditable course, his own son, or nephew, or grandson, in whom may be instilled, from their earliest years, a love for and an interest in India, and who may be prepared to run the course which he who gives the appointment has honourably and creditably run before. There may be, and there always are, wherever you vest patronage, individual cases of its abuse. But this I believe, that if by holding out a premium—a most cheap premium—for the invaluable services of the men who serve you, I had almost said, without any other reward, for I believe their service is almost gratuitous—if you can obtain such advantages by giving to those best qualified, from their knowledge of India, to exercise patronage, the advantage of that patronage, it is for the service of this country and for the benefit of India; and if those Gentlemen do apply such patronage, in some instances, to place in the Indian service those in whom they have near and personal interest, I say that it is not a corrupt exercise of patronage—it is not an exercise of patronage which ought to be deplored and condemned, but, on the contrary, it is an exercise of patronage, as I believe, best calculated to promote the welfare and advantage of India. This subject, however, is one which your Lordships will have to consider if you consent to the appointment of this Committee. You will have to consider whether any modification should be introduced in the existing system; and upon the part of Her Majesty's Government there will be no indisposition to lay before the Committee, in the fullest detail, all the information they may desire with regard to the working of the existing machinery, whether in the political, in the judicial, or in the social system of India, in order that your Lordships may have the means of coming to a deliberate and impartial decision upon that vast and momentous question—namely, by what means, and by what instrumentality (remembering that this is no party, no political, question
564
—it is a question of empire), the great and important interests of that overwhelming empire of India can best be promoted, and most steadily advanced. I will not further detain your Lordships with any expression of opinion on my own part, because I concur with my noble Friend the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), in the caution which he gave both to me and to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Indian Department (Mr. Herries), that we should not hastily pledge ourselves with regard to any specific course. But with regard to that part of the question which does not depend upon practical experience and knowledge, but more on principle than detail, I certainly do entertain a strong opinion as to the course of policy which it may be desirable for Parliament to pursue; but that question will rest in the hands of Parliament. By the reports of the Committees of this and the other House of Parliament Her Majesty's Government are ready to be guided in the course they will pursue; and to those Committees must be deputed the important task of considering how the affairs of India shall hereafter be best conducted.
Moved—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Operation of the Act 3rd & 4th William IV. Cap. 85, for the better Government of Her Majesty's Indian Territories; and to report their Observations thereon."
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, my noble Friend has described with very general correctness the system upon which the Government of India is at present conducted. My noble Friend, at the commencement of his speech, took occasion to correct a very general error of common parlance, by which the question now before Parliament was described as being a question of the "renewal" of the East India Company's Charter. I am surprised that my noble Friend, entering as he afterwards did with very great correctness into the relations between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control, did not also avoid the very general error in common parlance, by which the Company is described as governing India. In point of fact the Company may nominally reign, but the Company does not govern India. For about seventy years the Court of Directors have, in point of fact, been no more than the Council of the Board of Control; and that which Parliament has now to consider is, whether it is expedient

565
still to continue that Parliamentary fiction, or whether it may not he better to adopt a more direct course for the government of India. I do not know whether my noble Friend, who spoke of the progress which India had made during the last twenty years, has taken into his consideration—he certainly did not advert to it in his speech—the very peculiar position in which that country now stands. The destruction of the Sikh power has altogether changed our position in India. Before the destruction of that Power we had a great rival, and there was every reason to expect, at no distant period, a most serious conflict for supremacy in India. That rival, however, has now been destroyed, and we stand in the position in which Rome stood after the destruction of Carthage, when, all fear of rivalry in the field having been removed, those evils began to operate which led to the destruction of public liberty, to the ruin of the commonwealth, and to the ultimate annihilation of the empire. We have now arrived at a position in which we cannot with safety go beyond our present territorial limits: indeed, in my own opinion we have already in some quarters passed those limits. It is with much regret that I look to the possession of Peshawur and of any country on the right hank of the Indus, above Kalabagh, where the navigation of the Indus from the sea ceases. I look also with regret upon most of the annexations obtained twenty years ago from the Court of Ava, with the exception of the annexation of Arracan; but of this I am quite sure, that beyond our present territorial limits it would be the last proof of political insanity to pass. My Lords, such being our position, it must be observed that the danger, in a military empire such as ours in India is, and such as it must ever remain, is greater far in the stationary than in the progressive state. I now look forward with apprehension to the danger likely to arise from the insolence of office—which even in my time led to one insurrection—from disregard of military duties, from the absence of due consideration for the native officers and troops, and, above all, from the forgetfulness of that great principle by which our Indian empire was acquired, respect for the religious prejudices and for the social habits of the people. These are the dangers of a stationary state, and are, in my opinion, greater far than any danger we have encountered in the progressive state of the ample do-
