Sitting of 7 April 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Education.

THE QUARANTINE LAWS.
MR. HUMEsaid, he begged to ask a question of the noble Lord (Lord John

723
Russell) which was important at the present moment, when the Custom House regulations were under consideration. It would be in their recollection that in the year 1850 several petitions were presented respecting the quarantine laws, and the noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Office (Viscount Palmerston) said, that in consequence of a conference being about to be held at Paris by deputies from different States of Europe respecting the quarantine laws, they had thought it better to defer any measures on the subject until a Report was made. They knew that the conference had met, and that deputies from this country had attended it. It sat for several months, and came to certain resolutions, which it was understood were to be signed on the part of the different Governments. From that period they had heard nothing more of the matter: it was therefore desirable that the noble Lord should, if possible, give them some information respecting it. He therefore begged to ask the noble Lord what had been the result of the conference respecting the quarantine laws held in Paris in the year 1851?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the result of the conference at Paris was, that the persons in attendance had agreed upon a convention respecting sanitary regulations, which were submitted to the several Powers who had appointed deputies to attend the conference. On those sanitary regulations reaching this country, they were referred by the Secretary of State to the Board of Trade. The matter was one of great difficulty, and was still under consideration with a view to arrive at some convention which would be agreeable to all the Powers who had taken part in the conference, as also to all the maritime Powers that would be affected by it.

SIR JAMES BROOKE—PIRACY IN BORNEO.
MR. DRUMMOND: Sir, I have given notice that I will put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London; but before I do that, I will put another question in consequence of an extraordinary document circulated this morning, and I will show that I have a right to complain, unless the noble Lord is able to give some satisfactory explanation. It is very well known that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) has been for the last two years in the habit
724
of inserting on the notice paper certain allegations and insinuations against Sir James Brooke. I therefore gave notice to the Government of Lord Derby, that I would resist any Motion of that sort, in order to prevent the hon. Member from moving without giving me an opportunity to reply. When the present Government came into office, I did the same thing; but the hon. Gentleman shifted his ground, and has written despatches from Bryanstone-square containing gross libels, which are printed at the Government expense, two of which I hold in my hand—libels! gross libels!—
MR. HUME: I deny it.
MR. DRUMMOND: And those libels are now presented with the sanction of Her Majesty. The charges made in letters addressed by the hon. Member for Montrose to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) are, that Sir James Brooke, a servant of the Crown, approved of by the noble Lord, and by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), has been guilty of "an utter disregard of all truth—of paltering with the truth—of a glaring violation of the truth—of gross and scandalous falsehoods," which it is stated are "now brought under your Lordship's consideration;" and those papers are presented, not in the ordinary way of Motion, but by command of Her Majesty; and the question I ask is, what is the reason why Her Majesty is made to bring forward those charges against a servant of the Crown, towards whom She has no cause, so far as we can know from public documents, of departing from the approbation She formerly expressed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL. Sir, the origin of the production of this correspondence was, that after the resignation of the Government of Lord Derby, and when there was no Minister in this House who could take upon himself to give an answer with respect to the papers to be produced, a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Montrose, and an address agreed to for those papers. On accepting the seals of the Foreign Office, I found those papers had been prepared in pursuance of the Address which was, as I have already said, agreed to at a time when there was no Minister in the House that could properly answer on the subject. My first impression was that it was my duty to ask the House to rescind the order that was made; but on further consideration, seeing that the Address had been carried,

725
I thought it would be, perhaps, better that those papers should be presented in conformity with the Address. I accordingly presented those papers, and there was afterwards another application made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that other papers should be produced. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) says the papers are produced by command, and if so it is only because they are a continuance of the correspondence already on the table of the House. I must say that I think the course that has been pursued, owing to the circumstance I have mentioned, is a very inconvenient one, and I trust the House will not agree to any further Motion with respect to correspondence which consists, in fact, of letters from the hon. Member for Montrose to the Secretary of State, containing allegations which he might more properly make in his place in this House.
MR. HUME: I beg, Sir, to explain. Two letters were presented to-day, dated the 10th and 18th, written by me, and the House should know that they were preduced on the hon. Member's (Mr. Drummond's) own Motion. On the 18th of last month the hon. Gentleman moved for two letters, one from Lord Wodehouse to Sir James Brooke, and the other the answer of Sir James Brooke to Lord Wodehouse, and they were delivered and laid on the table. I then wrote a letter, saying that if Lord Wodehouse's letter calling upon Sir James Brooke to explain, and the reply thereto, were published, was it not fair that my letter should be published also? I then asked that my letter of the 10th should be produced; but I did so in consequence of the hon. Gentleman's own irregular conduct. The letter of the 18th was in answer to the papers I had an opportunity of seeing, and which were full of erroneous statements, which I am ready to prove, and respecting which he and all connected with him shrink from inquiry. In consequence of the course taken by the hon. Gentleman, I said both those letters should be produced; and, therefore, if there be any blame in the matter, it is the fault of the hon. Gentleman himself.
MR. DRUMMOND: I made my Motion on the last day before the adjournment, because the hon. Gentleman had circulated a paper headed "Falsehoods of Sir James Brooke." I now beg to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have received the accounts of the breaking out of the Dyaks in acts of piracy on the 3rd of
726
February, in Sakarran, under the command of the pirate Rentab, who unfortunately escaped in the action with Captain Farquhar, the forcible coming out of a balla (or assemblage for warlike purposes) in war vessels (bangongs), and the attacking the forts at the mouths of the river Sakarran and Regang, by which Mr. Lee and many persons with him lost their lives, again rendering insecure to mercantile interests the whole coast of Borneo?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the Government have received information that acts of piracy have been committed, and a collision has taken place. I cannot say whether all the acts have been committed that are mentioned in the question of the hon. Gentleman; but a statement has been made that piracy had recommenced, and that a collision had taken place. Upon receiving this information, my noble Friend Lord Clarendon wrote to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, desiring that the attention of the admiral on the station should be called to the subject, and my right hon. Friend has given the orders which he thought were necessary on this occasion for the protection of British interests.
MR. HUME: Has the noble Lord's attention been directed to the fact that this act of piracy was committed sixty or seventy miles up the country, and had no connexion with the sea coast?
Subject dropped.

DOCKYARD PROMOTION AND PATRONAGE.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: Sir, when I stated that I would bring under the consideration of the House certain Parliamentary papers connected with the appointments in the dockyards, the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford) requested that I would give him an early intimation of what my notice would be. I am prepared to give that intimation at the present time; but in consequence of a communication which I have had with the hon. Gentleman, I will give that intimation to-morrow instead of on this evening. I have now to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty some questions in reference to the subject, namely, whether there is any Minute of the Board of Admiralty cancelling the Order of the 26th of September, 1849, and authorising the Secretary of the Admiralty to issue a Circular directing that all reports and correspondence on the

727
subject of vacancies, promotions, and appointments shall be sent to the Admiralty, and not to the Surveyor of the Navy, as had been previously directed by the Order of the 26th September, 1849? Also whether in records of the office there is any copy of a letter from Sir Baldwin Walker, which appears by the Parliamentary papers to have been written to his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, then First Lord of the Admiralty, on the subject of promotions and appointments in the dockyards, or any copy of the reply of the Duke of Northumberland thereto, dated the 10th of May, 1852? Also whether there is any Minute appointing Mr. Wells master smith in the dockyard at Portsmouth; and if there be any papers of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to lay them on the table of the House, and also any letter of recommendation from Sir Baldwin Walker on the same subject?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I have to thank the hon. Baronet for giving me notice of the questions he was about to ask me. With respect to the first question, whether there is any Minute of the Board of Admiralty cancelling the Order of the 26th September, 1849, which authorises the Secretary of the Admiralty to issue a Circular directing that all reports and correspondence on the subject of vacancies, promotions, or changes of the officers and workmen of the dockyards shall be sent to the Admiralty, and not to the Surveyor of the Navy as had been previously directed, I have made inquiry on the subject, and I have to inform the hon. Baronet that there is no such Minute at all upon the record. With regard to the second question, whether on the records of the Admiralty Office there is any copy of a letter from Sir Baldwin Walker, or any copy of a letter from the Duke of Northumberland in answer to such letter from Sir Baldwin Walker, dated 10th May, 1852, on the subject of promotions and appointments of officers in the dockyards, I have to state that there is no record of that letter in existence. But I must observe that a letter addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the same position as a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Admiralty. The Secretary places every communication he receives on record; but it is in the discretion of the First Lord of the Admiralty to say what letters addressed to himself may be put on record. The next question is whether there is any Minute appointing Mr. Wells master smith of
728
the dockyard at Portsmouth, on probation, or any letter from Sir Baldwin Walker recommending the appointment of Mr. Wells to that office? In answer to the first part of the question, I have to state that there is no original Minute appointing Mr. Wells master smith on probation at Portsmouth. There is a copy of the Surveyor's recommendation, dated 9th September, 1852. The original appointment, as approved by Admiral Parker, is not to be found, but there is a copy of it, authenticated by his signature, in existence. The original letter, dated the following day, is on record, signed by the Secretary of the Admiralty, and there is no objection to produce that letter on the part of the Admiralty.

THE BIRTH OF A PRINCE.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, before the House proceeds to the ordinary business of the day, I am sure they will be anxious, from those feelings of loyalty which have ever distinguished this House, to congratulate Her Majesty on an event which is so well calculated to promote Her Majesty's domestic happiness. Without further preface, I will move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating Her Majesty on the birth of another Prince.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have the honour to second the Motion of the noble Lord for an Address of Congratulation to Her Majesty on this occasion. I am sure the feelings of affection and loyalty which pervade all classes of the community will always render Motions of this kind matters not of mere ceremony. Those feelings spring from a conviction on the part of the people of this country that with the Royal House of this Realm are associated the best interests of the land.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty on the Birth of another Prince, and to assure Her Majesty, that every addition to Her Majesty's domestic happiness affords the most sincere satisfaction to Her faithful Commons."

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
MR. VERNON SMITH,after presenting a petition from inhabitants of Cambridge in favour of the appointment of a Commission to inquire into corrupt practices in that borough, rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He said, that he appeared to make this Motion in his capacity of Chairman of the Com-

729
mittee to whom the petition complaining of an undue return for Cambridge had been referred; and the necessity for such a course, would, he thought, be obvious to the House. Such a course was the necessary consequence, in fact, in such cases as this, of the imperfect arrangements of the House itself for dealing with these matters. No doubt the Grenville Act had succeeded to a very much worse system; and the various amendments which had since been adopted, were great improvements on that Act itself; but a Committee of that House to try an election petition was still, after all, a party tribunal—that was to say, a tribunal which had to judge between two parties, the Petitioner and the sitting Member. The character of the inquiry was at the mercy of these parties; the moment the petitioner chose to abandon the case, or the sitting Members to throw up their defence, that moment the inquiry, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, was at an end. To meet the ends of public justice in such a case as this, where the inquiry had been brought to an abrupt close, there was therefore only one resource—such a Commission as he now proposed. As regarded Cambridge, he believed there could be little difficulty in proving that in that borough there had long prevailed extensive systematic electoral corruption. One circumstance would alone satisfy the House on this point. In 1840, Mr. Manners Sutton was unseated for the borough of Cambridge, and on that occasion the Committee reported much the same as what the Committee on this occasion had reported—that an extensive and corrupt system of treating had prevailed on the part of many influential members of the constituency of the borough of Cambridge. But nothing was done. The writ was issued as if nothing had happened; and in due course a new election took place. On that occasion, however, it was ascertained that bribery had been carried on by a person named Samuel Long; and that person was tried for bribery, found guilty, and imprisoeed for twelve months for the offence. But Mr. Long got out again at the end of his term, returned to Cambridge, and at this very last election was found in precisely the same capacity again. In that capacity this Mr. Long was a most efficient performer. The system he pursued was this. He hired an inn, at election times, in Barnwell—the Butchers Arms—and there he received all applica-
730
tions, and managed all his business; and in Cambridge, by a strange perversity of terms, the phrase "all right" was taken to signify an agreement in a wrongful bargain for corruption, the intimation being that if a vote was given, 10 l. would be paid for it. Mr. Long was accustomed to say to his electoral customers, "If you do right, I'll do right;" that is, if a proper vote was given, he would pay for it 10 l.; and it would appear that the most unlimited confidence was felt that Mr. Long would keep his word. The way he did keep his word, was by a novel machinery, probably meant to complete the fascination which it seemed to begin. The bribed party went and gave his vote; and then went home, awaiting his 10 l.; and in due time a lady appeared at his house—a lady with a fall—that was to say, not in the iniquitous sense, but in the sense of a veil over her face, and presented the happy voter with money, never asking him any question, except, perhaps, his identity. This fair and frail figure having passed away, the voter looked at his 10 l., and, according to the general confession such voters made, went and spent it all immediately, either in drinking or conviviality of some sort. Every witness gave the same simple account of his process: and he thought he was therefore fully justified in saying that in Cambridge the bribery was systematic. And it was a matter of great regret to find that this corruption was not confined to the lower classes of voters. Some of the people in Cambridge would have it, that the extension of the suffrage under the Reform Bill had done all the mischief, and that the admission of Barnewell voters was the cause of the corruption; but the facts did not bear out the theory, for it would appear that throughout the borough, whether as regarded the freemen or the 10 l. householders, or whatever the qualification was, there was no distinction in their readiness to take bribes. This was fully evidenced in a circumstance which took place before the Committee. A witness was confessing his corruption; and the counsel said, "I suppose you were poor, and the 101. was a temptation?" and the man said "Yes;" but he (Mr. Vernon Smith) suspecting the truth of the answer, judging by the appearance of the witness, pressed him further, and elicited that he was a master plasterer, well to do in the world. With other witnesses it was admitted that they took money because others did—because, at that time, every

731
one was making money out of the election. Such was the reckless and lavish waste at Cambridge, that those men who came to the poll at three o'clock, or half-past three o'clock, when their candidates were 100 or more ahead, got exactly the same money, 10 l., as the bolder rascals, who gave their votes at a crisis. In fact, one man held out for a bargain so long that when he did come up four o'clock had struck, and then they would not pay him; but though he had not his bribe he had his revenge by turning witness against the whole system. The effrontery of the witnesses generally would show that the state of things at Cambridge vied with anything that had ever existed in any of those places which had been already disfranchised and disgraced. The corruption was systematic, extensive, and continuous. All this the Commission, he was confident, would fully demonstrate; but he could not make this Motion without expressing his opinion, that however useful these Commissions might be, they still failed to meet the whole of the necessity of the case. He could not now say what he believed was the machinery required, but it was obvious that there were defects in a Commission. As regarded the bribery itself, it was seldom that the bribery oath was administered; it was never administered in Cambridge. It was also very seldom that guilty persons were prosecuted for bribery; and thus justice was allowed to wink, and the offenders did not believe in the sincerity of the Legislature to eradicate the crime. The Committee of which he bad been Chairman had in this case reported against the bribers as well as against the bribed, and the only reason why they had not come to the House to ask that the Attorney General should prosecute was, that they had not been able to continue the inquiry so far as to come at capital offenders. In the first instance they would have been very glad to have obtained sufficient evidence against parties of much greater property and standing than the secondary agents; and he would especially mention one party—the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle newspaper—and he should have been the more pleased to obtain evidence against that individual, inasmuch as he had had the assurance, after the Committee had reported, to write an article in his paper in which he spoke of the Committee as a partial and predetermined tribunal. Such a charge was of a most insolent character. The Committee had been chosen like any other
732
Election Committee; and they had performed their duty in the most absolutely fair and judicial manner. But even if they had been able to reach these persons, there would be something more to do. If the decisions of the various Committees were examined, it would be seen how deficient was the law of agency. He believed that the law of agency, as laid down by that House, was laughed at in Westminster Hall. When the sitting Members for Cambridge threw up their defence, the Committee had hardly gone at all into the inquiry; and yet the agency traced to them and detected in bribery was said by their own counsel to be sufficient, namely, the agency of a runner of a committee. He put it to any hon. Member of that House who had stood a contested election, whether, if this was to be the law, they could feel quite safe in their seats? He could hardly see how they were to remedy all this evil. He could not quite see how that proposition of which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe) had given notice with respect to an extension of electoral districts, would touch the mischief. The hon. Member's beau ideal of an English constituent body was one of 20,000 voters; but even in such a constituency parties might be so nearly balanced that fifty or one hundred would turn the scale: and so long as there were people willing to be corrupted, there would be no want of money to corrupt them. He was afraid that the evil lay deeper than the restricted franchise and small constituencies. He feared that among the voting body generally there was very little correct feeling on the question of purity of election. It was evident that the acceptance of a bribe was not made matter of reproach among themselves; and that being so, the country would have to wait some time to see a better state of things—until the moral tone of the people was elevated. He would not enter further into the question; but he had made these remarks in order that it might not be supposed that in making this proposal he was trusting to a Commission, as a completely curative process. With regard to the names of the Commissioners, he had to say that it was a task of great delicacy and difficulty which had been thrown on him, as Chairman, of selecting the proper Gentlemen; but he had taken the highest advice, and made a selection which he believed would prove satisfactory.
Sin JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Motion.
Resolved—That an humble Address be

733
presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to cause inquiry to be made by a Commission into corrupt practices reported to have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Cambridge.
Resolved—That the said Address be communicated to the Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto.
Ordered—That a Conference be desired with the Lords upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15 & 16 of Her present Majesty, cap. 57.
Ordered—That Mr. Vernon Smith do go to the Lords, and desire the said Conference.
Subsequently, Mr. VERNON SMITH reported, That having been with the Lords to desire a Conference upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the provisions of the Act of the 15 & 16 of Her present Majesty, cap. 57, the Lords agree to a Conference, and appoint the same immediately in Committee Room A.

CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES (IRELAND).
MR. G. H. MOORE said: I come before you to-night with a claim which I make in the name of a whole people, and which deeply affects the material condition of a whole nation. I do not doubt that the subject is one in which all parties in this House feel interest and solicitude, and to which all men, without distinction of party, are prepared to give at least a just consideration. But I feel deeply the responsibility that devolves upon myself in stating it, and as a first instalment of justice, I venture to entreat that you will extend to the cause which I am endeavouring to plead that indulgent attention which, under other circumstances, I might not be in a position to claim; because the House will see that this is entirely a question of fact and of detail. It does not rest upon any broad principle on which men may have already made up their minds; the claim which I come forward to urge is either just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, precisely as the facts of the case may render it the one thing or the other; and if the House is to pronounce a just judgment upon the matter, it is absolutely necessary that those facts should be fairly heard, in order that they may be justly considered; and I intend to argue this question solely
734
on the score of justice. I come before you with no beggar's petition; I will not condescend to make the distressed state of Ireland, or of any unions in Ireland, the basis of a charitable appeal to the Consolidated Fund. If, after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case that I shall lay before you, you do not think me entitled to a verdict on the ground of sound policy, equity, and honour, I have no wish that you should yield to importunity what you are not disposed to accord to justice. In the first place, I have to call your attention to the high and commanding authority which warrants me in bringing this claim before you. When this claim for a remission of the Minute providing for the debts due in counties and unions in Ireland by the imposition of a Consolidated Annuity was first brought under the consideration of the Legislature, the Lords appointed a Select Committee to examine into all the matters connected with the subject, and to report thereon to the House. This Committee was appointed by Her Majesty's Government, and with the implied and generally understood consent and sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Now let us look to the composition of this Committee, and I trust I shall not uncandidly represent its character. No doubt some of the noble Lords upon that Committee were interested in the matter they had to try; but, on the other hand, there were associated with them many others, of the highest position and political reputation in the country, who not only could not have been influenced by any personal consideration in arriving at the conclusion, embodied in the Report and recommendation of the Committee, but who, in many instances, entered on the investigation with feelings highly hostile to that conclusion.
When I say that on that Committee there were such men as the Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Derby, the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Harrowby, and Lord Ashburton, it is not too much to assert that men more capable or more worthy to try and report upon the subject could not be found in the empire. And what was the degree of difference which prevailed in a Committee so constituted, as to the adoption of its ultimate recommendations? If I found that any great discrepancy of opinion existed as to the conclusions arising out of the evidence and the facts of the case; if we found the

735
Committee nearly equally divided; above all, if we found the English Members outnumbered but not convinced by those who might be suspected of being interested parties, then, indeed, although we might regard the Report itself in some degree valuable, on account of the great ability and information it displays, we could scarcely consider it as the united and informed verdict of impartial men. But I find that, so far from that being the case, no difference whatever existed as to the ultimate report and recommendation of this Committee; that the evidence which has been reported for our guidance produced the same conviction on the mind of every Member of the Committee; and that all, without exception, no matter what might have been their previous impressions, concurred in the recommendation which is here made to Parliament. I think myself justified in stating, therefore, that unless this report and recommendation are regarded as paramount primâ facie evidence of the justice of the case, no Committee of either House can be entitled to the smallest consideration. Because the House will please to recollect that this is not a question in which any great public principle is involved, and on which it might be perfectly natural and legitimate for the Committee to hold one opinion, and the House of Commons another; this is entirely a question of fact and evidence, and of the general equity of a case resting on facts and evidence. In this matter the Committee was, in reality, a jury appointed by the country to try the case; to hear the evidence; to inform themselves of the facts; and, on that evidence and those facts, to pronounce a verdict which, when we consider the character of the jury, the character of its proceedings, and that of the evidence on which its judgment was based, is as well entitled to be considered final on the merits of the case as any verdict that ever was pronounced by any jury in the world. And what was the character of the evidence which led the Committee to its final conclusions? If anything could add weight to the opinions of such men as I have named, it is the testimony upon which those opinions were sustained, proceeding from a body of witnesses unimpeachable in point of character, unrivalled in complete mastery of the subject, invested with the authority of official position which had been obtained by untiring study of the matter at issue, and bringing before
736
the Committee all the knowledge and experience that both study and official position had bestowed. In the words of the Report, p. 111—
"The Committee have primarily selected the witnesses whom they have felt it their duty to examine, from individuals who, from their station in the public service, were best enabled to take a comprehensive view of the questions under consideration, and who, from an absence of local bias or personal interest, were entitled to have weight with the House and the public. Among them will be found the Commissioners of Public Works; the Chief Commissioner of Poor Law, and the inspectors under his authority; General Sir John Burgoyne, late Chairman of the Relief Commission; the Commissary General, selected and employed as accountant; the Secretary to the Board of Audit; and others intrusted with important duties under the late system of Relief."
But there is another witness that I have not yet named, and whose evidence, in another sense, is still more valuable than any of these, inasmuch as it is in itself a complete guarantee that the Members of the Committee were fully informed on every point that could possibly have led them to a different conclusion from that at which they ultimately arrived. When I say that Sir C. Trevelyan not only favoured the Committee with the length and breadth of his opinions in sixty of these enormous pages, but furnished them besides with an elaborate written document in which he recapitulated all he had ever said or written or done in connexion with this subject, I think every hon. Member acquainted with that gentleman will feel satisfied that nothing was left unstated that was calculated to persuade the Committee that the Irish Consolidated Annuities Act was a perfect monument of human wisdom and justice; that nothing was left unsaid or unwritten in inculpation of all classes of Irishmen, and in unlimited laudation of Sir C. Trevelyan himself, and all with whom he was connected. From one end of his evidence to the other, this self-satisfied functionary seems utterly unable to conceive the possibility of his having ever made a mistake, even the most trifling. To be sure nothing that he undertook succeeded—nothing that he anticipated came to pass—disaster followed every scheme he originated-and he aggravated every disaster by the remedies he applied. The conclusion to which he is led by these undeniable facts is, that every one was to blame except himself; and that Irish landlords, Irish ratepayers, Irish priests, Irish paupers, and a special divine providence for Ireland, were all in league to baffle the unerring sagacity of

737
Sir C. Trevelyan. I would not thus pointedly allude to the evidence of this particular witness were I not aware of the influence which he has exercised, and which, as I believe, he continues to exercise over the counsels of Government in its administration of Irish affairs; and I own I can have but little confidence in the proper government of Ireland, as long as I see a dogmatist that no experience can instruct—a theorist that no evidence can enlighten—a practical blunderer, whose self-complacency failure only hardens and confirms, permitted to lean, if not to dominate, over the affairs of a country in which he is regarded by every class, sect, and party, with unanimous jealousy and distrust. I do not deny the abilities and energies of Sir C. Trevelyan; still less do I doubt the rectitude of his motives and intentions; but energy in a mistake is only an aggravation, and the rectitude in which a great injury is inflicted is but a small consolation to the injured. At all events, if there was a man in the country more willing than another—if there was a man more able than another, to dissuade the Committee from adopting the recommendation contained in this Report, it was undoubtedly Sir C. Trevelyan; and any one who has taken the trouble to read his evidence will see that he spared nothing, and scrupled nothing, to effect that object. I have, therefore, a right to assume that the Committee learned everything that could be learned on the subject, before it arrived at its decision; and, although I do not venture to argue that Parliament should be bound by the verdict of any Committee, I think that it is on no light grounds that we should go behind such a verdict as this—that it is not without good cause shown that we should pronounce a decision contrary to the recommendation of such men upon such testimony; and that any hon. Gentleman who has not thoroughly informed himself on the facts of the case, would do well to pause before he refuses me a vote which I ask on such overwhelming probability of its justice. And what is the substance of the recommendation to which such men as these have unanimously agreed? I will endeavour to state it as succinctly as possible, and I will not add a single word of comment. The first head into which they divide these charges is that of the debt due for building workhouses, amounting to 1,122,706 l. They express their opinion
738
that the whole of this sum has been expended indispensable to the due administration of the poor-law, and that there appear no grounds why the whole of this debt should not be discharged.
The debt due for temporary relief advances, 10 Vict., c. 7.—The principal sum due under this Act is 783,228 l., to be repaid with interest at 3½ per cent. This fund was advanced for the purpose of relieving distress, by a direct distribution of food. The expenditure was economised; it relieved distress, and maintained the health and physical well-being of the people. The Committee are therefore of opinion that this sum should be discharged.
Debt for advances for works, under 1 Vict., c. 21, and 9 Vict., c. 1.—These advances, though liable to considerable objections, the Committee consider to have been administered with more caution than was practicable at a later period, and under a more imperfect law; and, though they state also objections to a transfer of the original charge from the occupier only to the owner and occupier jointly, they recommend no remission of the debt, and no alteration in the law. The debt amounts to 170,282 l.
Debt for advances for relief of distressed unions; 13 Vict., c. 14.—This debt amounts to 284,224 l., applied in aid of thirty-nine distressed unions, and 15,700 l. in aid of particular electoral divisions in the south and west of Ireland. These sums were applied to strictly poor-law purposes; and the Committee, for this reason, are not prepared to recommend the remission of the debt, although falling exclusively on those parts of Ireland that are least able to bear the burden.
Labour Rate Advances, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 107, 2,231,000 l.—The debt incurred under this Act is the most important branch of the subject referred to the Committee; and, for various reasons, the statement of which occupies nearly the whole of this Report, the Committee feel it their duty to submit to the House the consideration, in equity as well as policy, of abandoning this claim.
These are the recommendations made by the Committee, and these recommendations are substantially embodied in the Motion I now make to the House.
But I think it right to show you that we come before Parliament, not only with strong evidence and overpowering recommendation, but with clean hands; that the

739
Irish people have never sought to repudiate a just debt, or called for the remission of any loan that they had voluntarily contracted. The aid of the national credit, and of public funds in the promotion of Irish interests, was not introduced for the first time in the relief measures of 1845; on the contrary, for many objects of public utility, advances from the Treasury have been habitually made; and the conduct of the Irish communities with regard to their repayment, fairly becomes a question of evidence. Now, without referring to the testimony of many distinguished witnesses as to the scrupulous honour with which all those loans have been repaid, I will just mention that, from the year 1843 to 1852, no less a sum than four millions of money have been advanced in the aid of Irish interests, every shilling of which has been punctually and unhesitatingly repaid. And if so large a sum as four millions has been repaid by Ireland in ten years, including years of suffering unparalleled in modern history, I hope a fair and favourable opinion will be formed of the willingness of Irishmen to satisfy their just engagements, even under circumstances of the greatest difficulty. Upon what grounds, then, do we now ask for the remission of any part of the loans embodied in the Consolidated Annuities Act? What essential difference exists between the loans which were repaid with such punctuality and promptitude, and those of which we now seek the remission? That question is to a certain degree answered by Sir J. Burgoyne, when he declares, in his evidence, that "he had always found the people of Ireland most scrupulous in fulfilling any engagements to the State into which they had voluntarily entered;" and that "he made a great distinction between voluntary and involuntary contracts." But I am not satisfied with this distinction—which I think is both doubtful and insufficient—because I do not deny the right or the duty of the State, in times of emergency, to compel the community to be a party to a contract which is necessary for its own preservation; and I do not for a moment question the right of Parliament to charge the land of Ireland with such sums as may be necessary to save the lives of its people. But I think it will hardly be denied, on the other hand, that the State becomes proportionably responsible for the use of such an arbitrary and extraordinary control over the pro-
740
perty of the subject; and that, if Parliament assumes to itself the prerogatives and functions of property, and deals with the vested rights of proprietors, at its own discretion, it is bound to show that it has exercised that discretion, not in intention only, but in fact and deed, to the greatest advantage to the community, and to the least detriment to the proprietor, whose discretion it has assumed, and whose responsibility it has arrogated; and if it can be proved that, whether through insufficient information, through want of reasonable foresight, or through a deficiency of administrative capacity, Parliament has exercised the discretion which it assumed, to the least possible benefit to the community, and to the greatest disadvantage to property, I think every candid man will admit that to charge upon the sufferers the evil exercise of a discretion which the State had arbitrarily assumed, would be the most tyrannical abuse of executive and legislative power. Now the Committee of the Lords, in their Report, unanimously declare that it has been proved in evidence before them, and I trust I shall prove to you before I sit down, that the mode of relief under which the greater part of these charges has occurred, was, in itself, utterly unsuited to meet the exigency with which it had to cope: That it was adopted, and set on foot, after due and timely warning of its inadequacy and inevitable failure: That it was persevered in, long after it had been proved and admitted to be not only inadequate and unfit for the preservation of life, but destructive to property, and subversive of society itself: That when it was found impossible to expend these loans on works of public utility, it was stipulated, as the next best test of their fitness, that such works should be at least useless to those who were ultimately to pay for their execution: That not only were works so executed no test of destitution, and no fit mode of relieving famine, but that they enticed multitudes from their regular employment; and while they generated disease and death among the feeble and infirm, they deteriorated the value of property, and shortened the future means of human subsistence, by greatly diminishing the agricultural labours that would have otherwise contributed to the coming harvest. These are grave allegations; but they are every one proved in the evidence taken before

741
the Lords, and it will be my own fault if I fail in proving them to you.
In the autumn of 1845 the potato disease first appeared in force, and heralded the coming famine; and, with a wise prescience, the great statesman who then held the helm of public affairs, prepared in time to meet it. Considerable quantities of Indian corn and other provisions were imported, to meet, in some degree, the failure of the potato; and legislative measures, founded on the 1st Vict., c. 21, which had been passed in 1837, were put into operation, and amended by the 9 Vict., c. 1, in the following spring. I will not stop to contrast the provisions of these Acts with that of the labour rate which followed, because I am bound in candour to admit that Sir Robert Peel's Act would have been equally a failure with that which succeeded it if it had had to cope with a similar calamity. The total expenditure in the season of 1845–6 did not exceed 476,000, and the daily average of labourers did not amount to 85,000; whilst in 1847 the expenditure well nigh reached four millions and a half, and the daily labourers greatly exceeded 700,000. But, although this first exigency was comparatively manageable, and was administered with the greatest ability, we have Sir E. Trevelyan's testimony to the fact, that even in what he calls "the rehearsal of the play," the elements of failure were quite perceptible, and quite sufficient to operate as a caution. Even when engaged in duties so limited, great apprehensions were expressed by the Board of Works to the Government; and in the month of April, 1846, I find that a letter was by them addressed to the Treasury, to the following effect:—"We ought not to deceive the country or ourselves in the expectation that we shall be able to find engineers or superintendents equal to take charge of such a multitude of works as will be forced upon us, and follow in such numbers as have been already sent in." Such was the experience of the great administrator of the Labour Rate Act in 1846—such was the warning given by the Board of Works at so early a period; and yet, although Her Majesty's Government were fully aware, before Parliament separated in August, 1846, that a much greater exigency than that of 1845 had arisen—that an exigency more overwhelming than men dared to contemplate was within the limit of probability—they were yet contented to entrust the fortunes of a whole people
742
to the provisions of an Act even more inefficient than that which, under far more manageable circumstances, it was found impossible to put in effective operation. The disease in the potato, which had partially destroyed that crop in 1845, utterly swept it away in 1846; and the corn crop was at the same time so seriously injured, as greatly to increase the extent of the calamity. The loss to the people of Ireland that year, has been carefully calculated by Mr. Griffiths to have amounted to sixteen millions of money in potatoes and corn alone. To meet this disaster, by which a whole people were deprived of subsistence, the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 107, commonly called the Labour Rate Act, was passed. It authorised, and in point of fact required, the Lord Lieutenant, on any representation of distress existing in any district, to call together extraordinary presentment sessions, composed of the magistrates and ratepayers, who in their turn were required to pass such public works as might be necessary for the relief of the poor. According to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, the only works upon which labour could be equally employed under the provisions of this Bill, were the works permitted to be undertaken by grand juries, that is, the making of new and the repairs of old roads; and, equally in accordance with its provisions, no human being could get relief, except by employment upon such works. It was of course impossible that Her Majesty's Government, when they passed this Act, could have been aware of the extent of the disaster. They could not have intended that nearly a million of human beings should have been employed in making roads, in a country which had already too many. They could not have intended that, all seeking relief, no matter of what age or sex, or suffering from what bodily infirmity, old and decrepid men, shivering women and children, should be all turned out in the snows and rains of winter to die of cold and exposure, in order that they might be saved from famine. They could not have intended that these works should be protracted until the coming summer; that the labours of agriculture should be forestalled and circumvented; and that the husbandman should be saved from death one year, only on the condition that he should make no provision for living during the next. And yet these were the results, the necessary and inevitable results, under the iron provisions of this

743
cruel and senseless law. I entertain no doubt, and if my memory serves me right, the noble Lord the Member for London has himself asserted, that when the Labour Rate Act passed, Govenment had not, and could not, have had any idea of the real extent of the calamity. I am sure that in the month of August the full extent of the disaster was not known or apprehended. But in the month of November no doubt could have existed in the minds of Her Majesty's advisers. Then, at all events, the plague of famine, in all its accumulated horrors, had been laid bare before the public eye—then, at all events, the utter inadequacy and unfitness of the Labour Rate Act to cope with the exigency, and the waste of life and treasure that was daily becoming more extravagant and appalling, were fully recognised. "The system of public works," according to Sir C. Trevelyan, "utterly broke down under the pressure of the calamity;" and its complete and acknowledged failure is confessed in every page throughout this bulky volume. Then, why was not Parliament assembled to stay the tide of treasure and of life? Parliament was assembled together the following year, on account of a pecuniary pressure in the City. It assembled together again in November last, to report progress upon the elections, and to try the strength of parties. Surely the lives of a whole people were as worthy of consideration as either of these matters, important and interesting as each undoubtedly was in its way. But Parliament did not meet, notwithstanding; and the Labour Rate Act, with all its exposed and admitted iniquities, was allowed to proceed on its course of prodigality and death until the spring. I state these circumstances, not in exculpation of the Government then in power, nor even in condemnation of the course that they deemed it their duty to pursue, but in order to establish my position that the Executive and the Legislature acted, in the first instance, not without warning, continued to act afterwards in the teeth of conviction, and became therefore responsible for the consequences that ensued. Now, what were the consequences, as detailed and proved in the evidence that has been reported to the House? First, the Committee report that "the uselessness of a great proportion of the works exceeded their incompleteness, and the enormous waste of labour and capital which they produced are proved by the great majority of the wit-
744
nesses." "Another cause of the waste of capital," says the Report, "may be traced to the extreme indisposition manifested by the Treasury to adopt useful works, lest perchance they should confer any special benefit on individuals." And in proof of this it is stated, in Sir C. Trevelyan's letter of the 12th of August, that a Treasury direction was given that no works were to be undertaken but such as "would not be likely to be required except for the purpose of giving employment to the distressed poor;" and in the same memorandum it is further stated that, "as labour is the test of individual destitution, so the only satisfactory test of particular relief works being required for particular districts, is that the works should be of such a nature as will not benefit individuals in a greater degree than the rest of the community." Now I submit with great respect, that we have no right to spend the money of others in this fashion. If Parliament in its wisdom, and in the name of the empire that it represents, had thought fit to expend millions of Imperial treasure in the manner that it considered least beneficial to the owners of property in that country, to the empire alone it would be responsible for such waste of its resources. But to profess to lend men money to be repaid with interest, and at the same time to insist that it shall be spent in the manner least profitable to the borrower, is a mode of dealing between man and man which it requires all the omnipotence of Parliament to justify. But it may be said that even if these works were of no great public utility, and conferred no private advantage, at least they were not more unprofitable than if the money had been gratuitously bestowed. To this argument I venture to take exception; and I will endeavour to show that the loss sustained by the Irish nation, through this mode of employment, amounted to not much less than the whole amount now sought to be repaid. In the Report of the Committee before us it is stated, p. xxii. that—
"During the continuance of these works, the land subject to increased burthens was depreciated in value by the irresistible impulse given to the desertion of farms and the abandonment of agricultural labour."
And this statement is fully justified by the evidence before them, and by the facts of the case. On the 16th of January, 1847 the Chairman of the Board of Works reported to the Assistant Secretary of the

745
Treasury that "the want of food was driving everybody to the works, and that the public works offered a direct premium to labourers to quit their natural useful occupation; they in fact afford subsistence to the agricultural labourer on condition that he leaves his work;" and again, "It will not be possible much longer to find work of the nature now provided, even for those who are now employed, and of course still less for the large remainder." And yet in the face of these impressive statements, the number of the labourers was nearly doubled, between January and March. Captain Larcom, the present Under Secretary for Ireland is asked, p. 241—
"Did not this disposition to quit other employment show itself in the spring of the year, by a very considerable reduction in the cultivation of the lands?"
The answer is—
"Yes! it was universally reported to us that there was very little tillage going on; that the land was not tilled."
He is again asked (Q. 2197)—
"Was not the cause of the land being left unoccupied, this, that the occupiers were starving, and obliged for their present subsistence to be on the public works, and that they were therefore not able to cultivate their holdings, inasmuch as they were obliged to attend to the public works, in order to earn sufficient for their present support?"—"That is true, to a great extent."
Now I find that in the months of March, April, and May—in which agricultural operations are for the most part conducted, there were on an average 440,000 men constantly employed on the public works. A fourth or fifth part of the agricultural labourers of the country were thus diverted from their ordinary useful employments; and I find there was a proportion. ate diminution in the tillage of the country. I do not of course maintain that the whole of that decrease was attributable to the public works; but I am authorised by Major Larcom's evidence in saying that to a great extent it was. The loss in the subsequent harvest was, according to Mr. Griffiths' valuation, not less than six millions of money; and what part of that loss is to be attributed to the wilful continuance of the population in this employment, after the express warning of the Board of Works, is a grave question, on which the decision of the Legislature in this matter ought greatly to depend. "These melancholy facts," the Committee
746
remark, "obtain a double proof from comparing, or rather contrasting, the effects of the labour rate with those of the direct administration of relief through food." When Parliament at last met, the Act, commonly and honourably known as the Burgoyne Relief Act, was passed. The labour test of the doctrinaires was exploded; charity was permitted to do her own good work in her own good old way; food was gratuitously distributed to all who were in want of food; the scandals of the Labour Rate Act disappeared; great economy of life and money ensued; and between two and three millions of human beings were supported for five months for less than two millions of money, or at the rate of little more than a penny a day each. All the witnesses concur in declaring that this change was mainly instrumental in restoring health and saving life; and when a penny a day was considered a favourable change, who shall say that the Irish people were exacting? But another measure was passed pari passu with the Burgoyne Relief Act, and which is destined to exercise a far more permanent influence over the condition of the Irish people. An efficient and substantial poor law was passed—defective, no doubt, in many of its provisions, susceptible of improvement in many of its details, but still containing the essential proviso for the inviolability of human life. That the ultimate effects of that law will be most beneficial, I do not doubt; that it was necessary to introduce it even at that time, I do not deny; but I think I can show that the State has something to answer for, and some reparation to make for the time and manner of its introduction. Up to the very famine there was no substantial poor-law in Ireland. Not only were the labouring classes reduced to the last limit of existence, but no provision was made that that limit should not be exceeded, and that poverty should have a claim upon property at least for life. Nothing, perhaps, could be worse than such a state of things, and probably the remedy could not have been too immediate. But surely the Legislature which, for more than half a century had had the uncontrolled administration of a country so situated, became responsible for the manner and the time in which a great change, amounting almost to a reorganisation of society, should be introduced; and if property was to be subjected to burdens which it never before had to bear—if it were necessary to subvert a social system upon

747
which all the arrangements of property had been adjusted—it was incumbent upon the State to have introduced those changes at the time and in the manner in which they might have been most advantageous to all the interests concerned. And if, for reasons of Imperial expediency, for reasons connected with the management of Parliamentary government, those changes were deferred to the time most disadvantageous; if, in consequence of that delay it became necessary, for reasons of Imperial expediency, to put them in operation under circumstances which made them most burdensome and disastrous—surely the Legislature and the Empire, whose convenience had been consulted both in the tardiness and haste of the alteration, become in some degree responsible for the loss that their own tardiness and haste have entailed on the parties concerned. It cannot be said that the evil day came upon you without warning. The distresses of 1817, 1822, and other calamitous years, afforded ample proof, not only of the periodical deaths, but of the normal and annual distresses to which the Irish peasantry were subjected. The function and province of a poor-law is not so much to provide against extraordinary scarcity as to control the ordinary pauperism of the country; and yet we find that this question of an Irish poor-law was never mooted in the Legislature, except after those periods of extraordinary distress which threw the support of a part of Irish pauperism upon the ever-generous, but naturally protesting charity of England. As long as the misery of Ireland was confined within her own bitter cup, it did not offend the nostrils of the empire; it was only when it overflowed the Irish brim into the lap of England that the Legislature condescended to regard it as a nuisance. I do not introduce these observations in a bitter or reproachful spirit; but, on the contrary, with a feeling of reliance on the wisdom and justice that have lately characterised the proceedings of this House, that you will fairly and frankly look back with me into all the circumstances out of which these disasters and these charges have arisen, and enter on a consideration of the subject, not as a question between England and Ireland, but in a large and imperial spirit. If the Legislature had done its duty to Ireland, as it seems now disposed to do—if by a just consideration of the relations of landlord and country, it had protected the operations of husbandry—if
748
by a sound and effective poor-law it had regulated and controlled pauperism—I do not say that the failure of the potato would not lave been a deep disaster to Ireland; but I believe it would have been a disaster against which they might have made a stout unaided struggle. I think, therefore, that we are bound to have some regard to the time and circumstances under which we laid this new burden on the land of Ireland; that we ought not to forget that we called upon property at the lowest ebb to which property ever seemed, to bear a greater amount of poverty than property ever bore. I find that the poor-rate actually collected in Ireland amounted to six millions of money collected in four years of the greatest suffering that ever a country endured. And this is the burden that you now propose to tax! for no one in the House can be ignorant that these Consolidated Annuities are in reality a tax upon the poor-rate of Ireland. Now, I call upon you not to tax the first measure that you have passed for the relief of the poor in Ireland. I make this proposition, recommended by the most eminent of our statesmen, supported by the evidence of the most experienced officers of the Government; and although I cannot but feel that I have embarrassed my case by the imperfect manner in which I have brought it before the House, I am sustained by the hope that no one will oppose my Motion that has not read the evidence and the recommendation on which it is based; that every one who has read them must pronounce in my favour.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHseconded the Motion, and said he should endeavour to show that the Report of the Lords' Committee was not only a just but an extremely moderate Report. But before referring to it further, he must express his regret and surprise that this Motion should have been permitted to be made, for he did not think that the Irish Members by whom it was supported had been fairly treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In pursuance of a resolution, signed by upwards of seventy Members representing Irish interests, it had been deemed advisable to request an interview with the right hon. Gentleman; and he was kind enough to appoint a time for the reception of the deputation. At the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman listened to their statements with the utmost attention; and he promised that their representations should have his immediate