566
minion which we now possess in India. My Lords, when I come to consider what we should do under these circumstances, and what alterations, if any, we should make in the present system of the government of India, I assume, with my noble Friend, one point as absolutely settled seventy years ago—namely, that the patronage of India is severed for ever from the Crown. I willingly acquiesce in that as a settled point, because I believe it to be equally conducive to the advantage of this country and of India: but, at the same time, I am of opinion, and I hope to place before your Lordships the grounds of that opinion, that much may be done by Parliament for the purpose of improving the administration of that patronage; and I will at once distinctly declare that in my opinion there is no object Parliament can have in view so important as that of sending to India the very best persons both for the military and the civil departments—for their character is practically the Government of India. I am also willing to admit another principle, though I do so with very considerable reluctance, namely, the necessity of continuing the system of double government. I do not approve of that system; I see all its mischiefs; I see how directly it leads to delay in the transaction of business, occasionally to very great embarrassment, and necessarily to great disregard of economy; but, above all these, it involves practically a total absence of all real responsibility on the part of the home authorities. I will only at the present moment touch upon those organic changes which it seems to me expedient to introduce for the purpose of leading to the improved government of India. I admit that in the course of the last twenty years much has been done. It would be hard indeed if India alone had not shared in the universal progress of the world. But much remains to be done, and I think much might be done by the improvements which I will suggest. Before, however, I touch upon the organic changes I should desire to see introduced, I will shortly state those alterations in the present law which I think it would be expedient to introduce, even if your Lordships are prepared to maintain the Court of Directors and the Board of Control as they now are, and to conduct the Government precisely upon the principles upon which it now rests. I first suggest that it would be highly expedient that the Board of Control should have the same power over

567
the Home Treasury as it has over the Treasury in India. At present the Board has no such power. Whatever information the Board of Control may have with respect to any intended misappropriation of the public revenue of India, they are powerless for the purpose of preventing it. I believe that if the Court of Directors were to give an order to the Bank to divide among themselves the whole of the balance the Company might have there, the Board of Control has no power whatever to interfere to prevent such a division. I will ask your Lordships to look at the establishment of the East India House, and compare it with the establishments of the Crown, either with regard to numbers or emoluments. I believe the number of persons employed at this moment at the East India House is equal to the number employed in all the departments of all the Secretaries of State; and if, moreover, you look at the emoluments these persons receive, I apprehend it will be found that there is a very wide space for economical reduction. Such is the extravagance of these emoluments, that I recollect being told, more than twenty years ago, when I first went to the Board of Control, that a gentleman, whose only recommendation was, that he had written some very bad novels, which had failed, but who had a sort of knack for writing, had been employed by the Court, at a salary of 2,000 l. a year, to write the controversial letters the Court might have to address to the Board of Control. For my part, I was charmed with my correspondent; for such were the literary abilities of this gentleman, that his letters, especially when altered and amended by the twenty-four other gentlemen, did not interpose very great difficulties in the way of the person who was called upon to answer them. I would further suggest, that the audit of the accounts of the East India Company should not be entirely dependent upon themselves, but that an independent Auditor should be appointed by the Crown. I see no reason why the officer who holds such an important situation should not be as independent as the noble Lord who is Auditor of the Treasury (Lord Monteagle). I think the duty of the Auditor should be not merely to see that there is authority for every payment, but that every payment is, according to the strict appropriation in the Act of Parliament, an appropriation of the revenues of India, for the service of the Government of India. I do not hesitate to say, that payments have
568