749
and earnest attention. The right hon. Gentleman said that his own individual judgment should be exercised in arriving at a decision upon the merits of the question, for he admitted they had a claim to an immediate or speedy reply. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that he would, as the deputation had asked him, decide on this question from considerations totally independent of the Budget he was about to bring in. The right hon. Gentleman more than once made that statement on the question being presented to him as one of justice and not of favour, which was of necessity unconnected with the Budget—that, if the claim were a good one, the Government were bound to attend to it, independently of the funds at his command as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since that interview two communications had been made to the right hon. Gentleman. To the first he returned a reply that the subject was under his consideration, but at that moment he was not in a condition to give a more definite reply, but he expected to be able speedily to give an answer to it. Finding that this promised answer had not been received, Lord Monteagle thought it necessary to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject; and his Lordship received an assurance in reply that the answer, whatever it might be, would be given upon the 18th inst., the day announced for bringing forward the Budget. Now he (Mr. French) maintained that this reply did not satisfy the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the subject should have his immediate consideration, nor fulfil his pledge that its decision should not be connected with the Budget, for it happened that the right hon. Gentleman had selected the very same day for giving his answer that he had appointed for bringing forward the Budget. He was far from bringing any charge against the right hon. Gentleman, but he must impress upon him the necessity of making up his mind when he gave a promise. It might be thought that 6the question was in no way prejudiced by delay. That was a mistake; because if the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, and his decision was different to what the Irish Members expected, it would be impossible for them to interfere with effect. With regard to the money advanced under the 1 Vict., c. 21, and the 9 Vict., c. 1, 80,000 1. of that sum had been repaid by the baronies to the Treasury previous to the striking of these Consolidated Annuities, although in strict-
750
ness the claim for repayment did not arise till the works were completed, which, in the great majority of the cases, had not yet been done. He should now proceed to show that the recommendations in the Lords' Reports were both just and moderate. Indeed their Lordships might have gone much further, and called for the remission of four out of the five items of which these annuities were made up. Many counties in Ireland felt extremely and protested strongly against the pressure and the injustice of this claim. The county he had the honour to represent was called upon to pay money for works which were not only not completed, but which it was not intended to complete, although the presentments were made, and the works undertaken on the plans furnished, and the estimates made by the officers of the Board of Works at rates which, had private parties been allowed to tender, they would have been completed for. Why should not the Board of Works be held, like other contractors, responsible for the completion of its own works? Why should they not, in justice to the parties with whom they dealt, be compelled to fulfil their engagements? There had never been, on the part of the counties, any objection to present instalments for any debts for which they were legally answerable; and on their part he declared their willingness to present for every shilling of such debts. But let the works for which they were called upon to pay be completed, as they ought to be, according to the original contract; and let not the debts which could not be legally claimed against one portion of the county be enforced against another. It was under circumstances such as these that the Committee of the House of Lords felt justified in expressing doubts whether the Irish Unions or baronies should be called upon to repay. He not only agreed with the recommendations of the Lords' Committee, but, totally independent of the question whether a national calamity should be met by other than national resources, he was prepared to show that the amount claimed as due by the Board of Works Commissioners was not due. That amount was not sustained by the returns which had been made to the House by the Board itself; and he contended, on the most favourable consideration, there was a deficiency in them unaccounted for of 1,100,000 l. But he maintained that the system ought not to have been administered according to Sir

751
Charles Trevelyan's English notions. Had it been administered as it was in Ireland in 1822, little more than one-fourth of the sum actually expended would have been required. A sum of 2,000,000 l., or 2,500,000 l., administered under the direction and with the experience of the local gentry, would have been sufficient for the purpose; but there was a total disregard of the feelings of the Irish people, and the experiment which Sir Charles Trevelyan had commenced was carried on at all hazards. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London was answerable for much of the evil that arose, for he supported the views and the system of Sir Charles Trevelyan. It might be asked how had the money been expended, if not upon roads? This was a fair question, and he would give the House a case to show how far the money returned under the head of labour had been expended. He would take the case of the Union of Newcastle, in the county of Limerick. It was well known that a presenting sessions could only be called by the Lord Lieutenant, upon the representation of persons connected with the locality as to the necessity of providing employment for the people. A presenting sessions was called at the request of the proprietors in that Union; it was held, and a sum of money was voted by the magistrates and cesspayers sufficient to give employment to all the people who required it in the barony. But, to the great astonishment of the parties, there appeared in the newspapers some months afterwards a requisition from the Lord Lieutenant for the magistrates and cesspayers to consider the voting of additional works for the employment of the people. Lord Monteagle saw the Earl of Clarendon upon the subject, and the Lord Lieutenant said he had issued the proclamation at the request of the officers of the Board of Works. Lord Monteagle then went to the Board of Works, and asked if this was the case. His Lordship was assured it was the case, and then he was told—
"You have presented for certain roads of great utility, but the sum is not sufficient for the completion of the works: we think it would be disadvantageous to the interests of the county if the works remained incomplete; and under these circumstances we thought it advisable to ask for a second session, in order that the money required for the completion of the works may be put into our hands."
This appeared so just and beneficial, that the magistrates and cesspayers assented to it; but the House would hear with aston-
752
ishment that not one single sixpence of the money had ever been expended by the officers of the Board of Works; it was placed in account to meet a deficiency in their expenditure they could not account otherwise for, yet the entire amount was now claimed from the barony. This was one instance of how the people of Ireland were called upon to pay; but he did not think that even Sir Charles Trevelyan would venture to assert that it was dishonest to refuse to pay the claim. With regard to the 782,000 l. expended under Sir John Burgoyne for rations, it had been honestly and fairly expended, and no person could offer the slightest objection to its repayment; but he did not think that the interest should be charged. As to the advances made to Mr. Nicholls for building workhouses, the Committee of the House of Lords reported their opinion that money advanced for poor-law uses should be paid out of the poor-rates; but there were peculiarities in the case which rendered it by no means so simple as it appeared to be from their Lordships' Report. Mr. Nicholls having been sent by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on a six weeks' tour in Ireland, stated in his Report, which was adopted by the House, that at the most 100 workhouses at a cost of 7,000 l. each would be sufficient. There were now 163 workhouses in Ireland. Mr. Nicholls estimated the cost of supporting those houses, assuming that they would be constantly full, at 312,000 l., and that moderate expense enabled the Government to obtain support of many Members on the Conservative side of the House; but as the number of workhouses was so largely exceeded, the estimate of the expense was of course utterly fallacious. Taking Mr. Nicholl's estimate, the gross charge in the eleven years since the Poor-Law was established, would be 4,132,000 l., and he admitted, if that amount had not been paid, it would not be easy to dispute the payment of these annuities; but they had actually paid 9,850,736 l., and therefore no claim could be fairly made out. The people of Ireland did not sue for the remission of money justly due. They said the money had been paid, although they were no parties to the borrowing it. So ill did Mr. Nicholls discharge the duty of builder-general for Ireland that Mr. Pennethorne was sent over to inspect the workhouses, several of which he found without waterage, and several without sewerage, whilst the whole were badly built on sites

753
which were badly chosen; and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), who was then Home Secretary, decided that 47,000 l., about one-fourth of the remission Mr. Pennethorne's report fairly entitled them to receive, should be taken off the estimate of Mr. Nicholls. With respect to the advances to the distressed Unions, they were not made at the request of any parties in Ireland, but to cover the maladministration of the poor-law officials. The Poor Law Commissioners dismissed the Board of Guardians, and placed the management in the hands of their own nominees—men without experience or ability—and the result was these promises plunged into financial difficulties almost every Union in the country. They had levied rates at their pleasure; and now, after all this, the Government called upon the people of Ireland to pay a sum of money to meet their wasteful expenditure. The next charge was a very curious one, which he had never heard mentioned before, even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), who was not likely to let such things escape him —he alluded to the charge for interest. With regard to one of these items, indeed, although an extension of time for payment had been permitted them, it was expressly provided that no interest should be charged. But it might be asked what claim the Irish landed proprietors had for an extension of time, if they did not mean to pay at all? But the time was extended, not for their accommodation, but for that of the Government, and for this accommodation the Government proposed to double the debt. The Government last year admitted these annuities could not in the distressed Unions be demanded, and devised a scheme, which for absurdity could not well be surpassed, declaring that all Unions, when the management for the poor was conducted with thrift and economy, should be held liable for them, whilstt hose where wasteful expenditure and mismanagement prevailed, should be exempted from payment. Then it was said that the people of Ireland did not pay assessed taxes or income-tax, and that they did not therefore bear their fair proportion of taxation. This he denied. The fallacy of supposing that taxation in Ireland was less oppressive than in England was ably exposed by Lord Rosse in 1849, who deliberately protested against the Rate in Aid Bill, because "from the best sources of information it appeared that Ireland paid a larger percentage on
754
income than Great Britain, whilst she sustained a heavier amount of local taxation." The noble Lord gave the figures; he estimated the gross income of England at 250,000,000 l., of Ireland at 20,000,000 l., and the gross revenue at 52,000,000 l., showing that the proportion Ireland ought to pay was 4,160,000, while, independent of the tea duties, Ireland paid 4,164,264 l. The local taxation the noble Lord put down at 12,000,000 l. in Great Britain on property rated at 105,000,000 a year, whilst in Ireland it was 3,270,853 l. on property rated at 9,890,566 l., or at the rate of 6s. 2d. in the pound in Ireland, as against 2s. 3½d. in the pound in England. The statistical tables of Mr. Kingsley, and the pamphlet by Mr. Cornewall Lewis, make the taxation of Ireland double that of England: difference of taxation did not necessarily mean inequality of taxation. If the question which by this Motion it was intended to decide, affected any other country but Ireland, he should have no doubt of the result. But Sidney Smith had said, "The moment Ireland is mentioned, John Bull bids adieu to common sense and common justice, and acts with the barbarity of a brute and the fatuity of an idiot." He hoped the House, however, by assenting to the Motion of his hon. Friend would show that such was not the characteristic of Englishmen.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government forthwith to take into consideration the Irish Consolidated Annuities, in order to effect a more equitable settlement of the claims for which those Annuities were granted, by remitting the amount charged on account of the Labour Rate Acts, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 107, and 10 & 11 Vict., c. 87, whilst the repayment of the Workhouse Loans, the Advances for Temporary Relief Act, 10 Vict., c. 7, the Advances for Public Works, under the Acts 1 Vict., c. 21, and 9 Vict., c. 1, and for Aid to the Distressed Districts, under the Act 13 Vict., c. 14, are fully provided for."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, before he made any remark on the subject matter of this Motion, he must express the very sincere regret with which he had listened to that portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) in which the hon. Member treated this as a question between Ireland on the one hand, and Sir Charles Trevelyan on the other. Everything done, of which the hon. Member complained, he laid on the shoulders of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and described that public servant, whom he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did

755
not hesitate to characterise as an eminently able, upright, honest, and indefatigable man, in terms which he had never heard applied by any Member of Parliament to one of that most valuable class of civil servants of the country who were the advisers of the Executive Government, who had no means of defending themselves in that House or otherwise when attacked, whose useful advice and successful propositions invariably redounded to the credit and honour of the Ministers of the day, whose advice and propositions ought to be laid to the charge and the responsibility of the Ministers, and ought not to be made the basis of a gross personal attack. It was with surprise and regret that, for the first time during some experience, he had listened to such terms as those in which the hon. Member described Sir Charles Trevelyan as "a dogmatist, a theorist, a practical blunderer, who spared nothing, and who scrupled at nothing." He was satisfied there were few men in that House who would have made such an attack, and he doubted very much whether the hon. Gentleman himself would hereafter repeat it. Whatever Sir Charles Trevelyan had advised or done in this matter, it ought not to be laid to his door; it was to be laid to the door of the Government of the day who adopted the measures which he advised; and if the measures were not sound in principle, or had been found unsuccessful in practice, it was the Government only on whom the blame ought to be laid. He might personally remark on the peculiarity of this discussion. He did not recollect the case of a financial proposition of great importance made to the Commons House of Parliament, and supported almost exclusively on the basis of the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords. He did not mean to say that when justice and good sense were involved in the proceedings of a Committee of the House of Lords, they ought not to be attended to; but he entirely demurred to the description which the hon. Member for Mayo gave of the Report of that Committee, when he designated it as a high and commanding authority. Now he was not disposed to admit the doctrine that the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords upon a question of finance was to be urged in the House of Commons, not merely as a matter reasonable and deserving attention, but as a high and commanding authority. He was much more disposed to think that the Report of a Committee of that chamber of the Le-
756
gislature which was not the taxing chamber, ought to be received with some jealousy by the body to whom was entrusted the functions of taxing the people and deciding upon the burdens to be cast upon them; at the same time they ought to consider whatever merits it might have in reference to the standard of reason and justice. He was bound to say that, when he described the Motion as supported entirely by a Report of a Committee of the House of Lords, he misstated the case, for the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. F. French) went beyond the Committee of the House of Lords, and was of opinion that these Consolidated Annuities, involving large sums of money due from Ireland to this country, ought to be remitted, although the Committee of the House of Lords declined to make any such recommendation. In the view of the hon. Gentleman the Committee did not go far enough, and the hon. Gentleman urged what the House of Lords declined to urge in their Report. The hon. Gentleman argued that because it was estimated the expenditure for the relief of the poor in ordinary years would amount to a certain sum, and that sum was exceeded, that would constitute a valid claim for remission. He demurred to that doctrine; but he declined to notice it further, not because the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to use it, but because it did not come within the scope of the Motion before the House, and therefore the House would forgive him if he passed by that portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion (Mr. G. H. Moore) did not ask for the remission of the money as a boon, or as a matter of equitable consideration, but on grounds of strict justice; he founded it on charges which he made against the Government and Parliament of this country, both of which he said were guilty of great misdeeds, the consequence of which misdeeds Ireland ought not to bear. For reasons which he should state by and by, he should not enter into any statement of the views of the Government on this question. He should not refer to the judgment of the Government with regard to it, but to the arguments raised by the hon. Gentleman, that the remission of 2,000,000 l. or 3,000,000 l. expended under the Relief Act of 1846, ought to be made on grounds of strict justice, and because the exaction of it would be a wrong inflicted on Ireland. There, again, he did not think the two hon. Gentlemen had made good

757
their case. The statement seemed to be that the Parliament and Government of this country had intruded into the position and usurped the functions of the landed proprietors of Ireland—that the mode of relief given by the Relief Act of 1846 was condemned by the people of Ireland, by which was meant, condemned at the time —that the parties to that Act had caused deaths from starvation that would not otherwise have taken place, and had diminished the amount of subsistence for those who were entitled to it—and then that a bill was presented, which Ireland had to pay, in consideration of the wrongs which Parliament had inflicted upon her. Now, first, as to the statement that Parliament had intruded itself upon the functions of the Irish landed proprietors. It had before done so when it passed the Irish Poor Law without the approval of the Irish landowners, yet few now thought that Parliament had erred in passing that law. He thought that Parliament owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for that measure. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: Hear, hear!] Yes, but the hon. Member had made it a crime that Parliament had put itself in the place of the Irish landed proprietors, and he wished to quote an instance where Parliament had done so, and to show that it was better certain duties should be discharged by Parliament than that they should remain undischarged. It was now made a great charge against the Government that its officials were placed in the position of the landed proprietors. He wanted to show, that in passing the poor-law, the Government and its officials were put in the place of the landed proprietors under the pressure of very strong necessity—absolute necessity—for the welfare of the people of Ireland; and therefore it was not a conclusive argument against the proceedings of Parliament if he showed that in the instance they were now discussing, the Government assumed the functions of the landed proprietors the better to discharge those functions for the benefit of the people. He did not admit that Parliament did so. He did not admit that the law was forced upon Ireland. What were the provisions of the law? It began by stating that the Lord Lieutenant should direct extraordinary presentment sessions for the baronies—that such sessions should be held by the Justices—and that they should record presentments of such public works as they approved. They were required to
758
send up a list of presentments of public works, such as they approved, to the Lord Lieutenant, who forwarded them to the Treasury, and no public work was undertaken except it was first approved by the extraordinary sessions, by the Lord Lieutenant, and by the Treasury. Would any one tell him that the structure of that Act betrayed any disposition on the part of Parliament to set aside or neglect the landed proprietors of Ireland? The Lord Lieutenant was not authorised to act except upon presentments made by the sessions, consisting of the landed proprietors of Ireland—he had no power of acting independently of them. The hon. Gentleman quoted some cases in which he seemed to allege that presentments had been extorted from the local parties by influence, and the works executed somewhat against their wishes. The figures would distinctly show that such cases were the exception and not the general rule; because what were the facts? By extraordinary presentment sessions in Ireland, under the Labour Act of 1846, presentments were made amounting in all to 6,647,000 l. Let the House remark the import of that. Presentments were made by the landed proprietors for public works to the extent of 6,647,000 l, What was the extent of the works executed? The extent executed was 4,460,000 l.; therefore it appeared 2,000,000 l. were presented by parties locally interested in Ireland which were never sanctioned at all. [Mr. FRENCH: The Board of Works were to select.] Pardon him, the Board of Works were to execute. The presentment sessions were to select, and they approved works to the extent of 6,000,000 l. Why should the hon. Member complain of the selections made when the local parties had approved? At any rate, if it was charged that these works were executed either in defiance of the will or without the will of the landed proprietors of Ireland, and that the landed proprietors on whom the burden must ultimately fall were set aside, he said, on the contrary, the structure of the Act showed the utmost anxiety on the part of Parliament that the landed proprietors should have as much discretion as possible, and that the utmost precautions were taken to prevent their having reason to say that they were set aside, and these charges forced upon them in spite of their own different opinion. He believed he might with confidence refer to the discussions in the Houses of Parliament when the Act passed. It was very

759
easy to be wise now after the fact. The famine came on with giant strides, and spread over the land with a rapidity and raged with an intensity which no man could foresee, and the machinery broke down. When Parliament met again, they recognised the failure of the machinery, and set about applying remedial measures. No doubt, great mischief had been done, but everybody had been deceived, and everybody had miscalculated. The charges which were made against the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir C. Wood), were, that he was hampering the Act with too many restraints and conditions, and that the number of presentments would be less than they ought to be. If, then, that was the language of the Irish representatives at that period, with what justice could they now seek to exempt themselves from their fair share of the responsibility of an erroneous judgment—an error which, it should be remembered, implied no discredit either to them or to the Government, because it pleased Providence that the calamity should be such as to baffle all human calculation and to exceed all human strength? For the various reasons which he had stated, he demurred to the proposition made by the hon. Member for Mayo, that any remission was due to Ireland on the score of justice; for, even if he could have proved that Parliament had been deliberately wrong in the matter, still he thought it would have been necessary to show that Ireland, by the mouths of her representatives, had protested against it. But to that point the hon. Member did not address himself. All that he had succeeded in showing was, that laws were enacted to meet the great calamity which took the management of the remedial provisions out of the hands of those who were primarily and most directly interested—namely, the landed proprietors of Ireland. He would now refer to the imputation which the hon. Gentleman had made against him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). The hon. Gentleman said, that if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made a promise to give an immediate reply, he ought to keep it. So far he agreed with the hon. Member in that opinion. The hon. Member had said that on the occasion when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the honour of seeing him in Downing-street, along with several noblemen and gentlemen connected with Ireland, he promised to deal with this subject irrespective of the Budget. Now, he was sorry to
760
say that he could not agree with the hon. Member in the accuracy of this representation. Not only did he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) not make that statement, but he made a statement the very reverse of it; and he begged to say that he was now speaking from the written record which was made in the presence of the deputation. As he could refer to a record of what passed, he would tell the hon. Gentleman what he did say on that occasion. Lord Monteagle stated to him that there had been a conversation in the House of Lords on the night immediately preceding the interview, which would seem to show that the question had been postponed for reasons of Parliamentary convenience, and then he went on to say that the Government had no right to tax the poorest part of the Queen's dominions—namely, Ireland—with reference to any question of surplus or deficiency in the annual income of the State. In reply, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated that the Earl of Aberdeen, in the speech to which Lord Monteagle had referred, merely said that the question was not to depend on the surplus or deficiency of the year. That statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made at the time, and that statement he now repeated. The hon. Member, in stating that the answer which he had promised to give was to be quite irrespective of a surplus, represented him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be out of his senses. If the hon. Member really believed that within three or four weeks after coming into office, and when almost every question of taxation and fiscal administration that could possibly enter the mind of man was being raised and pressed upon his attention from every quarter, he received a deputation upon a subject with respect to which a settled arrangement of a complex character, and involving 5,000,000 l.—if the hon. Member really believed that under these circumstances he told the deputation that he would give them an immediate answer, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only say, that if he was capable of giving such a promise, and then breaking it, the hon. Member would have been entitled to be even more severe in his censure than he had been that evening—and more especially if, after having made the promise, he had failed to fulfil the expectations he had thus rashly succeeded in raising. But the fact was, that he did not only not give any such answer, but he stated the reasons

761
why he could not give such an answer—namely, that in the view of the Government the question of the Consolidated Annuities was connected with the financial arrangements of the Government; and that it was not the intention of the Government to give their ultimate judgment on the subject of the Consolidated Annuities, except in connexion with their financial arrangement. To that statement he had now simply to adhere. It was the view of the Government that they could not, in conformity with their public duty, announce their final intentions in respect to the Consolidated Annuities of Ireland, except in conjunction with the other financial questions which they had to dispose of. He was now speaking on the 7th of April; on the 18th it would be his duty to state his views on the whole of these questions. He trusted, therefore, it would not be deemed disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion, if he declined at present to enter into any further discussion on the subject. His public duty absolutely bound him to silence for that short period. It would then appear whether the Government were justified in suspending the treatment of this subject until the treatment of the general finances of the country. If the hon. Member should think that they were not so justified, it was open to him to censure the Government for the course they had pursued; but at present he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no option but to act upon the conviction which he entertained, that this was not the proper time to state definitely the view which the Government took of this question. At present, therefore, he had no more to say, except that in his opinion the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion (Mr. G. H. Moore), and the hon. Gentleman who had followed him (Mr. F. French), had not made good the case which they stated their intention to prove—namely, a case of wrong and oppression on the part of the Government against Ireland at the period of the famine; upon the ground of which wrong and injustice they claimed a remission of 2,000,000 l. or 3,000,000 l. of money, not as a matter of mere equitable consideration, but as a matter of strict restitution due on the ground of right. With these observations he should sit down by saying, that he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that as far
762
as he was concerned he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Poor Law. He had always stated that to his mind the fault of the English Parliament was, not that they had passed the Irish Poor Law, but that they had not passed it many years before, for his conviction was, that if they had passed it fifty years before, English Members would have been spared the pain of listening to, and Irish Members the pain of stating, many of the evils which had since occurred; and he had no hesitation in declaring that to the firm administration, not merely of a Poor Law, but of the present Poor Law, he looked for the future regeneration of Ireland. What he and other Irish Members had complained of was, not that the Poor Law had been passed, but that it had been administered in such a manner as to paralyse the hands of every man who was able and ready to work in that country—that the Legislature had tied the people hand and foot, and cast them into the stream, and then mocked them by standing on the bank, and calling upon them to swim. The right hon. Gentleman had stated his belief that no dissent was expressed in Ireland from the passing of the relief measures of 1846. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I said in Parliament.] Well, the reason why so little dissent was expressed was probably this, that a great number of Irish proprietors felt themselves bound to be in Ireland, in order to meet the calamitous circumstances they saw pressing upon them. But he found it stated in the Lords' Report:—
"Urgent applications were made to Her Majesty's Government, and to the Government of Ireland, representing the fatal consequences of this system, if persevered in. This conviction had been already expressed in resolutions of the landowners of the county of Limerick, on the 23rd of August, even before the passing of the Labour-rate Act, and was communicated to the First Lord of the Treasury by the Earl of Devon."
If representations were not made in Parliament, surely the representations of a man like the Earl of Devon should have met with more attention.
"On the 25th of September the same course was taken by the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland" [a body whose opinions were also entitled to respect]; "it had already been taken by the Lord Lieutenant and forty-six magistrates of the county of Mayo on the 12th of September. Indeed, from the whole tenor of the evidence, this sentiment seems to have been nearly universal."
He begged the attention of the House to

763
the wording of some of the representations which had been made. There was one, for instance, which was transmitted to the noble Lord then at the head of the Government by the Earl of Devon, and which contained the following extract from a letter by the present Clerk of the Ordnance (Mr. Monsell), dated August 22, 1846:—
"Let the Government plan be adopted, and you render improvement impossible; if a man who is ready to employ more than his fair proportion of labour is to be obliged to contribute towards the support of those labourers whose landlords will not employ them, he must give up his plans of improvement. He cannot stand the double drain upon his purse; he cannot employ all his own and a portion of his neighbour's poor; in self-defence, he must let the whole poor of the district be supported by the public money. I repeat it, no more effectual plan to check private exertions than that proposed by the Government could be devised. Let us suppose a district on which 5,000 l. would be required to support the unemployed poor, equally divided among ten proprietors; each proprietor's share of labour would amount to 500 l. If one of these proprietors, who spends 500 l. on his own poor, is, in addition to this, to pay one-tenth part of the 4,500 l. which the other proprietor's poor require to be expended on their maintenance, it is manifest that he will be most unjustly dealt with. No man will stand such injustice; he will rather say, 'I am quite willing to employ my own people; but I cannot afford both to employ them and those who belong to my neighbours; therefore the whole lot must go to the public works."
Now, so exactly did this letter prefigure the state of things which actually did happen, that it might be almost regarded as prophetic. Much had been said about the Irish landlords. He had no intention of entering upon any elaborate defence of that body. He admitted that in many respects they had failed in their duty; but at the same time he felt bound to say that at the period in question no body of men could have been more determined to do their duty than they were, if the Government would only have allowed them. What was said, for example, in the very letter from which he had just quoted?—
"I am firmly persuaded that the only plan upon which the wants of this country can be relieved is one by which it can be made the interest of the rich to employ the poor; this can only be done by compelling the owners of land to support the poor who belong to their land, by compelling every landlord either to employ his people on productive or unproductive labour."
One word with regard to the presentment sessions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct in stating that the Government could not initiate any particular works;
764
and that it was necessary that they should originate at the sessions. But was the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the state of the country? Did he suppose that, when the onus of carrying out the Act was placed upon their shoulders, and when they found themselves surrounded by a starving population, who had been led to believe that the Act contained provisions for their relief, the landlords could be considered as free agents? It had been stated by Captain Kennedy, the inspecting officer under the Commissioners of Works, that, "as a general rule, the presentment sessions were a scene of confusion and intimidation throughout the county" (Meath), that the courts were "crammed to the greatest possible density—you might have walked over the people's heads." He added—
"I recollect upon one occasion, at the presentment sessions at Kells, there was a great deal of excitement; there had been some popular movement, and speeches made before the sessions; and there were 400 or 500 men brought from the neighbouring county of Cavan, for the purpose of intimidating the magistrates. It became late in the evening, and the candles were at last put out by the bench; a scene of riot ensued, and the magistrates were obliged to take refuge in the jury room for some time; and on leaving the sessions-house one or two gentlemen were very roughly treated."
And what did even Sir Charles Trevelyan say—a gentleman who, he agreed with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) in thinking, had manifested the greatest hostility to the Irish landlords as a class? He said—
"I felt all through this disastrous time, when I was sitting in my room in the Treasury, and was there from morning till night, and long after night, that, however much oppressed I might be by multiplicity of business, still I was my own master, and was able to do the business according to the dictates of my own judgment; and if any unreasonable applications were pressed upon me, I had only to make a reasonable answer to them; but those who were labouring in the same cause in Ireland were brought face to face with the starving multitudes—that is an immense difference; and the popular ordinary leaders of those multitudes—I mean those who habitually exercise influence over them, in case of any apparent hesitation in order to discriminate between the works asked for—would immediately appeal against that delay, which they said was starving the people and their wives and children. That was the state of the case, and to observe that is sufficient to put the whole matter in its true light."
Sir Charles Trevelyan concluded his evidence by giving in a list of the public officers who fell victims to the Irish famine and workhouse fever, stating that another, much longer, might have been made of all

765
the clergymen (Protestant and Roman Catholic), medical men, and noblemen and country gentlemen, including Lord Lurgan, Lord Dunsandle, Lord Clare, Mr. O'Lochlen, of Corofin, and many others. In the face of these facts it could hardly be questioned that the landlords, on the whole, had not done their duty as far as was practicable.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of saying a few words in answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also of some other hon. Members who preceded him. I thought it was time now, after a lapse of nearly seven years since the famine in Ireland occurred, to look at least dispassionately at the conduct which had been pursued at a period of unexampled difficulty by all parties—by the Government, by Irish proprietors, by the Board of Works, by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and, in short, by every person officially connected with the transactions now brought under review, not omitting Sir Charles Trevelyan—and to look without prejudice on the difficulties that all were exposed to by the disastrous events of 1846; but I am very sorry to find that that is not the case. Now, for my part, with regard to the great part of the document which has been so frequently alluded to—the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords—I think the statements therein made are but too well founded, and give a natural picture of the occurrences to which they relate; but I think there is a total omission of what the Government of the day had to encounter. The main subject they had to consider was the great calamity that had fallen on Ireland, and that it was the bounden duty of everybody who had any influence, to endeavour to mitigate the horrors of that calamity, and to do that in any way, by endeavouring to save the lives of the persons who were starving. Well, Sir, I must say that in that Report the Committee do not seem, but now and then—and that incidentally—to allude to the fact that the lives of the starving people were to be saved at any rate. But that really was the great subject. The question, after all, was, whether the Government could or could not in a great degree save the lives of those persons, and whether, in fact, the lives of a great number of persons were not saved. Let us look at the state of the case. It is represented, for the purposes of this Motion, that there was an undertaking, on the part of the Government of this
766
country, to adopt a system of relief very onerous to the Irish proprietors and the Irish people, without the consent of those proprietors, who were very much interested in the matter. But the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. H. Herbert) has partly accounted for that. He says, in one part of his speech, that when the petty sessions met, and the magistrates were asked to give their votes for relief by works, such was the public clamour, and such the desire to obtain relief some way or other, by the multitudes outside, that the magistrates had not the power to act at their own discretion, nor were they able to exercise an impartial judgment, therefore their votes were carried away, as it were, by the exigencies of the dreadful emergency in which they were placed. Well, Sir, I quite admit that; but then it is not consistent with the other part of the hon. Member's statement that those gentlemen were debarred from taking any share in the distribution of those works. You cannot charge the Government with having done all this themselves, and then say the country gentlemen and magistrates in Ireland were forced to give their votes for those works. Those charges cannot be both true. The charge as to the latter statement is the truth, but then it does not follow that the Government or the Legislature were wrong in making the provision they had for this purpose, because it was impossible to foresee the extent of the calamity that ensued. In the Lords' Report mention is made of my late lamented friend the Earl of Bessborough, who is commended for his knowledge of Ireland, and his sagacity. Now the main principles of the Relief Act were founded upon his recommendation; because, when I came into office in 1846, finding that measures of relief had been already partially adopted, it was necessary to bring in a fresh Bill, and we naturally—the Earl of Bessborough having, for his knowledge of Ireland and his sagacity, been recommended to Her Majesty— we naturally asked him to come to our meetings—and there were several meetings—on the occasion, and his was the voice that at those meetings was most listened to. The fact was, that the immensity and urgency of the calamity were greater than any measures could control. I quite admit, viewing the various causes, viewing the immense extent of the calamity, and the impossibility that those gentlemen could come to a fair decision as to useful works,

767
I agree that the Labour Rate Act failed in the effects expected from it, but it did not fail in a great degree relieving the sufferings of the people, which, I must again say, was the principal subject for consideration. On the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, and what followed, great discussion took place as to whether the works in question were useful works, or whether they were properly chosen, or whether the Board of Works in Ireland took the proper measures to carry them out. These might be interesting subjects for discussion; but the real question was, did those works provide relief for those persons who were starving at the time? Having found this Act to fail, in a great respect, we began to turn over the various measures that might be put in its place, and we proposed that plan which Sir John Burgoyne was named to carry into effect. But let the House consider what was the great operation we had to conduct, of which the Government of the day laid down the leading principles, and which Sir Charles Trevelyan, and the Board of Works in Ireland, had to carry into operation. When the Government met the Parliament, at the beginning of the Session, there were 700,000 persons employed on those works in Ireland. It was a great matter how that vast number of people was to be reduced. It was a great wonder we were able to reduce that large number of persons then performing those works, and turn them over to another system of relief; and I felt myself very much comforted when I received an assurance from Colonel Jones that he would be able to do this without disturbing the peace of the country. Of course Colonel Jones did not say the thing could be done at once—that 700,000 persons could safely be dismissed on the 15th of March. The manner in which the operation was conducted was by discharging 50,000 or 100,000 at a time. In June 3,000,000 of people were receiving rations. If we had not this matter fresh in our recollections, the very statement that 700,000 persons were in March employed on public works and paid wages, and in June 3,000,000 were receiving rations, would show the immense extent of the duty the Government had to discharge. I am ready to admit my own part of the errors of that legislation, as I dare say would many others; but the immensity of the evil outran our anticipations, and I do not think that any other person—that any of those per-
768
sons engaged in carrying out those measures, either in this country or in Ireland, are deserving of any blame on account of the part they took on that occasion. Of the persons employed in the Board of Works, in Ireland, many were new to the duties, and unfit to fill the position in which they were placed; but that also was unavoidable, and, in short, the whole matter had been one of very great difficulty. I do not wish to throw great blame on any parties; but I rejoice that so many lives were saved, and that so many of those persons have since been able to support themselves either by works in their own country, or by going to another country. With respect to the immediate Motion before the House, I only rose because I was charged with the conduct I pursued in 1846; but with regard to the immediate Motion, I trust the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sufficient to induce the House not to proceed to any formal Resolution at present. This subject, as well as other matters, is under the consideration of the Government; and my right hon. Friend will be ready in little less than a fortnight to state the views of the Government generally; but what I cannot concur in is, the statement that, because the Government of this country took upon themselves the carrying out of those measures, that, therefore, the whole of this debt should be now sought to be evaded. But when my right hon. Friend shall state the views of the Government, then will be the proper time to discuss the matter; and I do hope it will be discussed with the consideration of what was best to be done for Ireland at the time, not who was to blame for what had been done.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid he must beg to explain that in stating his views upon the subject, he had not had the slightest intention of making any attack on the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell).
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was sorry to observe that no Irish Member connected with the Government was at that moment upon the Treasury benches. Whether they deemed their duty to their country, and that which they owned to party considerations, were so antagonistic as to render their attendance inconvenient, he could not pretend to say; but he was of opinion that, with sufficient notice that the subject then under the consideration of the House would have been brought forward that evening,

769
those hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, ought to have been present. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read a long lecture to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), for having made some strong observations upon the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan. Now he (Col. Dunne) was ever ready to acknowledge the services of those gentlemen who held subordinate positions in the administration of the affairs of this country; and he should be sorry to hazard any severe remark upon the proceedings of Sir Charles Trevelyan, had that gentleman confined himself simply to the execution of the duties of his office; but he had not done so, and he (Col. Dunne), for one, thought that the criticisms which had that evening been passed upon him were most just and most fair. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated that the hon Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) had not satisfactorily proved the justice of his cause. If such was really the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, he (Col. Dunne) should confess that he was inclined to expect but little justice at his hands upon any subject; for, in his opinion, never had the equity of a claim been more fully substantiated by evidence than in the case which the hon. Member for Mayo had that evening brought under their notice. The grounds upon which the present appeal was made upon behalf of every Union in Ireland were, that the works which had been executed were useless to that country; that they were executed against the will of every class in Ireland; that the disposal of the funds for those works was taken out of the hands of the Irish people; and that the plans for their construction were inefficiently carried out. If any man would turn to the evidence before the Committee, he would learn what was the opinion of the Government officials themselves with respect to the utility of those works. Sir John Burgoyne gave it as his opinion that they were but of little use, and such was also the opinion upon the matter of Mr. Griffiths and Captain Larcom. It had been also stated by another gentleman, whose authority was of considerable weight, that out of 949 works constructed in different portions of Ireland, it was impossible, even if finished, that they could be of the slightest advantage to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had further said that no remonstrance had been made upon the part of the Irish Members at the time when the measures, which they were
770
then protesting against, were passed into law. Now it was well known that most of the Irish Members were in Ireland at the time of the passing of those Acts, in order by their presence in that country to endeavour to avert the great calamity which was impending over it, or to mitigate, as far as possible, the disasters which were likely to follow in its train. The landlords of Ireland, however, had passed resolutions pointing out what they thought would be of advantage in that great emergency; and it was, therefore, not exactly fair to say that the Government of that day were altogether unacquainted with the opinions of the Irish people. He regretted to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see the justice of the arguments which had been adduced by the hon. Member for Mayo and other Gentlemen, in favour of their views upon the question now before them; and he trusted that upon a reconsideration of the subject, the right hon. Gentleman would deem it advisable to come to a different conclusion with respect to it from that which he seemed to have arrived.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Colonel in regretting the accession of the present Government to power, merely because they did not take the same view as he did on this question. He could not forget that ten months did not enable the late Government to make up their minds on the question. He must, however, say that he had heard the statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer with much regret. Having in an humble capacity been connected with the working of the measures of relief in Ireland in the years 1846 and 1847, he felt that it would be not only unbecoming but unjust upon his part to let it be supposed that he gave the slightest assent to any remarks casting censure upon those who were charged with the duty of meeting the dreadful calamity which afflicted Ireland during that period. He believed that in the main, both in England and in Ireland, there prevailed a very anxious desire to take the most just and efficient means to combat the disasters which the failure of the potato crop in the latter country had occasioned. He felt bound to state, however, that the measure which had been first resorted to to meet those disasters, namely, the Labour Rate Act, was one most injurious in its immediate operation, as well as in its ultimate

771
effects. No man, of course, could have at the time realised to himself the extent of the calamity which impended over Ireland; but, as a simple matter of fact, the representatives of that country were not responsible for the passing of the Act to which he had referred. It was not until the Bill passed to the House of Lords that a single voice was raised against it; and it was due to the noble Lord who at the time presided over the Committees of that House (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that he alone warned the Legislature against the consequences of the measure which they were about to sanction. Upon what grounds, he would ask, was the repayment of the sum which had been expended under the Labour Rate Act demanded from Ireland? It was not contended that any advantage worth speaking of had been conferred upon any class in Ireland by the expenditure of that money, which could in any way justify the imposition of 2,000,000 l., with the interest thereupon, now charged under the name of the Consolidated Annuities. Was it for the relief which had been given that that demand was made? They had the evidence of the public servants who had been employed in the administration of the relief fund, that the measure of the Government was a disastrous measure—that it aggravated the sufferings of the people, and to a great extent demoralised the nation. In fact, so much had that been the case, that he was not quite sure whether, in strict justice, Ireland was not entitled to demand compensation from the Legislature for the miseries and injuries which their Act had inflicted upon her. Now, there was a belief that the condition of Ireland was rapidly improving, and Her Majesty's Government might in consequence be led to suppose that a temporary remedy for the present state of things in that country would suffice. He sincerely hoped that there would be no more patching up in reference to Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), would, in dealing with the condition of that country, place his legislation, whatever it might be, upon a permanent footing. Let the people of Ireland be informed, once for all, what amount of taxation was to be in reality laid upon the land with which they were connected, and let doubt and uncertainty, upon a point which it was of so much importance to the interest of the agricultural portion of the population to have settled satisfactorily, be for ever removed. From what had fallen
772
from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Ball) was inclined to believe that Her Majesty's Government might possibly have some idea that in striking off a portion of the taxation in the poorer districts in Ireland, they would be justified in imposing an equivalent amount upon other districts in that country which might be better able to bear the burden of taxation. Now, if justice and expediency rendered it advisable that Government should relieve the poorer portions of Ireland from a burden which pressed too heavily upon them, he confessed that he did not think a transfer of those burdens to other localities could be a proceeding in accordance with either justice or common sense. Such an idea might be entertained by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was placed in a position of great financial difficulty; but in the present instance, such, fortunately, was not the case; and he trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not place upon any portion of Ireland an amount of taxation to which in fairness it ought not to be subjected.
CAPTAIN LAFFANsaid, he should not have risen to address the House were it not for the statements which had been made in the course of the evening with respect to a very distinguished officer in the civil service. He (Captain Laffan) had not the honour to represent an Irish constituency, but he had been born and had received his early education in Ireland, and he could not listen in silence to the assertion which had been made—that every Irishman was disposed to think unfavourably of the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan in reference to Ireland. He entirely dissented from such a statement. He looked upon Sir Charles Trevelyan as a man of the highest honour and ability, and was happy to have an opportunity of recording his testimony in favour of that gentleman. Having said thus much, he would merely add that he would support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), although from some of the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had advanced, he felt himself called upon to dissent. It appeared to him (Captain Laffan) that no Member could have used stronger arguments in favour of the Resolution than those which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) in opposition to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had

773
stated that the famine which, in the years 1847 and 1848, prevailed in Ireland, was a calamity which surpassed in its disastrous results all expectation; that it was a visitation whose frightful consequences all parties had miscalculated. If such were the case, it was but fair that all parties should bear a share of the burdens incidental to a calamity so unprecedented. In his (Captain Laffan's) opinion, the position which the Irish Members had assumed upon the question before the House, was perfectly in accordance with the statement which had been made by Her Majesty's Ministers. He regretted that the hon. Member for Mayo should have lowered a great national question into a mere personal attack on Sir Charles Trevelyan; but he would repeat that he felt bound to support his Resolution.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that the feeling in Ireland with respect to the injustice of this claim, was quite as strong now as it had been two years ago. The charge which was principally complained of was that created by the Labour Rate Act of 1846, amounting to something more than 2,000,000 l., and the question was whether Ireland was not entitled, in justice and equity, to have that charge swept away. At the time the charge was created, Ireland was already taxed far beyond her powers; in the year 1849, she suffered to the extent of 16,000,000 l. in the article of potatoes alone, according to the estimate of Mr. Griffiths; and in the six years of distress she must have suffered, in the article of potatoes, to the amount of 40,000,000 l., besides a large sum in oats, corn, and in cattle. He believed the losses of Ireland during these six years had been not less than 100,000,000 l., and he had conversed with eminent statists, who estimated that amount as under the mark. All this was independent of the loss of 2,000,000 of inhabitants, who, if they were set down at 50 l. a head, would make up another 100,000,000 l. These were facts which bore indirectly upon the question whether, as an act of strict justice, the people of Ireland ought to be called upon to pay this sum of 2,000,000 l.; or whether England could not very well afford as towards an impoverished nation like Ireland to give up this sum. The grounds upon which the people of Ireland raised their claim for exemption from the charge under the Relief Act of the 28th of August, 1846, were those which appeared in the Lords' Report, and which no one could read without
774
being convinced of the justice of the claim. The system introduced by that Act was based upon a letter dated August 1, 1846, written by Sir Charles Trevelyan. In that letter Sir Charles Trevelyan laid it down that the sums advanced should be expended on public works, but that no work should be included which was intended to benefit private estates; and he entirely discouraged the employment of labour on productive works of any description which had for their object the benefiting of one person more than another. That was, in fact, to exclude all works which could be of the slightest use. On this principle the Bill was passed, and they were told by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that it passed with the tacit consent of the Irish Members. That was not entirely the case. Irish Members were at the time very properly in their own country, ready to face the advent of the famine, and endeavouring to devise means to stop its ravages; but the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), now Clerk of the Ordnance, on reading the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), in introducing this Bill, had immediately addressed a letter to the Earl of Devon, in which he expressed the horror and dismay he had felt on learning the nature of the Government scheme, and laying down the principle that the advances ought to be expended on productive employment, and on improving the resources of the country. Those sentiments were shortly afterwards approved of at a meeting of landowners in the county of Limerick, in resolutions which were forwarded immediately to the noble Lord then at the head of the Government. The Bill, therefore, could not be said to have passed without any protest on the part of Irish landlords. The scheme, however, failed, as was well known; which failure, in a letter of the 28th December, in the same year, Sir Charles Trevelyan attributed to the conduct of the Irish landlords. The object of the Relief Act was to save the people's lives, but no discretion was allowed in the expending of the money, and little foresight was displayed in the measures which were devised. There was no value given in return for the amount charged upon the proprietors. The evidence bore him out in saying so. In addition to this, the works were nowhere completed. Yet the money was given for specific works to be effectually executed. He asked whether, as the contract under