been made which were inconsistent with that appropriation, and which according to my understanding of the Act of Parliament were clearly illegal. Another alteration which I think would be productive of very great public advantage, would be to give to the Crown the absolute power of nominating the Commander-in-Chief of the Royal army in India, and not merely of the Royal army of India, but of the Native armies of all the Presidencies. I would give the Crown the power of appointing the Commanders-in-Chief of both the Royal and the Native armies, and I would suggest that the Commander-in-Chief should be, ex officio, Member of the Council of the Presidency in which he shall be. I know of one occasion—and there might be many—in which the East India Company, by objecting to the appointment of an officer of the Native army to be one of the Council, had prevented the appointment of the officer who had been thought most fit in the judgment of the Crown to command the army; and that was a power they ought not to have. I think this a great scandal and a great abuse, and it fully exemplifies the want of judgment and amount of prejudice which often characterise the proceedings of the Directors. I recollect, too, that on another occasion the most extraordinary representations had been made against the appointment of the late Earl of Dalhousie to the command of the Indian army, because, forsooth, the Chairman of the Court of Directors, Mr. Astell, took a different view of the noble Lord's conduct when Governor of Lower Canada, from that which had been taken of it by Mr. Huskisson, the Colonial Secretary. Now, as I have said, these representations were not attended to; but I conceive that these are representations which the Court of Directors ought not to have power to make. Again, I remember another occasion on which representations were made to me against the appointment of a most gallant officer, on the ground that he was addicted to habits of drunkenness. It fell to my duty to inquire into the charge; these representations were investigated, and proved to be utterly false and unfounded, and yet I, as representative of the Crown, had to make answer in reference to these charges preferred by the Charman. Such things, in my opinion, ought not to be. And further, I think it absolutely necessary, especially under the present circumstances of India, in order to insure its safety, that there should be a

569
very large increase of European troops, and a very great diminution of the Native forces; that there should be substituted for the civil police, which is utterly inefficient, a military police, who would perform many of the duties now executed by the native soldier. It is absolutely necessary that the Crown should possess without any control on the part of the Board of Directors the unrestricted power of sending out to and maintaining in India as many of the Royal troops as the Government here shall think fit. At present the Crown cannot send out more than 20,000 without the consent of the Court of Directors; which is contrary to reason and to public policy, inasmuch as the Crown is responsible for the safety of India, and on the Crown should rest the decision as to the number of troops requisite to be maintained there, according to the exigencies of the public service. There are a number of other things which I think it advisable to alter in the relations between the Court and the Government. I think it would be most expedient that the Crown should have a negative upon the appointment of Members of the Council. The present arrangement I do not challenge for its correctness; in former times it might have been properly made; but I do say, that under present circumstances, in the altered state of the empire of India, it is in my judgment most necessary and most expedient that every member of the military as well as the civil service, should look up to the Crown as the fountain of honour and authority. I do not propose that any alteration should take place in the mode of appointment of the Governor General. I think that there are practical advantages in the present arrangement, by which the Court proposes and the Crown approves of a Governor General: I think that mode of proceeding secures the best appointments. There may have been occasions on which the Government may have been somewhat inconveniently pressed by the request of one of their own friends, whom they felt it inconvenient and disagreeable to disoblige, for this very appointment, while at the same time they were reluctant to trust the government of India into his hands. On such occasions the intervention of the Court of Directors may have been most convenient to the Government. Seeing, therefore, no practical inconvenience arising from the present arrangement, I should certainly be most unwilling to disturb it. But I have already expressed my opinion, and
570
to that opinion I undoubtedly adhere, that after the Governor General has been appointed, and not only the Governor General, but the Governors of the subordinate provinces, the Members of the Council, and other officers—their continuance in office should depend solely upon the Crown. I think that we might with great advantage to the public service, improve the position of the Governor General, and increase his means of usefulness. It would be a very great advantage if the Governor General were not dependent upon two masters; that he should not be left in the condition to be approved of by one, and recalled by the other. We might also greatly improve his means of public usefulness by improving the composition of his Council. In that Council there is at present no Member from the Bombay, no Member from the Madras service; yet acts are daily sent up from the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, for the consideration of the Governor General in Council, who alone are endowed with legislative power. Many measures come, therefore, before the Council, and are discussed in total darkness as to their merits, in utter ignorance of the wants of the different localities, as they have no means of obtaining any practical information upon the subject. In my opinion, therefore, it would greatly conduce to the improvement of legislation and to the general efficiency of the various measures to be decided upon, if there were representatives from each of these Presidencies in the Council. I do not know that it would be advisable to make any alteration in the present practice by which the Governor General of India is nominated Governor of Bengal at the same time; but I think that often the Governor General will speedily discover, as I did, that it is highly conducive to the clue discharge of his public duties to divest himself of the Bengal Governorship, and to leave the duties to be performed by one of his Council. The Governor General, occupied with the control of India in all its departments, no matter what labour he might take upon himself, has not the necessary time to devote to the details of the government of Bengal; such, at least, is my experience. My noble Friend has alluded to the provision of the Act of 1833, by which an Extraordinary Member of Council was appointed. It has always appeared to me that a very great practical improvement might be made with regard to the Extraordinary Member of Council. This officer is always selected from among the gentlemen

571
of the legal profession, and as such the gentleman appointed always considers himself to be sent out to act as the legislator of India; he consequently, from the day of his arrival to the day of his departure, uses all his efforts to alter the law, in order to obtain the reputation of being a great legislator. Now, I must say that the most enlightened British lawyer, suddenly thrown into the midst of Calcutta, is not the man most qualified to devise those laws by which the people of India are to be governed. But by using that provision of 1833 in a different manner, I think that the Government here may give the greatest assistance to the Governor General. I think the addition of a political gentleman to the Council from the grade from which the Under Secretaries of State are generally selected, would be indeed a most valuable assistance to the Governor General and Council. He would be enabled to direct his fresh and English mind to a variety of subjects pressed upon the attention of the Governor General by persons with Indian prejudices; and the presence of a person with high attainments, with whom the Governor General could confidentially consult, would be to my mind the greatest possible relief. I assure your Lordships that there was nothing during my government of India which bore so heavily upon my mind as the fact of my having no other mind to which I could have recourse. I was forced to do everything from my own thought and will, without the opportunity of obtaining any aid whatever in the formation of my opinions. Facts might be, but opinions could rarely be, obtained. This it was which undoubtedly pressed most heavily upon my mind; and there is certainly nothing more calculated to unnerve a man than this constant pressure upon one unassisted mind. Enlarged as the Council would be by the addition of two Members from the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, I think it would be extremely desirable on that account, if no ton general grounds, that there should be no ambiguity whatever upon the question whether the Governor General was at liberty to overrule the opinion of his Council. By some strained interpretation of the law, the Governor General may, I believe, now overrule the decision of his Council; but that is a matter which ought not any longer to be left in doubt. The Governor General should be at liberty upon all occasions to exercise that power, should he deem it advisable; for, after all, the Governor General
572
alone is responsible for the measures which are adopted. There is also another matter upon which a question has been raised, and which ought to be settled and put an end to—namely, whether it is in the power of the Governor General to leave his Council and proceed into the interior without the consent of his Council, and while absent to exercise all the powers which in such circumstances the Governor General possessed before the Act of 1833. Under the Act of 1833 it has been done by a Resolution of the Council. There is some doubt upon the point. For my own part, I am of opinion that the Governor General may leave his Council and go into the provinces, and exercise the same authority there as was used by Lord Wellesley and others, previous to the Act of 1833; but I do not think that a matter of such extreme importance should be left under question and subject to dispute. Perhaps it may be advisable to make a few observations with respect to a question which has been much agitated in India, and which has been discussed at home, namely, the change in the seat of Government. I recollect that some conversation took place upon the same subject in 1829 and in 1830. It became my duty then to consider whether any change should be introduced, and I recollect perfectly well communicating with the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), then at the head of the Government, upon the subject, and I considered the reasoning of the noble Duke in favour of continuing the seat of Government where it was unanswerable. I have been asked, "Could not the Government be conducted from Simlah?" My answer was, "Yes, as the Government of Rome was conducted from Capri, and with the same results." My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will now permit me to revert to a subject touched upon by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). It is a most important one, namely, the constitution of the Court of Directors, and the constitution of the Court of Proprietors. The number of proprietors who have votes in the Court is 1,800, and each represents 1,000 l. stock: they represent nothing else; they have no other connexion with India, and have no more to do with it than the proprietors of Bank or any other stock. My noble Friend adverted to the number of ladies who were proprietors. Now, I have taken some trouble to examine into these matters, and I have ascertained, by a reference to the East India Directory, that out of the whole number

573