775
the Act of Parliament had not been performed, the people of Ireland had, in these circumstances, incurred any liability? He should be glad to hear some distinct statement from the Government that they would take the subject into favourable consideration, though, indeed, he did understand the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to say that he concurred in the recommendations of the Lords' Report.
MR. GEORGEsaid, that if the Government had announced their serious intention of taking into their favourable consideration the proposition of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G.H. Moore), he should not have troubled the House with any observations in addition to those which had already been made; but as the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had led him to the directly opposite conclusion, he must be permitted to make a few remarks. It appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord had avoided grappling with the arguments which had been urged in favour of the Motion; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged the hon. Member for Mayo with seeking a remission of these annuities as a matter of right. Every one knew that the demand could never rest upon such a ground, for, as all were well aware, those grants of money had all been made under the authority of most stringent and cogent Acts of Parliament. Why, he himself had been among the first to demur against the refusal to repay the advances as long as the Act of Parliament remained upon the Statute-book. Now, he wished to disabuse the public mind of this country of a feeling which seemed to exist—namely, that the people of Ireland desired to evade the payment of their just obligations. He believed that if the people of England would only take into consideration the enormous sums which had been repaid by Ireland, they would be completely estopped from coming to any such conclusion as that the Irish people wished to repudiate their debts. He found that in the very teeth of the most adverse circumstances, from 1837 down to 1852, during the whole of which period the liabilities of Ireland had been increasing, that country had paid the largest amounts to England; and it was an astounding miracle how, during famine, and want, and pestilence, the Irish people had been able to pay such
776
amounts. Between 1815 and 1845, the county rates of Ireland had increased from 618,543 l. to 1,149,849 l. The poor-rate, which, in 1845, commenced with 208,000 l. had, in 1851, increased to 1,039,173 l. Between 1843 and 1851, the Irish people had actually been assessed and paid 90 per cent upon the enormous sum of 7,770,000 l. of poor-rates. The rate-in-aid amounted to 423,000 l., and at the time the last report was made not 10,000 l. remained unpaid; and at this moment, he believed, not as many hundreds remained to be paid. He thought these circumstances showed that there was no indisposition on the part of the Irish people to pay their just burdens when taxes were assessed for the benefit of the country; and when loans had been obtained from England on the application of the Irish people, they had been as readily paid. Between 1837 and 1852, advances made by England to the extent of 6,065,075 l. had been repaid. But Ireland had done much more. Instead of being a loser on these dealings, England had been a gainer, because from the increased interest charged to Ireland on loans, compared with the interest paid by the Government, a large amount of profit had been derived by England from these transactions. According to the statement of Sir John Burgoyne, on the sums advanced to Ireland up to 1845, there had been a clear gain to England of 30,000 l., arising from the difference in the rate of interest; and supposing the profit on loans during the subsequent seven years' loans to have been in the same proportion, the actual gain to England must have been from 80,000 l. to 100,000 l. It appeared from a statement put forth in a morning journal, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could borrow money in the City at 2 per cent, or even 1¾per cent. Now, he asked, was it fair or equitable that England, borrowing money at such a rate, should lend it to be repaid at the increased rate of 3½ per cent? Under the original Arterial Drainage Act the loans were advanced at the rate of 5 per cent, and the sum of 4,500,000 l. advanced under that Act, amounted now in annuities to 7,734,000 l. He wished to bear his testimony to the working of the Relief Act in Ireland, and he must be allowed to say that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, had sought by a side-wind to divert the attention of the House from the question at issue by assuming that which was not the real object of the

777
Motion. It was not the object of the Motion to impeach the conduct of Ministers, because the party to which he belonged were willing to make every allowance for the acts of the Government at a period of unprecedented difficulty as regarded Ireland. The noble Lord said the landlords were equally culpable with the Government, because they had the power to control the works and check the expense. As a magistrate of the county which he had the honour to represent, he, in common with others, had used every possible effort to check the ruinous expenditure of public money which had taken place; and the reason why it had been so overwhelming was, the statement made by persons in authority that the blood of the people would be on the heads of those who did not follow the suggestions of the Government. The whole question was this—whether, in the proceedings that then took place, there was any blame imputable to the Government or to the magistrates? Now, he was ready to admit that the Government had acted from right motives, while he asserted that they had come to wrong conclusions. He would ask the House whether it was fair that the whole burden should be thrown upon the landlords when they were not permitted to have any act in the measures which imposed such burden? That, he submitted, was a fair subject for equitable consideration. It might be asked what was the object sought by the Resolution now under consideration? He, for one, did not think the terms of the Resolution adopted by the House of Lords would meet the exigencies of the case, and he trusted that if the Government did undertake to consider the matter, they would turn their attention to other subjects beyond the Labour Rate Act. He thought the question of the poor-houses deserving of attention, and trusted the Government would consider whether a certain portion of the expenditure incurred in that respect should not be borne by the Consolidated Fund, particularly as the expenditure had so greatly exceeded all the original calculations. With reference to the Temporary Relief Act, it had been assumed that the monies raised under that Act had been applied for poor-law purposes, and ought to be paid by Ireland. Now, when a local calamity was remedied by national resources, Ireland ought to be considered as much an integral part of England as any part of Great Britain itself, and he
778
thought that some portion of those sums ought to have been borne by the State at large. They had strong grounds, based upon the Lords' Report, for coming forward, and he should consequently vote on a division for the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he could bear testimony to the admirable conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan from personal experience, and could affirm with certainty that if he had not always acted with sound discretion, he had uniformly exhibited the most entire devotion and energy in the discharge of his duties. The rate-in-aid was, indeed, nothing more nor less than a contribution to save life. In some parts of Ireland, indeed, it had been worse than nothing, so far as the landlords and proprietors were concerned. The sums advanced to Ireland were as much for the purpose of saving human beings as the voluntary contributions from this country, and, regarding them in that light, he was sure the House would join in asking the Government to put their seal on the magnanimous act of the people of England, and remit the amount altogether.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he did not mean to make many observations upon the question now before the House; for he must say he thought that the course which had been taken on the part of the Government made it impossible to arrive at any satisfactory decision upon the subject that evening. He would ask the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) to withdraw his Motion, if he felt that this was an ordinary case; but when he (Mr. Butt) heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ask his hon. Friend to postpone the question until he had made his financial statement, he felt that the right hon. Gentleman was asking the advocates of the Motion to give up an essential principle, which it was impossible that they could forego. If they had any claim—he would not say if Ireland had any claim; but, speaking more correctly, if certain distressed districts in the United Kingdom had any claim—upon the national resources of the country at large, it was one that was founded upon the purest principles of justice, and was therefore not one which ought to be regulated by any consideration of finance. If, then, the hon. Member for Mayo went to a division upon his Motion, he should support him. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked them to make this

779
question dependent upon the convenience of the Budget, he asked them to do one of two things: either to admit that the claim put forward was not one of justice, but a question of the expediency of taxation; or to vote that the concession of a claim of justice was to depend upon the convenience of the Minister of Finance. The right hon. Gentleman had placed the Irish representatives on that occasion in such a position that he (Mr. Butt) felt it was impossible that the question could be satisfactorily settled that night. He, for one, would not accept of the decision for which the right hon. Gentleman asked, because he had distinctly asked the House to rest their decision upon other grounds than any opinion they might form of the claim as a matter of justice. That was a question which could not be decided by any adverse vote to-night. He had listened with due attention to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London. It was not for him to say what the conduct of the Government had been when those measures upon which they were commenting had been passed, because he looked upon it as utterly beside the question whether the Government of 1846 were or were not successful in the way in which they dealt with Irish distress. If that were the question, he would venture to tell the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the success of such a policy should be tested, not by the number of lives that had been saved, but its utter failure should be tested by the number of lives that had been sacrificed. If the noble Lord imagined that be had triumphantly vindicated the policy of his Cabinet, because by a lavish expenditure of the public money many lives of the people had been saved, he (Mr. Butt) felt that he might reasonably ask him how many of the people of Ireland had died of starvation during that period of unprecedented distress, and also how many Irishmen had been driven to seek that relief in a foreign country which had been denied them at home? As, however, he had said before, he thought that such a consideration was altogether beside the present question. He must say he did not think that the noble Lord at all met the question by simply saying that he had saved so many lives. Was the expenditure under the Labour Rate Act to save life or to benefit the property of Ireland? If in the smallest degree it had benefited the property of Ireland, he would admit that the property of Ireland was bound to pay it back. But
780
let the House recollect that the landlords of Ireland had no control whatever over the expenditure of this money. They were not allowed to influence the expenditure in the way they thought it could be made available for the relief of the people. Their power was altogether limited at a period when the people around them were starving, and when it was most important that their exertions should be unrestrained. The Legislature had issued their mandate that the people must be employed upon works of a certain character, and upon nothing else. Now, what were those works? They were limited by the Imperial Parliament to works of what were called public utility, similar to those presented by the grand juries—namely, roads and bridges. He submitted to the House how utterly impossible it was to find employment of a useful character for the Irish people at a time when they were compelled to have 700,000 men breaking stones upon the roads. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that his (Mr. Butt's) statement so far was quite correct. They compelled the ratepayers to employ the paupers upon useless and worse than useless works, and they negatived the most urgent applications of those to whom it was now said this money was lent, to be allowed to apply the labour to any purpose that could give the smallest prospect of a return. Let the House observe what the Irish people did during that period. He was not now speaking of any course taken by the representatives of Ireland in that House. He (Mr. Butt) had not then the honour of a seat in that House. He was not called on to vindicate the course taken by those who then represented Ireland. Nor did he blame them for this either; and for the Government, he said at once, the very greatest allowance must be made. Whatever legislation was adopted was adopted under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances—circumstances wholly unprecedented in the history of civilised countries. Still, they must ask what had been the effect of this legislation? They must ask, too, what had been said and what had been asked by the Irish people out of doors—by those from whom they were now forcing the repayment of the money thus advanced? That people had, in formal memorials to the Government—in petitions to the House of Commons—protested against the mode in which the money advanced for the relief of the

781
famine was expended, and had earnestly asked permission to employ the people in what were termed "reproductive works." He (Mr. Butt) earnestly asked of the House to remember the fact, and the nature of this demand. A great meeting was held in Dublin, at which the landlords from all parts of Ireland were fairly represented. All parties at that meeting were for once unanimous in their resolution to present a petition to that House, in which they pointed out the utter uselessness of those Government works. They said, in effect, "You are pledging our properties to provide funds for the employment of the people: do so, but give us the labour for which you are compelling us to pay. You have masses of men breaking stones upon the road, while the field on the other side of the hedge is untilled. Let us take the labourer over the hedge, into the field, and then tax our properties to pay his wages. This will equally provide him with food—it will equally meet the calamity of the famine; but if we must pay him for his labour, let us make the most we can of it." This was the demand, the reasonable demand, of the Irish landowners of all parties of politics. It was unattended to: Government persevered in their rule, that the men employed under the Relief Act should do nothing but cut up, destroy, the public roads. To this hour, any gentleman travelling in Ireland would find the remnant of the obstructions made in their roads. Was it just to trust money thus dealt with as a loan to these very landowners? This was not all. At another meeting in the city of Dublin, the mercantile classes of the community assembled: the claim of the landowners had been rejected. When they asked that, if Ireland must pay these labourers, they might be set to construct railways, by which Ireland would be improved, you insist upon setting them on roads. Be it so; let it be on the great iron highways of modern civilisation. This, too, was disregarded; and in defiance of the avowed and strongly-expressed opinion of all classes in Ireland, an amount of labour was squandered upon cutting up our roads that would have made the earthwork of a railway from the Giants' Causeway to Cape Clear. These were the facts connected with the expenditure of the sum which these annuities were imposed to repay. The demand of the whole Irish nation had been clear and distinct, that if they were to pay for the labour, they might be permitted to employ it so as to benefit
782
the country. This demand, too, was refused. It was refused on the principle that reproductive employment would interfere with the ordinary supply of labour. He would not at the present juncture discuss that question, although, had he had a seat in the House at the time, he might have done so. The question now under discussion was this: Considering the manner in which the Government proceeded, whether rightly or wrongly, having taken the matter into their own hands—having refused these demands of the Irish landowners and people—having converted this assistance into a matter of pure benevolence, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London having pledged himself that the expenditure on account of the famine should be an Imperial expenditure, was it right or just to throw the burden of repayment upon Ireland? He asked the House to consider whether Devonshire would be similarly treated, if such a calamity had visited that county? The question was not merely an Irish question, but a question between certain distressed parts of Ireland and the whole Empire. He asked again, if Devonshire had been afflicted by famine, and reproductive employment had been withheld, would not Devonshire have resisted the claim to repayment? An hon. Friend, who had just now spoken, had drawn a distinction between England and Ireland, which he (Mr. Butt) regretted. If an Englishman, he should desire to speak of Ireland as, being an-Irishman, he desired to speak of England. Nothing could be more fatal to the welfare of this Empire than to treat the two countries on a different principle. This claim to relief from these annuities was not brought before the House without the most urgent necessity. Whole districts in Ireland were weighed down by the enormous pressure of local taxation. In the Report of the House of Lords, so often alluded to during the present discussion, he found it stated in evidence that out of 106 unions in Ireland, in twenty the poor-rate had exceeded 15 s. in the pound; in thirty-six more it exceeded 10 s. But he confessed he should have been better pleased had the Chancellor of the Exchequer met this claim on grounds wholly independent of the question of finance, and not put these annuities into his Estimates, except as a part of the expenditure of the nation, to be provided for in the Estimates as any other just claim upon the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman, however, came down to the House

783
and told them that he would wrap himself in Ministerial reserve, and that when he stated his Budget he would intimate whether he would remit the annuities or not, he took a course which would produce the impression in Ireland that he was dealing with them not according to the justice of their claims, but according to his convenience as a Finance Minister. The right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that no decision of the House to-night could set this question at rest. He (Mr. Butt) relied entirely on the justice of that House, and if he found its decision against him, he would bow to it; but he could not consent to hear that convenience, and not the justice of the case, was the one thing to be consulted. The course taken to-night obliged him to say that the subject would continue to be pressed upon the notice of the House until they could obtain a decision grounded upon a consideration of the justice of the claim, and not merely of the convenience of the Minister of Finance.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that considering the ground upon which the Motion was brought forward, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was perfectly impossible to come to a decision that night on any of the points that had been suggested. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, whatever might be the decision of the House that night, he should not consider that it would decide the question one way or another; but, surely, to come to a vote that would decide nothing in the opinion of those who brought forward the proposition, was a useless proceeding. One thing, however, he was glad to observe, that during the latter portion of the debate there had been an avoidance of that personality which had marked the earlier portion of it, when the discussion seemed to be one rather upon the character of Sir Charles Trevelyan, than respecting these annuities. He was glad to hear the exertions made by Sir Charles Trevelyan for the relief of Irish distress spoken of in the terms that had been used by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley); No man could bear testimony to the exertions of Sir C. Trevelyan with a greater knowledge of the facts than himself, and he must say that those exertions had never yet been sufficiently appreciated. It was not right to attempt to fix a responsibility upon Sir Charles Trevelyan which it was not his part to bear. With regard to anything Sir Charles Trevelyan had said or
784
written, for that he was properly responsible; but for the measures introduced to the House, and the execution of those measures, the Government were responsible. It was not right to put on one of the permanent officers of the Government that responsibility which the Government ought to bear, and which they were not disposed to shrink from. But he did not think it was fair to judge of the conduct adopted by the Government at that time by the knowledge they now possessed. What were the circumstances when the measure for the Labour Rate was passed? The potato crop had failed in 1845, and the first Act of the Session of 1846 was an Act for the relief of distress in Ireland by means of relief works. The two great steps then taken were the introduction of Indian corn on the part of the Government into Ireland, and the establishment of public works. The success of the Act was the subject of almost unanimous eulogium, including the Irish people. Objections were taken on the ground that the Government should not enact the part of merchants, and that claims to have public works executed had been put forward where distress did not exist. The then Government acceded to office in the month of July, 1846, and early in August they received intelligence from Ireland, which certainly alarmed them, and alarmed everybody, respecting the second failure of the potato crop. What the extent of the failure might be, no one could tell; but the Government thought they were called upon to pass some measure to provide for the probable consequences. The ordinary mode of relieving distress in Ireland had always been by public works. That course had been adopted in the preceding year with a success admitted by all; and he would say it was the natural course that the Government should again enact a measure that had succeeded in the preceding year, with such amendments as the experience of that year would suggest. They did so; but taking precautions against the two objections which had been taken against the former Act. It was said the measure was carried against the opinion and protest of the Irish Members. Some objections, no doubt, were made, but that was after the prorogation of Parliament, when it was not possible to alter the measure. It was said, during the debate, by an Irish Member, from one of the counties (Mr. D. Browne) where the measure was most

785
likely to be largely applied, that, if anything could convince him that a local Parliament was not necessary for Ireland, it was the proposition and speech of the noble Lord, in introducing the Labour Rate Act, and the way in which they had been received by the House. It was agreed, on all hands, that it was right that the whole cost should be imposed on Ireland; and no Irish Gentleman in that House made the least objection to that proposition. No doubt, in the House of Lords, Lord Monteagle objected to it; but what did the Earl of Wicklow say? Why, that he thought no measure could be adopted which was better prepared, or more constitutional, than the one which was then proposed. Surely the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. H. Moore) would not repeat the statement that the Bill was passed against the warnings and protests of Irish Members. He (Sir C. Wood) was prepared to admit that the measure did not answer the expectations of those who proposed it; but he would submit to the House that the circumstances under which it was brought into execution were such as to overpower the best scheme which the wit of man ever devised. Such a calamity had never befallen a civilised nation. But what was the cause of failure? The co-operation of two parties was necessary to the success of the measure: first, the local bodies—the presentment sessions and the relief committees, who had to point out the parties to be employed; and, secondly, the Board of Works, who had to employ the persons so pointed out. All he asked hon. Members opposite to admit was, that the presentment sessions and the relief committes—he would not stop to inquire into the reasons—were wholly unable to discharge the duties assigned to them. This, indeed, was partially admitted by the Irish Members. The result, was, that the whole of the duty was inevitably thrown on the officers of the Government, which, in any district in England so circumstanced, would have been discharged by boards of guardians, magistrates, and vestries. If then the Government officers failed to do what was not their duty, but the duty of the local parties, their failure in this respect was no ground for relieving the districts. For any mistakes on the part of Government, the remission of half the charge was more than ample compensation. This remission, however, was entirely lost sight of in the debate by the Irish Members. The truth was, that the calamity was of such a
786
magnitude that it wholly overwhelmed one of the parties embodied to meet it, and nearly overpowered the other. The object of the Act was to relieve distress in Ireland, and the execution of the works was the means to that end. Let. hon. Gentlemen opposite remember that it was to save life in Ireland that the Act was passed. That life was saved at enormous expense, it was true; but that the Government of the day saved life was indisputable. It had been objected that many of the works had been begun under circumstances under which it was, next to impossible that they could be carried to a completion; but it must be remembered that relief, and not utility, was the primary object for which those works were undertaken. He repudiated the notion that England should bear the whole of this charge. The United Kingdom had furnished no less than 4,400,000 l. for the purpose in question; but the sum charged on the districts in Ireland, which had received the relief, did not exceed 3,700,000 l. He would ask, was there ever an instance known in which a grant of that kind had been made to relieve the people of any district in England? One Irish Member complained that they had not been treated as Devonshire would, if such a calamity had happened there. Had such distress occurred in Devonshire, or in any other county of England, the county would have supported its own poor. It could not be denied that Ireland had received grants of money on this occasion in such a manner as never had been made to any other part of the Empire. Hon. Members had talked of the enormous rate of interest imposed on Ireland with respect to these loans by the Consolidated Annuities Act. But if Parliament allowed the day of repayment of these loans to be postponed for ten, fifteen, and twenty years, was it not reasonable that Ireland should pay interest for that forbearance? It was provided, for instance, that loans, which were to be repaid in ten years, with 5l. per cent interest, should be repaid in a longer period with interest at 3l. 10 s. per cent. He did not think that the people of Ireland had any right to complain of this arrrangement. They had their choice: if they had liked, they might have taken the loans for short periods. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), made an appeal to him on the ground of the punctuality with which former loans to Ireland had been repaid. He (Sir C. Wood) had never said a word

787
against the honesty of Ireland in the repayment of loans in former years. Quite the contrary: he had frequently borne testimony to her honesty in that respect, and he quite agreed that loans for public works had been repaid with a punctuality that had surprised and gratified him; but this Motion was a new feature in the mode of dealing with loans to Ireland. They now for the first time attempted repudiation, and claimed the remission as a matter of right. He must say that as a matter of right they had to claim at all. The whole charge was due from Ireland; but in consideration of their distress, one half had been made a free grant. The great failure in the execution of the proper cure to prevent abuses, was on the part of the Irish local authorities, and not on that of the Government officers; and they could clam no right to further remission on this ground. He would say, however, to the two hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite, and who had taken a different ground from that on which the hon. Member had based his Motion, that nothing his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said implied that the Government were excluded from fairly and equitably considering this subject. On the contrary, his right hon. Friend had said that within ten days he would announce to the House what his determination on this question was. Under these circumstances he thought, if hon. Gentlemen meant to vote on the Motion on the ground of strict justice, it was their duty to oppose it; and if they put it on the lenient consideration of the Government, then they could hardly support it in its present form.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) had stated that if the calamity which befell Ireland on the occasion in question had alighted on any district in England, that district would have been left to support itself, which he (Mr. Napier) thought was tantamount to putting the Irish people in the condition of mendicants. Now, after asking that this question should be allowed to stand over for the consideration of the Government, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone on to argue that there was no ground whatever for insisting that there was any claim on the part of Ireland for a remission of this labour rate. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to argue the question, and contented himself with asking that the matter should be postponed after his pledge to
788
consider it, then he (Mr. Napier) would have said it would have been no more fair to accede to the request. But that the right hon. Gentleman had not done. He (Mr. Napier) considered that the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo were most proper and wise; and in supporting this claim he (Mr. Napier) imputed nothing to the Government, nor did he mean to reflect in the slightest degree on the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan. He would never be a party to any such reflection. It had fallen to his lot to have had many interviews with that gentleman whilst the calamity was in existence, and he retired from every one of those interviews with the most perfect satisfaction. He thought there was no ground to impute anything of a personal character to Sir Charles Trevelyan. Now, what was the real question? What was the confession of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood)? He said there was no misconduct on the part of the Government; but he admitted that the whole of the Act had been a failure. The question was, whether, after the evidence of what had occurred had been considered by an impartial tribunal like the Committee of the House of Lords, who had decided that Ireland had a special claim in this matter, those who came forward to ask the Government to take into consideration the propriety of making a more equitable adjustment of the matter, were to be told in reply that if this had occurred with respect to an English county, that county would not have come forward to make this demand, or if it had, that the demand would not have been listened to? It had been urged by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the landowners had complete control over the presentment sessions when these works were sanctioned; but Mr. Griffiths, in his evidence, stated that the presentment papers were frequently written out in court amidst the greatest confusion, and handed up to the Court, and passed without any previous notice having been given; and that when the works were partly executed, the grand juries had no control whatever over them, but were bound, under a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, to present for whatever sums the Board of Works certified as necessary to be spent upon them. In fact, as had been well said by the present Under Secretary for Ireland, the whole affair was nothing but a gigantic and