of 1,800, there are 385 who have the letters "W." or "S." appended to their names, meaning, of course, "widows" or "spinsters." I could not but remark also the number of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion who are proprietors, some of whom, having purchased stock to a considerable extent, have four votes each. I have also endeavoured to find the proportion of persons really connected with India who are proprietors, and I feel satisfied that if I were to rate them at 300, or one-sixth of the whole number, I should overrate them. Yet this is the proprietary to which is intrusted the election of the Directors who are to govern India. Let your Lordships consider the composition of this proprietary, and how the influence of certain families and certain firms predominates; and your Lordships will see that the union of these families and firms can practically decide the election of the person desirous to be a Director. The constituency is so numerous and so scattered that no person, no matter what his services, desiring to become a Director, can obtain a seat in the Direction without going through the most elaborate and the most painful personal canvass: he must solicit for seven or eight years before he can be elected, and must undergo one or two or more defeats. I remember, upon one occasion, remonstrating with a friend of mine who had already suffered two defeats, and asking him what madness could induce him to go on? The answer which I received contained the whole secret of these transactions. "My friends," said he, "who have lent me their interest, and have been supporting me so long, expect me to go on, in order that they may reap the reward of their long adherence to me, and I should not be acting fairly by them if I did not go on." In that answer your Lordships may see what is the working of the system. And what is the result? I wish I could think it was that which has been painted by my noble Friend. My noble Friend stated that twenty-one out of the thirty Directors have been distinguished in the Indian service. Now, I have been acquainted with the affairs of India since 1828. My eye has never been off the Indian service; I have given all matters connected with India the deepest and the most watchful attention; I have marked the names and persons engaged in that service more probably than any other person; and I must say that there are but four gentlemen out of the thirty who have
574
any Indian reputation whatsoever. I do not mean to say that there are not men of eminent ability upon the Direction—men who having been many years on the Court have become, from long experience, very fit persons to have upon the Direction; but not one of them was fit when he was first appointed; and whatever their practical knowledge may be, their opinion carries no weight with it in India. Of India they knew nothing, and the Board of Control can have no confidence in the advice they tender, and the result is that resolutions are often adopted which would never have been dreamt of if the Court of Directors were composed of persons really cognisant of the affairs of India. Now, I venture to propose to your Lordships that you should consider whether it might not he expedient very materially to extend and improve the constituency by which those are to be elected who are to advise the Board of Control. I would propose an extension and an improvement of the constituency, for the only reason for which it ought to be proposed—for the improvement of the representative. First, however, I must say—indeed, it has been admitted by my noble Friend—that the Court of Directors of the East India Company—a commercial company in a state of suspended animation—has no necessary connexion with the Government of India. I would willingly leave to the present proprietors of East India stock the election of the Directors of the East India Company, who will have the management of their funds, and the payment of the interest upon their stock. I would take every necessary precaution for the due transmission to England of the necessary funds to pay the interest on the stock and bonds; but the payment of those dividends may as well be made at the Bank, as the payment of the Three per Cents. I, however, think that it would be advisable and expedient that there should be some body of men of Indian experience interposed between the Government of India and the Government of England; and inasmuch as the proprietors have purchased their stock in the hope of some advantage in the shape of patronage, I would not deprive them of the power of voting in the election of those persons to be substituted for the Court of Directors as the Council for the Government of India. What I should propose is this: In addition to the proprietors of East India stock, all officers, civil or military, who have served either in the Queen's or the native

575
army, the Indian navy, or as Judges of the Supreme Court of Law, or in the civil service of India, for the period of ten years, should have a vote in the election of those persons who are to assist in the government of India. I propose giving to this body of persons the designation of the Indian Council, and to leave the relations between this Indian Council and its President, to be nominated by the Crown, as they now are between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. The persons so elected would be elected by an enlarged constituency, and the addition to the constituency, I calculate, would be equal to the whole number of the present electors. I consider that the number of retired officers and persons in England entitled to a vote, would, by this means, render the constituency just double in amount to what it is at present. Would it not be a great practical improvement to give to the Court a thoroughly Indian character, and by so extending the constituency as to render impossible the exercise of any influence arising from any combination of firms and families, to enable those persons cognisant of the wants and requirements of India, conversant with the people, and acquainted with their character, to give the benefit of their experience to those who were conducting the government of that empire—to enable them to give the benefit of that counsel, not at the end of seven or eight years' harassing canvass, but when they had returned fresh from the country, with all their faculties unimpaired, and in the full vigour of their health? Another alteration which I would further propose is, that the number of Members of the Council of India should not be twenty-four, but should be reduced to twelve; not that I mean to say that no Council consisting of twenty-four persons can by possibility transact business, or that no body of men exceeding twelve can with convenience transact business of a highly important, confidential, and political character: but I look in this alteration for that which I think should be the foundation of all our improvements—an improvement in the administration of patronage. If the patronage were divided among twelve individuals instead of being distributed among twenty-four, what would be the consequence? Your Lordships may recollect what was said by Lord Bacon, that "charity can hardly water the ground where it must first fill a pool." It is the same with patronage. In this case there
576
must be filled, not one pool only, but thirty pools, before there, could be an overflow of patronage to be distributed among those who are deserving of it for the services they have rendered. Some of those pools are very large indeed. I recollect looking over a list of persons on whom patronage has been bestowed, and I saw the names of fourteen gentlemen who all rejoiced in the same surname—one somewhat peculiar, and which was exactly the same name as that of one of the Directors; and I have not the slightest doubt that every one of them is a member of the same family. These fourteen persons of the one family had received the charity which would otherwise have watered the ground. It is not only that those persons who are entitled to have this patronage exercised in their favour do not obtain it; but by the present system on which it is dispensed, the relations of the thirty Directors are scattered over the whole face of India, which most materially interferes with the due exercise of authority there. It is to enable those twelve persons, with this much larger amount of patronage, to distribute it among those who deserve it, that, among other reasons, I propose the reduction of the number of the Court of Directors. I have sometimes read in the newspapers accounts of the extraordinary liberality with which Mr. This or Mr. That had conferred a cadetship in his patronage upon the son of this or that deserving officer. This instance of a proper exercise of patronage is paraded so ostentatiously as to lead to the inference that it is an exception to the usual course, and not the rule. Now, I have seen a great deal of deserving officers, and have often heard their complaints, and the expression of their utter hopelessness of obtaining the least favour from the Directors for the benefit of their families. I know how they have knocked at every door in succession, and got a refusal from all. I have known them leave India in a most desponding state of mind, because no provision had been made for their children. I recollect a most striking case. It is that of an officer who most ably distinguished himself in General Sir George Pollock's army. He was an officer on whom I felt it my duty, as the Governor General of India, to confer every honour and reward in my power. I recollect that officer coming to me and saying, "I cannot get a cadetship for my only son; all my desire is to get him into the service; I have made applications to the

577
Directors, but every one of them has been in vain; they are all so deeply engaged that they cannot assist me, and my son will now soon be of that age in which he will hardly be able to get a commission in the Royal Army." Such was the case of this meritorious officer, I felt it my duty to place the case of this young man before my noble Friend the noble Duke; and thus the case of the son of one of the most deserving officers in the Company's service is at present under the consideration of the noble Duke, simply for the purpose of being permitted to purchase a commission in Her Majesty's service, he having been unable to obtain an appointment from any of the Directors of the East India Company! What were the feelings of the gallant father when he saw the gate of honourable preferment closed against his son? His desire was to send his son to the scene in which he himself had acted so long and so meritorious a part; but this he was debarred from doing by the present system of the distribution of patronage. I trust that the alteration which I propose would obviate that evil. Again, I would in some degree diminish the extent of the patronage. I see no reason whatever why a proportion of the cadetships, and a proportion of the writerships, should not be saleable, like commissions in Her Majesty's Army, at a fixed price. I cannot understand why a practice should exist by which the whole of the aristocracy of England, almost with-out exception—I do not mean your Lordships only, but all persons of the highest rank and fortune in the country, who do not happen to be acquainted with a Director of the East India Company—that they and their sons should for ever be excluded from the most distinguished service to which any young man can aspire to belong. It seems to me to be a public wrong, and calculated to produce great public mischief. But, happen what may, I think it most desirable that at least one-fourth of the cadetships and writerships should be disposed of by sale at a fixed sum; and whilst upon this point I must not omit to say, that I think it not only highly expedient, but absolutely necessary, that the Governor General should have the power, on assigning his reasons, of taking officers from the military service and placing them in the civil service of the Company. According to the present system, for the purpose of securing offices to the relatives and friends of the Directors, this is not permitted. The reason why I think this would be an
578