789
clumsy attempt to establish a system of outdoor relief. He granted that it was intended as a boon to Ireland, as a means of saving life, as a Parliamentary contribution to the relief of that distress for the alleviation of which the whole world was sending its aid; and under these circumstances the real question was, whether the House was not bound to separate the expenditure which had taken place under the Labour Rate Act from all other expenditure which had taken place, and deal with it as a peculiar case? He had never, and would never, come forward to support any claim which was made on the part of Ireland in a spirit of mendicancy; but he believed that as to this claim there never was one founded on sounder principles of justice and equity, and he should therefore support with his vote the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo.
MR. MOOREsaid, that he should not have exercised his right of reply had it not been for the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to what he had said relative to Sir Charles Trevelyan. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had made a personal charge against Sir Charles Trevelyan. What did he mean by a personal charge? Did he (Mr. Moore) make a charge against his private character? He spoke of him as a public character, and limited his remarks entirely to his public conduct, and to his published evidence; and the right hon. Gentleman arrogated a great deal too much for public servants if he thought that Members of Parliament should be prevented from arraigning their conduct when they exceeded their public duty. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Sir Charles Trevelyan was not in that House to defend himself; but he was everywhere else—whether as an official or a pamphleteer, whether in his public or his secret correspondence, he seemed to have devoted his leisure hours to the noble art of self-defence, which meant in his case, as in that of others, the art of assailing others. The Members of the Government who had spoken upon this question admitted that the Labour Rate Act failed. But when? He had proved that the Government knew it had broken down in November, and yet six months afterwards he found 500,000 men in daily employment under it. He had brought this Motion forward on the highest possible recommendation; for it was impossible that such men as composed the Select Commit-
790
tee of the House of Lords would have agreed to the recommendation which had emanated from them had they not been convinced that it was sound in principle. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to his intentions, and to some observations which he made with regard to a statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), all he (Mr. Moore) could say was, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Monteagle misunderstood him too. Subsequent to that, and wholly independent of it, he (Mr. Moore) had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, when he explicitly promised that immediately after Easter, previous to the Budget, and, as he (Mr. Moore) understood him, irrespective of the Budget, he would state the intentions of the Government on this question. If the right hon. Gentleman would now say that he was willing to take into consideration the Irish Consolidated Annuities in order to effect a more equitable adjustment of them, he (Mr. Moore) would withdraw his Motion; but if not, he would take the sense of the House upon it, and if the House decided against him, it would then be for the right hon. Gentleman to take what steps he pleased.
The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 143: Majority 48.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Ball, E.

Fox, R. M.

Ball, J.

Fraser, Sir W. A.

Bateson, T.

George, J.

Bellew, Capt.

Greene, J.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Greville, Col. F.

Blair, Col.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bland, L. H.

Hamilton, J. H.

Bowyer, G.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Brady, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bremridge, R.

Henchy, D. O.

Browne, V. A.

Herbert, H. A.

Bruce, H. A.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Hume, W. F.

Butt, I.

Jones, Capt.

Cairns, H. M.

Keating, R.

Caulfeild, Col. J. M.

Kennedy, T.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Kirk, W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Laffan, R. M.

Corbally, M. E.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Leslie, C. P.

Devereux, J. T.

Lucas, F.

Duffy, C. G.

Macartney, G.

Dunne, Col.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

MacGregor, J.

Fitzgerald, Sir J. F.

M'Mahon, P.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Maddock, Sir H.

791

Malins, R.

Shee, W

Manners, Lord J.

Smyth, R. J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Spooner, R.

Meager, T.

Stafford, A.

Miles, W.

Stanley, Lord

Michell, W.

Swift, R.

Murrough, J. P.

Taylor, Col.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Thompson, Ald.

Newdegate, C. N.

Towneley, C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Tudway, R. C.

O'Brien, C.

Tyler, Sir J.

O'Brien, P.

Vane, Lord A.

O'Flaherty, A.

Vansittart, G. H.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Power, N.

Waddington, H. S.

Robertson, P. F.

Whalley, G. H.

Russell, F. W.

Whiteside, J.

Scully, F.

TELLERS.

Scully, V.

Moore, G. H.

Seymour, W. D.

French, F.

The House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

BIRTH OF A PRINCE.

  ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
  The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, before proceeding with the ordinary business of the House, I wish to submit a
  686
  Motion to your Lordships which I feel confident will receive your cordial and unanimous support. In consequence of the happy event which has taken place this day by the birth of a Prince, I am desirous of moving an address of congratulation to Her Majesty, as an expression on the part of this House of that devotion and attachment which Her Majesty is so well entitled to receive. My Lords, persuasion is not necessary to induce your Lordships to agree to this address, and I should only do that which would be unbecoming to your Lordships if I were to use any expressions to endeavour to induce you cordially to assent to this Motion. I shall therefore only move "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating Her Majesty on the Birth of another Prince, and assuring Her Majesty that every Addition to Her Majesty's domestic Happiness affords the highest Satisfaction to the House of Lords."
  The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, although it is not necessary, according to the forms of this House, that any Motion made by a Peer should be seconded by another, and although it seems still more unnecessary that any one of your Lordships should express his conviction that the sentiments just uttered by the noble Earl opposite are felt not only unanimously by this House, but by every one of Her Majesty's subjects, yet I should have thought it unbecoming if I did not, in the name of noble Lords sitting on this side of the House, for whom I regret that my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) who is unavoidably absent, cannot now answer—I should have thought it unbecoming, I say, if I did not in their name express their entire concurrence in the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl opposite, and the pleasure which we all feel at the news we have heard this day of the safe delivery of Her Majesty. Every year adds to the devotion which Her subjects feel for Queen Victoria, and no other expression of mine is necessary now or hereafter to impress upon this House, or any other assembly of Her Majesty's subjects, that there is but one feeling of loyalty and affection throughout this country for the Queen who has reigned so constitutionally, so kindly, and yet with such strength over this great empire.
  On Question agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; and the said Address Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SIR ROBERT ADAIR'S ALLEGED MISSION TO ST. PETERSBURGH.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had to solicit their Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while he adverted to a subject which had occupied the attention of the House last Monday evening, respecting the deputation of merchants who had presented an address to the Emperor of the French at Paris. In the course of the observations he then made, he stated it had been represented that Mr., now Sir Robert Adair, had been sent in the year 1791 to represent to the Empress Catherine the opinions of a powerful party in this country, and to assure her that those were generally the sentiments of the English nation. He (Lord Campbell) did not express his own belief in that representation, but had said that, even if the fact were incorrect or inaccurate, it would not in the slightest degree detract from the high authority of Mr. Burke respecting the law he laid down as applicable to such a transaction. Since then he had received a very courteous letter from Sir Robert Adair, expressing great mortification that this report should have received any countenance, Sir Robert supposing that he (Lord Campbell) had given countenance to that report as a fact. Sir Robert Adair had given him a statement which he said was merely for his (Lord Campbell's) own information, and to set him right on the subject; but he thought he should be wrong if he did not, for the information of their Lordships and of the public, and for the purposes of historical proof, state publicly the substance of that communication. Sir Robert Adair was now in his 90th year, and for many years had served his country with great assiduity, fidelity, and success. He had been sent by successive Administrations to Vienna, to Constantinople, to Brussels, and to Berlin, and had represented the Crown of England upon some occasions of very great importance, uniformly acquitting himself to the satisfaction of the Government, and for the benefit of his country. The character of such a functionary was therefore of importance, and he was sure their Lordships would be anxious that his statement on the subject he had alluded to should have every publicity. Sir Robert Adair, in the most unequivocal manner, denied that he ever was employed by Mr. Fox, or by any party or any individuals in this country, to represent them, or to make any representation whatever to the Em-
  688
  press Catherine at St. Petersburgh. He had furnished an explanation of the facts which gave rise to this misapprehension, and, with their Lordships' permission, he would read that part of his letter:—
  "The French Revolution had just broken out; and, having early in life applied myself to the study of our foreign interests, I wished to form a true judgment of the effect it was likely to produce on our relations with the great European States more or less interested with England in the preservation of a balance against French ascendancy. My countrymen went eagerly to Paris. I preferred going to Brussels, to Vienna, to Warsaw, and to St. Petersburgh. We all know to what purposes this journey was converted by Mr. Burke, after his hostile separation from Mr. Fox; but it was not until their final rupture in the ensuing year that Mr. Burke's letter to the Duke of Portland, the source of all this nonsense about my 'embassy,' was published. Thirty years afterwards, Bishop Prettyman, Mr. Pitt's college tutor, wrote a a Life of Mr. Pitt, in which he alludes to it as a matter of notoriety, and he stated that he could prove the facts of the transaction by authentic documents among Mr. Pitt's papers, of which, as executor, he had become possessed. I had borne with composure all the stupid jokes in the newspapers about myself and my proceedings while I was at St. Petersburgh; but this challenge from a holy bishop [A laugh] was not to be despised. I accepted it accordingly, and demanded the production of these documents, so declared to be in his possession. The bishop declined to produce them, and until your speech in the House of Lords yesterday I have never heard a word about the matter worth attending to. I am sure that you have never seen my Two Letters to the Bishop of Winchester, published in 1823, or you would not have stated that I was deputed by any man or set of men to go on an errand of this nature to St. Petersburgh—similar to that of the City deputation to the new Emperor. I think as you do on the matter of this deputation, on the grounds both of policy and the law of nations."
  After this disavowal on the part of Sir Robert Adair, than whom he believed a more honourable man had not lived in this country at any time, he hoped that the contrary would for ever be considered as set at rest, and that it would be considered as established that there had been no such deputation and no such embassy; but at the same time the law laid down by Mr. Burke, on the erroneous supposition of facts, remained untouched; and he was happy to find that it was corroborated by Sir Robert Adair himself, who said he disapproved of this deputation, both on the ground of policy and the law of nations.
  The EARL of ALBEMARLEtended his grateful acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord for the high manner in which he had spoken of his nonagenarian kinsman and friend. He was sure the present statement of the noble and learned Lord

  689
  would be extremely gratifying to Sir Robert Adair, who felt that he had been a victim of misrepresentation for 60 years.

  INDIA.
  The EARL of HARROWBY presented, according to notice, a petition of members of the British Indian Association, and other native inhabitants of the Bengal Presidency, complaining of grievances and praying for relief, and said, he should not detain their Lordships with many observations of his own; it was upon a subject which was now under the consideration of a Committee of their Lordships' House, and he should be unwilling to anticipate the conclusions of that Committee. The petition was signed by members of the British India Association and other native inhabitants of the Bengal Presidency, amounting to 6,000 or 7,000 persons of various religious persuasions, who came before their Lordships to call the attention of this House, upon the occasion of what was called, though improperly, the renewal of the East India Company's charter, to some special points in which they considered the condition of their country required amendment. It was proper that he should, before he recited the grievances to which they alluded, read something of the observations with which they prefaced their statement of those grievances. They said, that as subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, the Natives of their country entertained the deepest sentiments of loyalty and fidelity to Her Majesty, and sincerely desired the permanence of the British supremacy in India, which had insured to them freedom from foreign incursions and intestine dissensions, and security from spoliation by lawless power. Placed by the wisdom of Parliament, for a limited time and on certain conditions, under the administration of the East India Company, they had enjoyed the blessings of an improved form of government, and received many of the advantages incidental to their connexion with one of the greatest and most prosperous nations. They stated that they were impressed with a sense of the value and importance of these and similar benefits, and of their obligations to the nation from which they had, under Providence, derived them; but that they could not but feel, however, that they had not profited by their connexion with Great Britain to the extent which they had a right to look for. Under the influence of such a feeling, they regarded with deep
  690
  interest the inquiries conducted by Committees of both Houses of Parliament, between the years 1831 and 1833, preparatory to the passing of the last Charter Act. The fact of such inquiries being on foot, suggestive as it was of great administrative reforms, induced the people, who were unaccustomed to make any demonstration of their sentiments respecting the acts and measures of their rulers, to wait the result of the deliberations of the Imperial Parliament. The petitioners then alluded to the changes introduced at the last renewal of the charter, and they pointed out the insufficiency of those changes to attain the desired result, after which they went through an enumeration of those grievances to which they desired especial attention. Some of these were, perhaps, such as their Lordships could not fully sympathise with; but this was an indication that the petition in question was not an emanation (as was sometimes stated with regard to petitions of this nature) from European agitation acting upon the Natives, but was, at least to a very great degree, the statement of their own opinions. Their Lordships ought especially, he thought, to feel indulgence—if such a word could be applied in the present case—for parties in the situation of the petitioners. The petitioners were not used to address the Legislature of this country; they were not conversant with European usages; were not in the habit of dealing with European affairs; and they had not enjoyed those opportunities of expressing their opinion upon subjects of this nature which had taught the English people the proper form of expression, and perhaps, also, the most reasonable objects for them to desire. Their Lordships must look upon this petition as an expression of genuine grievances felt by, and of remedies which have suggested themselves to the minds of our native subjects in India. Perhaps the contents of the petition were not what their Lordships would altogether approve of; but, deprived as the petitioners were of any regular means of making their voices heard in Parliament upon questions relating to their own Government, their grievances deserved attention, whatever shape they might assume; and it was, he thought, of great importance that we should listen to any proper statement they might make. He would now, with as little tax as possible upon their Lordships' time, enumerate the points to which the petition referred. He would call their Lordships'

  691
  attention first to the disappointment felt by the petitioners at the non-realisation of a boon held out to the natives by the 87th section of the last Charter Act, by which it was enacted—
  "That no native of the said territories, nor any natural-born subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the said Company."
  They stated that their feelings of disappointment that the administrative reforms so loudly called for had not been provided for in the Company's charter, had been, if possible, deepened by their perceiving that, notwithstanding the declaration just recited, the Natives of India, with one or two exceptions of very recent date, had not been appointed to any but subordinate offices under the Company, such as were very inferior in point of respectability and emolument to the post held by the youngest of their civil servants. In another place they stated that the civil courts of the country were composed of two classes—namely, those to which Natives were usually appointed as Judges, and those to which European civil servants were usually appointed. The highest grade of Native Judges, styled Principal Sudder Ameens, received salaries equal to 480 l. per annum (400 rupees per month), and in special cases equal to 720 l. per annum (600 rupees) per month; not greater than were commonly given to the clerks in public and private offices, and this too without any prospect of promotion to a higher office, though they were vested with power to try all civil suits for property of any amount, and also to hear appeals from the decisions of the lower courts. They contrasted this with the salaries even of the junior civil servants. The civil servant was appointed on a salary of at least 2,000 rupees a month (equal to 2,400 l. a year), with a prospect of rising to the highest posts; and was expected almost exclusively to decide those appeals which involved a value not exceeding 5,000 rupees, They next prayed the House to give a shorter lease of power to the Company than twenty years, in order to bring the merits and working of the administrative arrangements sooner under the review of Parliament. By the last three charters the government of the British Indian territories was continued to the East India Company for terms of twenty years; but, however urgently reforms and improvements in the system of Govern-
  692
  ment might seem to be required, none could virtually be introduced till the expiration of that long period. Accordingly it had required that period before British subjects were permitted to exercise their natural right of residing in, or even of trading with, this part of their Sovereign's dominions, and another like period before they were permitted to enter into the trade with China, which was open to all other nations. If British subjects had to wait such protracted periods in breaking through a monopoly, the natives of India could not have a better prospect of obtaining reforms which they prayed for. This was a point which he (the Earl of Harrowby) thought it was of especial importance that their Lordships should at present consider. If they were to legislate this year, it was of the highest consequence they should do so only for a short period, as it was utterly impossible that in the time that could be allotted to their discussion they could legislate properly on subjects so complicated, so little considered hitherto, and so important, as those connected with the government of India. The petitioners, looking to this, were most anxious that the term of the arrangements which might be next entered upon for the government of India should not be extended beyond ten years. The petitioners next pointed to the anomalies, with which their Lordships were so well acquainted, in the government of India, by the complex and expensive system of the Court of Directors and the Board of Control; and they suggested that in future the management of Indian affairs should be vested in a body partly nominated by the Crown, and partly elected by a popular body. They pointed out that the twenty-four Directors received a salary of 300 l. each, a sum which was manifestly inadequate to secure the services of persons qualified to assist in the government of a vast territory, and willing, conscientiously, to devote their time and attention to that great undertaking; but, in reality, the services of the Directors were compensated by the extensive patronage which each of them enjoyed, consisting in the right to dispose of certain lucrative civil and military and other offices in India. For the manner in which that extensive patronage was used by them, they were under no sort of responsibility—that the system was directly opposed to all improvement—and that the original character of the Company having been quite lost, it was advisable that a change should take place in the

  693
  duties it performed. They complained that the people of India, too, were often at a loss to comprehend from whom certain measures emanated—whether from the local Government, by whom they were promulgated, or from the directors, under whose instructions the Government acted, or from the Board of Control, who have the right to prescribe the instructions which should be sent to the Government for their guidance. Hence, they were precluded from offering remonstrances, not knowing but that the authority remonstrated with might have been acting entirely under dictation. They suggested also that the present proprietors of East India stock were not a body competent to form a correct opinion on the subjects submitted to them. The petitioners therefore submitted that, on the grounds set forth, the future management of the affairs of British India should be vested in one body, consisting of not more than twelve members, half of whom might be nominated by the Crown, and the other half elected by a popular body, but all of them holding the appointment for five years, and going out of office by rotation; that a suitable salary should be attached to the office, not only to secure men of the best abilities and to ensure their giving a sufficient portion of their time to their duty, but also to serve as a compensation for the loss of patronage which might ensue from any arrangements which Parliament might see fit to make. They further suggested that the election of the members of the Board should not be wholly confided to the proprietors of East India Stock, who were a body comparatively small in number, and therefore easily liable to be brought under improper influence, and without sufficient motives to seek for the good government of the country; that Native and European British subjects resident in India or in England, holders of the East India Company's promissory notes of 4 or 5 per cent, to the value of 25,000 rupees or 20,000 rupees respectively, should be allowed to vote in the election of members of the Board of Management for the Affairs of India, and, with that view, should be allowed to transfer the same to a local India stock, at the rate of interest they now received; and that after twelve months' registry bonâ fide in their names, they should be allowed to vote in person or by proxy, under the same rules which govern the votes of the present proprietors, and that the privilege enjoyed under
  694
  Section 26 of the Charter Act by Proprietors of East India Stock resident in England, to vote by attorney, should be extended to proprietors resident in India, and that they should have power to send their letters of attorney to England within six months of the date fixed for the election of members of the Board for the Management of the Affairs of India. With respect to the Government of India, they objected to it as preventing proper internal administrative arrangements. It was at present employed about the political and military concerns of a vast empire, in legislating for the several Presidencies, and making arrangements for, and governing, the newly- acquired territories, and in exercising a general supervision over the acts and proceedings of the several subordinate Governors and other authorities. The Governor General, or, in his absence from the seat of Government, one of the Members of Council, had also the immediate charge of the Government of Bengal. Duties so multifarious could not bo satisfactorily performed; and, as political and military matters claimed primary consideration, all that concerned legislation and the civil administration was treated as matter of very secondary importance. They thought therefore, the functions of the Supreme Government should be limited to the objects which more appropriately belonged to it—namely, the disposal of political and military affairs, a control over the Governors of the several Presidencies, and a veto on the laws proposed by a Legislative Council specially appointed; and they recommended that the Governor General should no longer be authorised to act on his own responsibility, contrary to the opinion of the Council, thereby being practically invested with arbitrary power. They complained of the union of the executive with the legislative power, and submitted that the Legislature of India should be a body not only distinct from the persons in whom the political and executive powers were vested, but also possessing to a certain degree a popular character, so as in some respects to represent the sentiments of the people, and to be so looked upon by them. There were several portions of the petition with which he would not trouble their Lordships, because they could not agree with the petitioners; but they objected at some length to the fact that the laws were now made by the Executive, and that no attention was paid