advisable course is this. The total number of all the civil servants in India is about 800. Those gentlemen are generally the immediate relations and friends of the Directors of the East India Company. They go to India to rise in succession, and at last to exercise the highest functions, whatever their fitness, in the government of an empire containing, as my noble Friend has stated, 150,000,000 of people. It is contrary to reason that these 800 young men so selected should be capable of executing those important duties. I hold with Lord William Bentinck, who said that 800 Angels could not perform the functions of Government in India under such circumstances. It is preposterous. But if the Governor General had the power of selecting officers from the Army to become civil servants, he would be able to avail himself not only of the services of those 800 persons, but of the services of more than 5,000 gentlemen, every one of whom would be competent to perform the duties required of him by the Government, he having been selected for his fitness for such an office. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that, in point of fact, the best administrators of government in India have been military men who have risen in that country by means of having had intrusted to them the administration of conquered or ceded territories. I do not agree with those who think that a portion of the cadetships and writerships should be offered as a reward to the most distinguished scholars in the schools and colleges belonging to the Company. I say, on this ground, that the knowledge acquired from books is of no use in India. The giving of those rewards to boys in the different schools might be of great use to the schools, but it would be of great disservice to India. If you had to select a boy to lead your troops under difficulties, would you take the best scholar, the most solitary bookworm in the school, or would you not rather choose the boy who is the most expert at all manly exercises, who is most remarkable for his influence over his schoolfellows, and who knows best how to manage them? There is nothing, I must repeat it, which can be learned from books that can qualify a man for a situation in India. That which is required in India, besides a knowledge of languages, is an untiring industry and an aptitude for public business, which few merely literary men are practically found to possess; but, above

579
all, what is required is that which cannot be gathered from books—energy, decision of character, and, above all, moral courage, firmness in the face of the public, and a determination, happen what may, to do his duty at once to the country of his birth, and also to the country of his adoption. Those are the qualities we want in India; but they are not to be met with merely among those who most distinguish themselves at school. I confess I feel a very deep interest in the question now before your Lordships. I have made India the subject of my earliest thoughts, and that now for 24 years. I may, indeed, say that my whole public life has practically been devoted to India. My Lords, I must tell your Lordships again, that India has arrived at a most critical period of its history—at one of those periods in the history of a State in which it is absolutely necessary carefully to look back and carefully to look forward; to consider what were those measures and that policy which had assisted, or at least had not impeded, her progress, and to devise such as are likely to be equally efficacious for the purpose of preventing her fall. I feel satisfied that it is wholly on the spirit in which the Government of India is conducted, on the temper in which its power is administered, on the consideration with which you treat, not the Native Army only, but the whole of the native population—that it is on your perseverance in and adherence to those principles, and on your attention to the religion, and the prejudices, and the social habits of the people, by which hitherto your Government in India has been permitted to exist, and that we have conducted it to so prosperous an elevation—that it is on these principles and this conduct alone that that perilous empire can be preserved. A perilous empire, it was called by Lord Wellesley at a very early period of his acquaintance with India; much more perilous is it now. It is not one which has its roots in the affections of the people. It has not its roots in the perfection of its institutions. It exhibits nothing to the people which they can understand, or admire, or love. I was made deeply sensible of this, even under the most favourable circumstances in which that Government could be presented to the natives of India. I do, therefore, entreat my noble Friend, and I entreat your Lordships and the Parliament, when considering what should be done in this great emergency, and what constitution should be given to India for the pur-
580
pose of forming it, if we can, into an integral part of the British empire (for I cannot bear to consider it possible that England should ever be separated from that country; it is not yet separated, and never can be, if the same ability be used for preserving it as was used for obtaining it)——but I entreat your Lordships, when considering this great question, not to allow the mere consideration of convenience in carrying the measure through Parliament, or any consideration of matters which ought to be below the notice of high minded statesmen, dealing with the future happiness of a great people—I entreat you not to allow any considerations or feelings of that kind to prevent you from doing that which is just by the people of India, that which is just by the people of England, and that which may make our name memorable for ever in India, and establish our empire in the gratitude and affections of the people of that country for real blessings conferred.
On Question, agreed to: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—Ld. Privy Seal, M. Tweedale, M. Lansdowne, M. Normandy, E. Graham, B. Derby, E. Carlisle, E. Albemarle, E. De Le Warr, E. Mansfield, E. Powis, E. Grey, E. Harrowby, E. Stradbroke, E. Ellenborough, V. Canning, V. Hardinge, V. Gough, L. Bp. Oxford, L. Elphinstone, L. Colville of Culross, L. Sundridge, L. Wodehouse, L. Mont Eagle, L. Colchester, L. Ashburton, L. Glenelg, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L. Broughton.

THE ENDOWMENT OF MAYNOOTH.