  695
  to remonstrances on the part of the natives, while the power of the Court of Directors to disallow laws passed by the Government was inefficacious, even in the case of bad ones. They considered that the Government had violated the principles of the British Government on which the Natives of India had hitherto relied for the free exercise of their religion, and altered the rules of inheritance which were well known to be based upon their religious tenets, by allowing persons excluded from caste, whether on account of immoral or infamous conduct, or of change of religion, to inherit contrary to the express rules of the Hindoo law. Their Lordships might remember there had been considerable agitation on this subject in Calcutta; but he imagined they would not be induced to listen to a representation which might interfere with the freedom of religious opinion in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. The petitioners suggested a plan for a Legislative Council, and for alterations in the administrative powers of the Legislative and Supreme Councils, and complained of the power of the Directors to rescind laws passed by the Legislative Council, and that on grounds which were not communicated to the latter. They asked for a declaration of non-interference with religion, and for local Governors in each Presidency without a Council, and that an appeal should be given from them to the Governor General in Council. They suggested that the salaries of the higher officers should be reduced, and those of the lower officers augmented, and asked the House to provide for greater economy in the public service. With respect to the civil service, they objected, in the first place to the system pursued at Haileybury, and to the present mode of filling public offices. They said that the civil servants selected by the Directors were sent out to that country before their capacity could be ascertained; the education they received in England was insufficient to fit them for the various offices they were destined to fill; they were posted to important offices at an extremely early age, without the certainty, without even a reasonable probability, of their possessing the requisite qualifications; they were removed from one office to another of a dissimilar kind, and from one province to another different in respect to language and people, without being afforded an opportunity to acquire sufficient experience; the certainty that they were to be provided for, and even
  696
  promoted by seniority or home influence, rendered some of them indisposed to qualify themselves by diligent study of the laws and regulations, and the customs and manners of the Natives; their inexperience and official inaptitude led many to depend, to a late period of their public career, on their ill-paid ministerial officers; their peculiar advantages and connexion with each other, by birth or marriage, led them frequently to regard themselves as a distinct and privileged class, and to treat the other classes of the community with arrogance and harshness, and to support each other's errors and defaults; and the charges preferred against them for coruption or official misconduct were not investigated in a public manner, or by a tribunal in whose impartiality the public had confidence, but, on the contrary, the general impression was, that the preferring of charges was as much as possible discouraged, and they were not liable to personal prosecution in the Company's courts for acts of injustice and oppression. They suggested that offices should be thrown open to young men, Natives or British born, who could undergo the required examinations, and recommended a better provision for the selection of competent persons, and that all persons who had passed the examinations in England should, on passing an examination in India in the vernacular languages, be eligible to the higher offices, with reference to their age, experience, and talents, in common with those sent out under covenants. They next complained that the Company's courts were not so constituted as to render substantial justice to the Natives, or to afford them a just confidence as to the security of life and property. It was a cause of further dissatisfaction that there should be one court specially for the Europeans, of which the Judges were selected from among persons who had given proof of their legal fitness, and the advocates were persons who had undergone a course of legal training, and another court for the Natives generally, of which the Judges had no legal knowledge or experience before their appointment, and the pleaders were very insufficiently qualified for their important duties. That dissatisfaction was aggravated by the facts, that a special exception was made by Section 46 of the Charter Act against granting to any of the Company's courts the power of life and death over British subjects, while the lives of Natives were freely placed at the disposal of Courts clearly implied to be

  697
  ill-constituted; that while, owing to the numerous reforms required in the laws and forms of judicial procedure in this country, the objections of British subjects to the Company's court and Company's Judges had been allowed, those courts and Judges should be deemed quite good enough for them; and that, out of the large revenues which were yielded by the proceeds of their labour, a sufficient sum should not be appropriated towards rendering the courts really capable of affording them justice. The petitioners further complained that, while the decisions of experienced Native Judges were liable to be reversed by a single European Judge, without any judicial experience, the decisions of the same Judges regarding property of a higher value than that abovementioned were appealable to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, and could be reversed without the concurrent opinions of two Judges of that court. They suggested next that the Sudder and Supreme Courts should be amalgamated, that the local courts should be remodelled, and that no judicial officers should be removable without a regular trial; and they prayed for a reform of the whole system of police, which they averred to be inefficient and expensive. The next complaint of the petitioners was, that the monopolies of the Company in salt, and in the opium trade, were very injurious to the people, and ought to be removed, or that, at all events, the impost on salt should be fixed and invariable. A work on the British administration in India had been drawn up by a French officer, who stated that no point was more prominent, especially in the neighbourhood of Madras, than the neglected state into which the system of irrigation had been allowed to fall. Where works of irrigation had existed in former times, scarcely any were now to be met with. The injury which this neglect inflicted was as great to the Government as to the people. In countries of high temperature an abundant supply of water, or the absence of it, constituted the whole difference between productiveness and barrenness. The petitioners complained that, though the revenue raised by the Company, both from the land and from other sources, far exceeded what was drawn from the country by its Mahomedan rulers, a very inadequate portion of it was devoted to improvements in the means of land or water communication; on the contrary, the funds which were raised expressly for pro-
  698
  viding the means of such improvements, such as the ferry funds and the tolls on rivers and canals, were usually carried to the credit of the Government. Accumulations of those funds to the extent of several lacs still remained in the public treasury unappropriated to their specific purposes. The petitioners then complained that no provision had been made by the Company on a suitable scale for the education of the Natives. The sum authorised by Parliament to be expended on educational establishments, had been for years unappropriated. Since the establishment of the Committee of Public Instruction, several colleges and other institutions had been established in various parts of the country, partly with public money and partly with the aid of endowments and other funds derived from private sources; but the education of the mass of the people had as yet been completely neglected, a sufficient indication of which would be found in the fact that the total sum expended by the Government for the colleges and institutions in the lower provinces did not exceed three lacs per annum —this among a population of upwards of 40,000,000. The petitioners submitted that the diffusion of education in the country, which could only be successfully attained through the medium of the vernacular languages, should no longer be neglected, and that the University plan proposed by Mr. Cameron, late President of the Committee of Public Instruction, should be established in each Presidency. This plan provided for the admission of those who received degrees in the law and other departments to practise at the bar of the Supreme and Sudder Courts, and to be engineers in the Government service, and so forth; but they stated it should be modified so as to provide for educated natives entering the medical service on the same footing with persons who had hitherto been sent out as assistant-surgeons by the Court of Directors. An express rule on the subject was necessary, as it was well known that the young men educated at the Calcutta Medical College, who obtained diplomas after examination in London, failed, notwithstanding the recommendations of several eminent persons, to obtain that position in the medical service which they were entitled to from their qualifications, and the declaration in the Charter Act. He remembered a remarkable case, in which a native of India, educated in London, and

  699
  who passed his examination at the hospitals, on his return to India was refused the occupation or position of an assistant-surgeon, upon the ground only that he was an uncovenanted servant. The remaining point referred to by the petitioners was the ecclesiastical establishment in India. They stated that the provisions in Section 89, and other sections of the Charter Act, for providing an ecclesiastical establishment expressly for the advantage of British subjects, were out of place among the arrangements for the government of British India. That Government was for a mixed community, the members of which were of various and opposite sects, and the majority was composed of Hindoos and Mahomedans. It was therefore manifestly inexpedient that the Government should have any connexion with the appointment of the ministers of any religion. All sects should accordingly be left to support the ministers of their respective religions in the manner they deemed most suitable. The petitioners did not object to the appointment of chaplains to the European regiments that were sent out to that country, as was done in the United Kingdom, nor to the appointment of a chaplain-general in each Presidency for the government of the chaplains, but to the support of bishops and other highly-paid functionaries, out of the general revenues of the country for the benefit of a small body of British subjects. They submitted, accordingly, for the consideration of that House, the expediency of discontinuing the connexion of the Government with the ecclesiastical establishment; and, in order that this might be done at an early date, they suggested that the cost of these establishments be charged to those civil and military servants at each Presidency, town, or station who enjoyed the benefit thereof. These were the principal points to which the petitioners prayed their Lordships' attention. With regard to the manner in which those grievances were set forth, he hoped their Lordships would not be disposed to be very critical, but that they would let the petitioners understand that, irrespective of the language in which they might have couched their complaints, their Lordships were always ready to do them ample justice. He thought it would be for the safety of our vast empire in India that the Natives of that country should be persuaded that their Lordships were ever ready to lend an ear to any grievances of which they might complain.
  700
  The noble Earl then moved that the petition be referred to the Committee of their Lordships' House on the Government of Indian Territories.
  The EARL of ALBEMARLEsaid, that having passed a few years of his life among that portion of fellow-subjects from whom this petition emanated, he trusted he might be excused for trespassing for a short time on their Lordships' notice while he adverted to some of the important points contained in it. He confessed he should have preferred to reserve any observations that he might have to make upon this subject until the Bill for the regulation of the Indian Government came in the form of a Motion under their Lordships' consideration; but it was from having heard that statements had been made in both Houses of Parliament of its being the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to legislate at once upon this important subject that he ventured now to obtrude upon their Lordships. He certainly felt much regret at finding his opinion not in unison with that of the Government upon this point, because there was no other, that he was aware of, in which he did not cordially concur with them. But it really did appear to him that legislating at this stage of the business was very much like placing themselves in the position of a judge who should pass sentence upon a prisoner, without waiting for the verdict of a jury. The petition before their Lordships was more bulky than petitions generally were; but he implored them to remember that it set forth the grievances of a population of nearly 48,000,000—that was to say, two-fifths more than the population of Great Britain and Ireland. His noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby), in presenting the petition, had spoken in somewhat an apologetic form; but he (the Earl of Albemarle) had read the whole of the petition attentively, and he saw nothing in it that called for any apology. It appeared to be drawn up with considerable skill and in a proper spirit, and afforded a satisfactory indication of the intellectual progress of our Indian fellow-subjects. It was once the fashion to decry petitions coming from India as not being a bonâ fide expression of the sentiments of the Natives; but he agreed with his noble Friend that this petition was genuine, and that it was framed, not by Europeans, but by Natives, whose peculiar views and sentiments pervaded it through-

  701
  out. A reference to it would convince any one that there was incontestable proof that no European had managed this petition. The petitioners complained of the monopoly of all offices by the East India Company; that the Natives were never appointed to any such offices, nor had they any share in making the laws under which they lived. They proposed, as a remedy, to restrict the nominations at home to not more than a moiety of the required number of officers, and that the remainder should be appointed by the local authorities, consisting of such Natives or Europeans in India as should be duly qualified for office. The petitioners illustrated the monopoly of office by pointing out the manner in which the judicial appointments were distributed; and they spoke of the difference in the amount of salaries paid to European Judges and to Native Judges as one grievance of which they had to complain. If there had been any peculiar fitness or any greater conversance with legal business shown by Europeans, then there would be no just cause of complaint at their engrossing all the situations worth holding; but, so far was that from being the case, that it appeared by public records that the decisions of the Native Judges were more seldom reversed than those of the highly-paid European Judges. A writer at Madras had said that the judicial line was commonly talked of as the refuge for the destitute. Mr. Campbell said, it was usual to say of a man who was fit for nothing at all, "O! make him a Judge, and get rid of him." A pamphlet had been published by a Mr. John Bruce Norton, upon the administration of justice in Southern India, and it contained an account of cases in which the decisions of the Judges had been reversed on hearing by appeal. He (the Earl of Albemarle) would just mention one of the most remarkable of them. It occurred in 1848, and was an appeal from the decision of a Mr. Anstruther. It appeared that a Native sued a person for a sum of 55,270 rupees due on a bond. The Judge non-suited the plaintiff, and fined him in the sum of 55,270 rupees for bringing his action. That decision was of course reversed. The name of the gentleman who had passed this sentence might perhaps remind their Lordships of the lines—
  "Necessity and Anstruther are like one another; Necessity has no law, no more has Anstruther."
  But this evil was not confined to our provinces. Ridicule had ever been at-
  702
  tached to the judicial office in India. The late Marquess of Hastings, on whose staff he was in India, once told him that when he paid a visit to the celebrated Begum Sombre, he was highly entertained by a farcical representation of a Mofussil court of justice. The chief Judge was represented by a person sitting in an easy chair, with his legs upon the table, which those who knew India were aware was the approved fashion in that country when taking your ease. The vakeels were pleading before the Judge, when presently in came a messenger to tell the Judge that his curry was growing cold. The prisoner was forthwith sentenced to condign punishment, and the judicial Midas retired to his tiffin. These unfortunate Natives were exposed to the open violence of the dacoits, and to the secret assassinations of the Thugs. The petitioners called their Lordships' attention to the extortions to which they were subjected by the East India Company, who resorted to the most frightful and antiquated modes of raising a revenue when they were obliged by the Legislature to abandon trade. There existed in the north of India two great monopolies—that of salt and opium, both highly impolitic; but the salt monopoly was the most oppressive, and it was that of which the petitioners complained the most. The petitioners stated that the dearness of the article induced even those who lived near the salt manufactories to use the earth scraped from the salt pans, while those who resided at a distance found a substitute in alkali produced from the ashes of burnt vegetables; and in Bahar, where there were extensive saltpetre manufactories, the bitter and offensive ley of the saltpetre was used as a substitute for culinary salt. This monopoly of salt prevented any improvement in the manufacture of that article, which he believed bad undergone no change since the invasion of Darius Hystaspes. Another grievance was, that, as all persons were held responsible for any illegal manufacture of salt on their own lands, the landlords were obliged to be always on the watch, and became, as it were, a sort of special excise officers for the protection of the revenue. The petitioners mentioned an instance of a Zemindar having been fined by a revenue officer in the enormous sum of 12,000 rupees. The petitioners proposed that there should be a fixed duty on salt, and the very high sum they mentioned as the

  703
  duty, showed the exorbitance, cruelty, and oppressiveness of the system. They proposed a duty of 200 rupees on every hundred maunds of salt; which, translated into English money and weight, amounted to 5s. 6d. a bushel, a most enormous sum for the sole condiment of a people whose daily wages were only 4d. a day. With respect to opium, the petitioners had not the same cause of complaint; for that monopoly did not press so heavily upon them, because they stated that the tax was ultimately paid by the consumers in China; but they did say that it was a source of great oppression to the cultivators, who were compelled to cultivate the poppy and supply the produce to the Government at a valuation fixed by their own officers. They suggested that the interference of the Government with the cultivation should cease, and that the revenue should be raised in the shape of fixed duties. The petitioners likewise complained of the stamp duties, and the manner in which they spoke of their oppressive character could not be for one moment gainsaid; yet by the latest returns it appeared that the stamp duties did not amount to more than 207,899 l.—a miserable pittance from a population of 48,000,000. Another part of the petition showed what was the incidence of taxation levied with reference to law proceedings, stating that the use of stamps did not serve the purpose for which they were imposed—namely, a diminution of litigation, and that the use of stamps rather increased litigation by giving rise to questions extraneous to that really at issue; and nonsuits and new trials frequently arose, merely because the stamp duty charged in a suit had not been correctly estimated. The decisions of the superior courts in the matter of the stamp duties were frequently at variance; and it was stated that not less than 10 per cent of the decisions in the Company's courts turned on questions about this absurd and injudicious system of raising taxes by stamps; for the suitor had not only to pay the expense of the courts, but before he commenced a suit for the most trifling sum he must pay for a stamped paper, the charge for which was at the least a rupee, or eight times the daily hire of a labourer. That pernicious tax was not levied under the authority of the local Government, but was concocted in the secret conclaves of Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row. The petitioners from Bengal did not complain
  704
  in the same manner as the petitioners from other parts of India on the subject of the land revenue; and for obvious reasons. In other parts of India the land revenue was fluctuating and varying. Sixty years ago the Marquess Cornwallis fixed the land revenue of Bengal in perpetuity. The Marquess of Wellesley, in the beginning of the present century, by public proclamation pledged the Government to carry the same measure into effect in the north-west provinces. But, unluckily, the fluctuating system—a sort of sliding scale—came into operation with the home authorities, and Lord Wellesley's solemn pledge remains to this day unredeemed. The petitioners said it was a violation of all principle that fiscal, magisterial, and judicial functions should be united in one office. The noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government seemed to cavil at a statement made by the noble Earl who presented a petition some time ago from the Christian inhabitants of Madras with reference to public works; but the simplest mode of settling that question was to state that on roads and other public works the pitiful sum of 48,398 l. was the whole amount expended on an area which was double the area of Great Britain and Ireland. Seventy years ago Mr. Burke made a speech on this subject, which might be read with advantage at the present day, for it was equally applicable to the existing state of things in India. Mr. Burke said—
  "With us no pride erects stately monuments which repair the mischiefs which pride had produced, and which adorn a country out of its own spoils. England has erected no churches, no hospitals, no palaces, no schools; England has built no bridges, made no highroads, cut no navigations, dug out no reservoirs. Every other conqueror of every other description has left some monument either of state or beneficence behind him."
  What had been done in our own country? Excellent roads had been made on a principle which had added the word "macadamizing" to the language; canals had been executed on so extensive a scale that they would have formed a net-work of communication over the country, had it not been that water carriage had been superseded by iron and steam. It might be alleged that in England these things had been effected by private resources; but private resources could never have done this if the English Executive had taxed the people as the Indian Government had taxed the vast population subject to its rule 18 s. in the pound. The petitioners further

  705
  complained of the neglect of education. If the sum allotted to education were divided into farthings, and a farthing were taken for each person, there would still be left a population of 10,700,000 totally unprovided with education. Alluding to a conversational discussion which took place some weeks ago on the subject of the education of natives, he begged to express his dissent from the opinion of a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) who had shown great knowledge on Indian subjects, and the expression of whose liberal feelings in favour of the Natives, on almost all other subjects, their Lordships must have heard with gratification. He did not share the noble Earl's apprehensions with respect to the evils which might accrue from the diffusion of an improved system of education among the Natives of India; nor even if he did share those apprehensions, should they alter his opinion as to what was right to be done. It was, he held, their bounden duty, as a civilised and Christian Legislature, to give the best education to the Natives of India, irrespective of the consequences to our own dominion. They ought not to act in the spirit of those nations which had refused education to their slaves, that those slaves might continue to be beasts of burden. The danger from the education of the Natives of India was, he conceived, very remote indeed. It was stated in a publication by a very intelligent witness before their Lordships' Committee—namely, Sir E. Perry, the late Chief Justice of Bombay, that Her Majesty's subjects in India comprised seven different nations, to which might be added the people of the newly-acquired territory of Pegu, making eight different nations, with eight different languages, and, he might say, eight separate alphabets; and the infinitesimal division of castes among them rendered intermarriage impossible. But however that might be, it was not ignorant slaves that were wanted in India, but a loyal, intelligent, peaceful people, whom education alone could form. The history of what was passing here and abroad showed that the portion of society which was most ignorant was that which was most prone to insurrection and revolt, and that it was the portion of society which was most cultivated and enlightened that was most peaceable and most easily governed. The petitioners professed the deepest sentiments of loyalty and fidelity to the British Crown, and expressed their desire for the permanence of British
  706
  dominion. They fully admitted all the blessings which they had derived from the rule of the East India Company, in the preservation of order and in immunity from foreign invasion, from an improved system of government, and from their connexion with what their petition called the "greatest and most prosperous nation in the world;" but they denied—and denied, he thought, with justice—that they had derived all the advantages from our Government which they were fairly entitled to expect; and he believed that if their grievances were not redressed, they must expect from the Natives of India heartburnings and discontent.
  The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would detain their Lordships but for a few moments while he referred to some points to which he felt that it was necessary he should call their attention. To the expressions of the petition he saw no objection whatever, and he regretted that he could not make any objection to the general statement of grievances which it embodied. But he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the prayer of the petition, and to the plan for the future government of India which was therein proposed. The petition proceeding, as their Lordships had been informed, from educated persons, Natives of India, the petitioners proposed that the executive and legislative powers should no longer rest in the same body of persons, which, in principle, might be desirable. They proposed that the legislative power should be taken from the Governor General in Council, and should be vested in a Council consisting of seventeen persons, three for each Presidency, being Natives, to be selected by the Governor General in communication with the Governors of the different provinces. The Natives, therefore, would be twelve, the Europeans five, in the proposed Legislative Council of seventeen members. The proportion of twelve to five, giving a majority of seven on all occasions to the Natives, would afford them what was thought in this country, with reference to the House of Commons, a sufficient "working" majority; but in a Legislative Council consisting of seventeen members, to give a majority of twelve to five to the Natives, was to give such a preponderance to Natives over the European members as would practically transfer to the Natives all legislative authority. True, it was proposed in the first instance that those Native members of Council should be selected by the Governor General; but the

  707
  petitioners evidently looked forward to the time when the principle of popular representation should be introduced in respect to those persons. In the meantime, however—although it was not very clearly expressed—there was to be a power on the part of the people of the several Presidencies to make representations against these appointments, on certain specified grounds. Of the five European members, four were to be civilians—one from each Presidency named by the Governor; and the remaining member was to be a legal gentleman, named by the Crown, and was to act as the President of the Council. Therefore, in the Legislature of a country which had been won and which was now held by the Army, and where the military profession was most influential, no representative of the Army was to have a place at the Council Board. Not satisfied with so constituting the legislative authority, to avoid all interference with its proceedings, it was required that these councillors should hold their places for five years, and be irremovable, unless upon proved misconduct before a criminal court. They were to receive honorary distinctions, such as were given to members of legislative bodies in Great Britain and the Colonies, and they were further to receive what was called "a reasonable salary." It was proposed that the Governor General in Council should have the power of veto on their proceedings; but, as it was to be understood that great trouble had been taken by the legislative body in preparing all those measures which came to be submitted to the Governor General in Council, it was required that, unless the Governor General intimated at once his dissent—if within three months he did not give a decided answer—the laws which the Legislative Council proposed should be considered as having been passed; and, once passed, it was not to be in the power even of Parliament to repeal those laws without previous notice of twelve months; nor hereafter was Parliament on any occasion to exercise its authority in legislation respecting any new matter without giving notice twelve months before of the object of the proposed law and of the means by which it was desired to carry that object into effect, so as to afford the people of India an opportunity of protesting against any proposed measure. Further, he should mention, that, contrary to the practice of every constitutional Government, so far as he knew, the Governor General, if he did not see reason for acquiescing
  708
  in the laws proposed by the Legislative Council, was bound to give reasons for disallowing those laws; and, on the other hand, not only was the Governor General to have the power, but the people generally were to have the power—in what manner was not mentioned—of proposing draughts of laws which must be taken into consideration by the Legislative Council; but reasons must also be given for the rejection of draughts of laws by the Legislative Council, if they should not see fit to pass the measures so proposed by the people. The petitioners suggested that half the subordinate offices, besides the highest offices, should be filled by persons sent from this country; and that half should be filled by Natives. Every person was to hold, as it were, a freehold office—that was, he was to retain his office, quamdiu se bene gesserit, and was only to be removable after the sentence of a criminal court. It was obvious that with such a system there would practically be an end to the power of this country in India. If it were determined, as the petitioners proposed, that all the higher salaries should be reduced, and all the lower increased—that there should be no difference between the pay of European and Native, the result would be that very few Europeans would take office at all, inasmuch as they would starve on what Natives would live upon with comfort. It was proposed, further, that one-third of the salt duties should be repealed, and that the whole of the abkaree duties and the whole of the stamp duties should be repealed, making a reduction of 1,800,000 l., which, added to the increase of expenditure arising from the alteration in the emoluments of public servants, would render it impossible for India to fulfil her pecuniary obligations to this country. There would be an end to the dividend of the Company's stock, and to the pensions of the civil and military servants of the Company. He had mentioned this extravagant proposition only to show what was proposed by "Young Calcutta" in the infancy of its education. It led him to this conclusion, that it was extremely desirable that their Lordships should legislate on this subject without any unnecessary delay. He said, without any "unnecessary delay," thinking, as he thought, and had expressed himself some weeks ago, and as he thought still, that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to come to a conclusion satisfactory