The EARL of ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I now beg leave to ask the question of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, of which I have given notice—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any change of policy with regard to the maintenance of the College of Maynooth? Your Lordships are doubtless aware that the grant to the College of Maynooth rests upon an annual vote in the Miscellaneous Estimates, for, I believe, a sum between 8,000 l. and 9,000 l., until the year 1845, when the annual vote was converted by Act of Parliament into a permanent charge of 26,000 l. on the Consolidated Fund. That measure had its origin with a Government of which the noble Earl now at the head of Her Majesty's Government was one of the most distinguished Members; and I believe the noble Earl is the only

581
Member of your Lordships' House, who, having been a Member of that Government, is also a Member of the present Cabinet. The subject was very maturely and very deliberately considered—the debates upon it occupying fourteen nights in the House of Commons, and five nights in your Lordships' House. On the third night of the discussion in this House, the last speaker upon the question was the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government. A noble Lord who is since deceased—the late Earl of Charleville—had stated that the Government, of which the noble Earl was a Member, would lose his confidence and support, and reminded the noble Earl opposite that he (the Earl of Charleville) was one of those who had helped to place him in power. And the noble Earl opposite, at that time sitting in this House under another title, professed the regret which Her Majesty's Ministers would feel in losing the confidence of those who had called them to power, but added that that consideration would not weigh so much on the minds of the Government as the still higher duty which they owed to their country and their God. [3 Hansard, Ixxxi. 105.] The noble Earl closed that speech—a speech which occupies ten pages of Hansard—by calling upon this House, as statesmen and as Christians, to pass that measure. I mention these circumstances in order to show to your Lordships the deep interest which was at that period felt by the noble Earl in the question of the grant to Maynooth. Under other circumstances I should have thought a question such as that of which I have given notice, a work of supererogation; and it would be so now if it were not for the distrust and suspicion which appear to pervade the public mind with regard to the uncertainty which characterises almost all the measures of the present Government. The fact is, my Lords, there seems to be a want of fixity of purpose—a want of fixed principles. There seems to be a tendency to shift off responsibility from their own shoulders to appeal to the country, and, as it were, actually to court an agitation out of doors. It is for these reasons, then, that I rise to ask the question on the present occasion. But the subject of the grant to the College of Maynooth has of late assumed another feature; and perhaps it would have been unnecessary for me to put the question if it had not been for the very ambiguous and unsatisfactory manner in which a question
582
of similar import to that which I am now putting was answered a few days ago by a right hon. Colleague of the noble Earl—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in an other place. What I wish to elicit from the noble Earl is some distinct acknowledgment of his policy on this question; because it appears to me that the subject of the grant to Maynooth comes within the same category as that of free trade in corn. [Laughter.] I will endeavour to explain to your Lordships in what way. They both seem to be put up before the public to be knocked down to the highest bidder; corn was to be put up to competitition between Protectionists and Free Traders, and the Maynooth grant between the Protestants and Catholics. It seems as though the friends and supporters of the noble Earl are to go to the Roman Catholic constituencies of Ireland with one set of principles; and to the Protestant constituencies of England with another. We have one statement made in one place by one Member of the Government, and another statement made in another place by another Member of the Government. Here is the Secretary for the Treasury—and what does he say upon the subject of Maynooth? I pass by free trade, with respect to which he completely throws over the noble Earl. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was made on the 1st of April to his supporters at Liverpool, and the report says—"The speaker then referred to his votes on the Maynooth grant, and his determination for the future to give his unqualified opposition to any grant to the Roman Church, whensoever, howsoever, and by whomsoever made." Now, I ask the noble Earl, is this the language of a subordinate, or an insubordinate officer of his Government? Is it a declaration which the noble Earl is prepared to support or disavow? At any rate, the uncertainty ill which the subject is involved constitutes, in my opinion, sufficient ground for me to put the question of which I have given notice—"Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any change of policy with regard to the maintenance of the College of Maynooth?"
The EARL of DERBY: The noble Earl will excuse me if I do not follow him in all the reasons which he has assigned to your Lordships for putting his question—if I confine myself simply to answering that question, and in stating to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government has no present intention of proposing to Par-

583
liament any interference with the Act which was passed for the endowment of the College of Maynooth in the year 1845. But the noble Earl must allow me to add, and I do it with great regret, that the course which has been pursued by a large body of the people and by a large body of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, and the aggressive attitude which that Church has of late years assumed, has added materially to the difficulty of defending an endowment which was intended for the purpose of maintaining peace and good-will—for the purpose of binding the clergy of the Church of Rome to the State by the ties of gratitude for material assistance afforded, of gratitude for goodwill shown, and binding them by the ties of loyalty, contentment, and peacefulness.
House adjourned to Monday next.