  709
  to itself until the two Committees of both Houses had concluded their labours, and opportunity was given for thoroughly considering the evidence collected in the course of their investigations. But he must say that beyond that period it would be highly inexpedient to defer legislation. The country was not in a position to bear a continuance of agitation with respect to the form of government. He thought it highly desirable that at the earliest practicable opportunity those petitioners and the people of India should be made thoroughly to understand that Parliament was determined to hold the dominion we had acquired; that they knew it could only be held by maintaining the supremacy of the British mind; that that which others had won they were resolved to maintain; that they knew it could only be maintained by the same acts by which it was acquired; and that Englishmen and English minds should continue to exercise that dominion which had been so acquired. But, while entertaining that opinion, he thought it extremely desirable that Parliament should, without any unavoidable delay, proceed to remove the more scandalous parts of the existing system of administration. He thought it in the highest degree desirable as soon as possible to put an end to that system by which a constituency, ludicrous, if not absurd, was maintained, and the inevitable effect of which was that it smote the majority of the Council which had to advise the Minister for India with chronic imbecility and with perpetual mediocrity. He thought that that Council ought to be selected with reference to their means of public usefulness, and not their means of private patronage; and that that body should be so formed as to present at all times, in the persons of the most distinguished men, a fair representation of every department, civil and military, from all the four Presidencies of India. His opinions declared last year remained unchanged—that with the view of effecting that object it would be prudent, in the first instance, that the names of the persons who should constitute that Council should be set forth in the Act of Parliament itself. Whatever might be our arrangement for filling up vacancies, let us begin at once without the smallest suspicion of favour or of job; and, with all the advantage we now possessed, derived from the examination before Committees, let us form, by the wisdom of Parliament, such a body as might advise with efficiency the Minister for India, and whose advice
  710
  might be respected in India. There was another point with regard to the future government of India, upon which it seemed to him most desirable that we should proceed as soon as possible to legislate; and, whatever the arrangements we might make for the future government of India, he apprehended it to be absolutely impossible but that, with respect to that point, there should be some provision made by Parliament. He alluded to the manner in which the different persons who might be sent to India from this country were to be distributed into the different departments. It seemed to him most scandalous and most injurious that the system now existing should be preserved; that any man, never heard of except within the narrow limits of his own private acquaintance, should have the power, if he should think it agreeable to him, to become a Director of the East India Company, to advertise himself as a candidate, and, by dint of the most judicious bowing during a period of seven years, at last to obtain that which he miscalled "the object of his ambition;" that he should then be able, with paternal kindness, and prepossession, and fondness, to review his young sons, and at once to designate the one who might appear to him to possess some superior ability to the rest, as the future Governor of a province as populous as Canada; that he should select another, standing perhaps a little lower in ability, as a future Judge of a great empire; and that he should turn to the most stupid or indolent among them, and say, "You are unable to pass for the civil service—I shall be compelled to give you nothing but a direct commission; you will die a general, and you will come home at a later period than your brothers, and with much inferior emolument, but such is the necessary consequence of your deficient industry or talent;"—was it decent that in twenty-four cases in every year that passed over our heads this scene might take place, and that the persons so designated, all perhaps equally incompetent, should be seut out in the different departments—in the Army, or the revenue, or the judicial branch—to discredit the country? He thought it most desirable that we should proceed at the earliest possible period to put an end to that abuse; and he did not think there could be any great difficulty in the way of its removal. He did not know why we should not proceed upon the plan which had frequently been suggested; he did not know why the per-

  711
  sons designated as intended to be sent to India should not all compete for the various situations which might exist under the Government in its various departments, and, according to the abilities they might show, and the direction their studies had taken, be turned over to the various departments, and required to perfect themselves in that for which they would be most qualified. There was another point of great importance, which he trusted would receive the fullest consideration of Her Majesty's Government. How far they might be disposed to relieve the general administration of the affairs of India from all the practical inconveniences which might arise in what was called the double Government, he knew not; but at least he would entreat this—that, with a view to the efficiency of the government of India, they would endeavour, if possible, to relieve the Governor General from the serious consequences which might arise to him, and to the Government he administered, from that system which had been established. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) could hardly be aware of the inconvenience which arose from it. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) believed he did not by any means exaggerate when lie said that there was not an individual in India, in the service of the Government, either in the civil or the military department, who in the course of his public service did not become a suppliant to some member of the Court of Directors for a writership or a cadetship for some member of his family; such persons naturally desired to make a provision for their families or relatives where they themselves were, and where they could superintend their progress. But if, as might happen, the Directors generally, the Court of Directors, did not approve of the conduct of the Governor General, or of the policy which he might be instructed by the Board of Control to carry into effect, what was likely to be the conduct of the officers by whom his measures were to be executed? If it was known that men were cordially and zealously co-operating with the Governor General in the carrying out of the measures which he was directed to carry out, but to which the Court generally were opposed, how could it be expected that the persons so assisting in carrying them out could obtain the patronage they desired from individual members of the Court? The Court, as a body, had the sole appointment to the seats in Council—those great prizes by which a gentleman might
  712
  make more in five years than in all the rest of his life—30,000 l. it had been stated; and how could a man expect to obtain that object of his ambition if he should be honestly assisting the Governor General in carrying out a policy to which the Court of Directors might be altogether opposed? By the present system you gave to the Minister of the Crown the entire direction of measures; and you placed in another body, which might altogether conflict in opinion with the Minister, almost all the power of rewarding the persons by whom those measures were to be carried into effect. A Colonial Secretary, as long as a Governor remained in possession of his government, gave him the frank aid ostensible support of the Crown; whatever disapprobation he might intimate in private letters, or letters not published, he had, as long as he remained in office, the apparent support of the Crown, and all the authority that support could give him. Was it so in India? If it was known that the Governor General was not in the favour of the Court, but that they were opposed to him and to his policy, was it not obvious that his Government must be weakened, because it must be understood that there might be great doubt whether his measures would be carried into effect, or whether he might remain to execute them? This occurred in his own case; he had reason to suppose, and could have no doubt, that when he made certain representations to the Court of Gwalior, the reason for not acquiescing in them and doing what lie desired was, that it was believed in the Court of Gwalior the Directors intended to recall him, and so they stood out, in hope of a reversal of policy from the new Governor General. The consequence was the Gwalior war. He knew well that he might be recalled, and the circumstance made him doubt whether it was safe and expedient for him to proceed to the Upper Provinces, because he felt that there could not be a greater injury to the authority of the British Government than what was extremely probable—his recall when he might be conducting a most critical negotiation with a foreign Power in almost a state of hostility, or might even have been in the presence of the enemy. These evils could not exist under the government of the Crown; the Crown always supported its Governors, and the Secretary for the Colonies did not speak against them, write against them, or do all he could to undermine and weaken

  713
  their authority. His authority, therefore, was not weakened, so long as he was permitted to retain his office. He could assure his noble Friend that whatever might appear to be our strength in India (and great it was, if well administered), whatever might appear to be the present security of our position, it would not bear the intrigue of one part of the Government authority against the person exercising the chief government; it would not bear the reality, nor even the appearance of divided authority. In proportion to its distance from this country—in proportion to the perils with which our Government there must always be surrounded, should be the apparent confidence, the entire support of the Government to the person by whom the government there was conducted. He must therefore express his most earnest hope that if, for any grounds which might not appear sufficient to him, Her Majesty's Government should yet be determined to maintain here that double system of government from which these evils had flowed, they would at least relieve, as they might, the Government of India and the Governor General from this evil by placing him under the direct and sole authority of the Crown.
  Petition referred to the Select Committee on the Government of Indian Territories.

  CAMBRIDGE ELECTION PETITION.
  Conference had at the Desire of the Commons upon the Subject Matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the Provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict., cap. 57; and Report made, That the Commons had agreed to an Address [which was offered] to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the Concurrence of their Lordships.
  Afterwards Message sent to the Commons for Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Cambridge Election Petition; together with the Proceedings of the Committee.

  THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.
  EARL GREYbegged to ask the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute any inquiry into the conduct and proceedings of the New Zealand Company? He made this inquiry in consequence of what had taken place during the last Session of Parliament with reference to the affairs of the colony
  714
  of New Zealand. Their Lordships might remember that during the progress through Parliament of the New Zealand Government Bill, both in that House and the other, accusations of a very serious nature had been thrown out against the New Zealand Company. It was stated that money, which had been advanced to them by the authority of Parliament for public purposes, had been grossly misapplied by the directors. Further, it was stated that certain proceedings had been taken by the Company with regard to some settlers at Nelson, which was designated as a fraud. In the other House it had been expressly stated by two Gentlemen, both of whom now occupied high situations in Her Majesty's Government, that they considered these charges to be of a most serious character. The Gentlemen to whom he (Earl Grey) referred, were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Works. The latter Gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) had stated in direct language, on the third reading of the Bill, that he (Sir W. Molesworth) had endeavoured to prevent the fraud, but had failed, and that he was prepared to substantiate before a Committee all the charges which he had made; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had supported a Motion to the effect, that in consequence of these suspicions respecting the conduct of the Company, a certain portion of the Bill then before Parliament, making an arrangement for the repayment to the New Zealand Company of capital sunk in the colony by the further proceeds of the land sales, should be omitted. When the Bill came up to their Lordships' House, the noble Duke now Secretary of State for the Colonies, did not express any decided opinion to the same effect as Sir William Molesworth as to the charges having been proved; but he did state that they were charges of a most serious nature—that there was a strong primâ facie case against the Company—that those charges required to be investigated—and that, pending the investigation, it was not just either to the inhabitants of New Zealand, or to the public in this country, that the clause contained in the Bill should be passed into law. Under these circumstances, he (Earl Grey) thought that their Lordships would agree with him that an investigation was absolutely necessary. The fact that the Bill had passed, made no kind of difference; because, if the Company bad been guilty—as was broad-

  715
  ly asserted—of misappropriating public money, Parliament had not only the right, but it was its duty, to take measures for causing those sums, so fraudulently abstracted, to be repaid out of the proceeds of those land sales which, under the existing law, were set apart for the New Zealand Company. In the same manner, if it were true that a gross fraud had been committed on the settlers at Nelson, it was the duty of Parliament to see that redress was granted. He (Earl Grey) was, therefore, anxious to know whether an inquiry was intended by Her Majesty's Government. He naturally took a great interest in the subject, because it had been, if not broadly asserted, at all events insinuated in language which could not be mistaken, that he had wilfully connived at the frauds of the New Zealand Company. Now, it was perfectly true that when the question was first submitted to him he had believed, and he had at once said, that it bore a very bad aspect; but on investigating it he had been satisfied that nothing had been done which afforded grounds for imputations on the honour or the fair dealing of the directors, and, being satisfied, he had stated the opinion he entertained. He believed that his successor, the late Secretary of State, had come to the same conclusion; but he submitted that the question now stood in a very different position from last year. When the Bill of last year was going through Parliament, the voluminous papers on which an opinion could be formed had not been printed; they had not been before Parliament, and it had been impossible to go into the subject. Therefore, although upon the second reading of the Bill he (Earl Grey) had made a short, or at least a partial, statement, it was impossible for him to go into the question in the absence of the necessary information. But that information was now before Parliament and the country, and he submitted to their Lordships that it was due both to the inhabitants of New Zealand and of this country that it should be ascertained in the clearest manner if the public money had been misapplied, and, if so, who was to blame; and if injustice had been done to the settlers, that that injustice should be remedied. For these reasons he (Earl Grey) would ask the noble Duke whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute any inquiry, either by means of a Parliamentary Committee or otherwise, into the conduct and proceedings of the New Zealand Company?
  The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he was really not prepared, at this distance of time, to say whether the noble Earl had stated accurately what had taken place in the other House upon this subject last Session; but, as regarded any part that he (the Duke of Newcastle) took in the discussion upon the Bill passing through their Lordships' House, the noble Earl had in the main accurately represented the part which he took, and the opinions which he expressed: At the same time he thought the noble Earl had considerably overstated one part of the accusations brought against the New Zealand Company, while he had dwelt very lightly indeed upon that part of the charge against them which was more immediately under the consideration of both Houses, and upon which alone he (the Duke of Newcastle) at least rested his opinion that it was inexpedient to pass a certain portion of the measure. The noble Earl had said that grave charges were brought against the Company of misappropriation of public funds. He (the Duke of Newcastle) hardly knew to what the noble Earl alluded in making that statement. Misappropriation to a certain extent, he thought, was implied in the charges which were made against the Company; but the main charge in the discussion last year was this—that in a negotiation with the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member, and Sir Charles Wood Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had then under consideration a measure for the relief of the Company from their pecuniary difficulties, the Company had concealed an important fact from the Government, and especially from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or had practised (to use the words of the noble Earl) a fraud upon the public, by representing that they were taking a legal opinion with regard to their liabilities, upon which legal opinion the question of their liability, and consequently the measure for their relief, was to rest; that that opinion was adverse to the Company; that thereupon they took another opinion, and presented to the Government this latter opinion, which was favourable to them, concealing from the Government that they had obtained a previous one which was adverse. That was the charge under consideration last year, and upon hearing which he (the Duke of Newcastle) stated—and he must still adhere to that opinion—that it was inexpedient, when there was a charge of such a suppressio veri, to say the least of it, against the

  717
  Company—that it was improper and impolitic to give the Company the additional advantage conferred upon it by the Bill of last year. What was that advantage? It was found that the arrangement obtained (as was alleged) by the suppression of this opinion was inoperative to secure for the Company in New Zealand those advantages which were contemplated; that they did not receive that income from the land sales which was intended to be given them by that arrangement; and therefore in the Bill of last year a new arrangement was made, to saddle the debt of 268,000 l.—that he thought was the sum—upon the lands of the colony, there being a condition—the concession of the lands of the colony to the colonists. He (the Duke of Newcastle) then stated, as friends of his in the other House also did, that any additional boon to a Company lying under such grave imputations and charges ought not to be conceded without a full investigation into those charges; and, without expressing any opinion upon their truth, he stated that there ought to be investigation before adopting that measure. He remembered he also said he was by no means anxious to place the Company in any less advantageous position by legislation last year, than it had been placed in by the Government of 1848, and that, therefore, anxious as he was that the colonists should receive the great boon of the management of their own land sales, he was prepared to move thè omission of this concession, in order that the whole question might remain open till another year for the full investigation of those charges. He still adhered to the opinion that that would have been advisable and right. But Parliament overruled that opinion. By a division in the other House it was determined that thé concession to the Company should be made without any investigation, and without waiting for the production of that mass of correspondence now lying on the table. In their Lordships' House the Bill came up at the close of the Session, and though he (the Duke of Newcastle) made a Motion to that effect, he found it would be useless to divide the House. The decision of Parliament, therefore, was adverse to his opinion; no inquiry was considered desirable, no inquiry took place. But for what had he said that inquiry was desirable? For the purpose of deciding whether it was right that this boon should be conferred. The boon had been conferred; the question was so far settled; and, though he by no means
  718
  bound himself or the Government with regard to their future course upon this question, when—as he anticipated—it might be again raised, he must say to the noble Earl that he thought this was, of all times, the least proper for calling for an investigation, Parliamentary or otherwise. He considered that last year, when the question was raised by the demand of the New Zealand Company for an additional concession to those many great concessions which they had obtained from the country, an inquiry would have been right; and he then stated that he believed such inquiry was necessary for the honour of Parliament. His opinion was, however, overruled; and he asked what immediate cause there was at this time for an investigation? He anticipated the time might arrive when such an investigation might be necessary, and that time would be when they knew the manner in which the Colonists had received the measure of last year. He could not anticipate that the legislation of Parliament in that respect would be received with entire accord or acquiescence—certainly not with satisfaction. He did not express this opinion from any communications he had had with the colony, but in consequence of the mode in which the colonists received the anticipated measure of the noble Earl at the close of the Session before last—a Bill for a concession to the New Zealand Company, though of a different character, and to which, as throwing a burden upon their finances, they strongly objected. Before he came into office two or three petitions upon this subject were intrusted to him by the colonists of New Zealand; and from their general tone he could not but anticipate that there would be some remonstrances addressed to this House when the Act passed at the close of the last Session should reach the colony. He must, therefore, say that he thought they ought not now to enter upon an investigation without any distinct object, and that they would be prejudging a question that might be brought under their attention by the colonists within a few months, or even within a few weeks, of the present time. After the concessions which had been made to the New Zealand Company, with the assent of the noble Earl himself, without investigation, he (the Duke of Newcastle) could see no necessity now for reopening the question, the proper moment for its investigation having passed. He hoped it was unnecessary for him to assure the noble Earl that neither in anything

  719
  that ever fell from him, nor that was ever conceived by him, did he intimate or believe that the noble Earl, either in his official capacity or in any private way, was a party to conniving at or screening any transactions of the New Zealand or any other company, which he believed not to be in accordance with good faith or with the public interests. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had certainly had no time to peruse the enormous "blue book" which had been presented to Parliament on this subject, and he had not had an opportunity of reading more than three or four letters in that book; but two of those letters, which appeared to have been private and confidential letters of the noble Earl, showed what his feeling was on receiving the first information of this transaction, and would completely exonerate him from any charge of the nature alleged; and those letters, although addressed to private friends of the noble Earl, showed that he treated the matter in the way in which any highminded and honourable gentleman would have done. He (the Duke of Newcastle) abstained from expressing any opinion as to the course taken by the noble Earl in his subsequent official communications, convinced as the noble Earl appeared to have become of the erroneous view which he took in his private communications, and of the guiltlessness of the New Zealand Company, because he thought, as it was not the intention of the Government to propose at this moment an investigation into these matters, that it would be unadvisable for him in his official capacity to express any such opinion; but he felt bound in justice and honour to say that, as far as the noble Earl was concerned, whatever might be the case with respect to other parties, he (the Duke of Newcastle) entertained no opinion that his honour was compromised in any of these transactions.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was obliged to the noble Duke for what he had said personally of himself; but he must express his great regret that the noble Duke did not propose that this subject should undergo a sound and searching investigation: and he must add, that he did not think the Government would do their duty if they allowed the question to be passed over. He must be permitted slightly to correct the noble Duke's impression as to what passed on this subject last year. He would first remind their Lordships that there was a distinct understanding in the
  720
  other House, which he remembered referring to in the debate which took place in their Lordships' House, that though an investigation was impracticable last year, since the voluminous papers could not be collected and printed in sufficient time, Her Majesty's late Government, if he was not greatly mistaken, fully intended that an investigation should take place in the present Session of Parliament. But further, he must beg leave to say that the nature of the question had not been quite correctly stated by the noble Duke. The only point arising between the New Zealand Company and the Government with respect to which, so far as he was aware, blame was thrown upon the Company, was that they had concealed certain contingent liabilities which might be thrown upon the Government. Now, he apprehended that time had set this matter at rest, because if these liabilities were to arise they would have arisen ere this, and the Government would have been called upon to make the payments:—so that between the Government and the Company, with regard to this subject there was hardly any question left. The really serious part of the charge with regard to the two opinions obtained from two different counsel was, that by sending out one of those opinions, and suppressing the fact of the existence of the opposite opinion, the settlers at Nelson had been induced to agree to an arrangement into which, had they been aware of the facts, they would not have entered. That was a point in which justice to the settlers and the honour of Parliament were concerned, and the fact of Parliament having passed a Bill last year, did not, in his view, render inquiry the less necessary. In their Lordships' House there was not much said on the pecuniary part of the question; but in the other House he could speak very confidently—for he had refreshed his recollection by referring that morning to the records of the debates—it was asserted that of the sum advanced by Parliament to the New Zealand Company for public purposes, a considerable portion had been misapplied by the directors of that Company to puposes in which they were individually interested. He found, from Hansard, that at the conclusion of the proceedings one of the Members of the present Government—the President of the Board of Works (Sir W. Molesworth)— having made those charges said—
  "That his only object had been to prevent what he considered to be a fraud. Having failed

  721
  in his object, he could only say that he would be ready to prove the charges he bad made before any Committee of Inquiry, and he challenged contradiction of them."—[3 Hansard, cxxii. 896.]:
  Now, their Lordships could not fail to perceive, that if 8,000 l., or 10,000 l., or even a larger amount of the public money, had been misappropriated and misapplied, it was a duty of Government, from which they could not shrink, to investigate the fraud; and if the fraud had really been committed, to cause that money to be repaid: and there was an easy means of obtaining repayment—by stopping a portion of the sums which became due to the New Zealand Company. He considered that there was no necessity for deferring an inquiry until they heard what had passed in the colony, because all the facts were alleged to have occurred in this country. And it was alleged that the misappropriation of certain sums placed at the disposal of the directors had occurred in this country. He said, then, that this charge of direct pecuniary malversation, so brought forward by a Member of the present Government, was one which it was the duty of the Government to investigate, with the view either of causing the money alleged to have been misapplied to be repaid, or of relieving from an undeserved stigma those upon whom imputations had been cast.
  The DUKE of NEWCASTLEwished to remind the noble Earl that he had distinctly said that he anticipated the time would come when an investigation would be necessary. Although, however, he considered that there ought to have been an investigation last year, he could not see any reason for an investigation at this moment, because he thought it most desirable that before any investigation took place they should be in possession of the views and opinions of the colonists upon their part of the case. With reference to the Nelson settlers especially, he thought that, after handing over to them the management of their own land funds, and giving them a free constitution, Parliament would be acting very imprudently in entering upon a wide field of inquiry affecting their interests before their opinions were ascertained. With regard to the charge of malversation in respect of public money, he (the Duke of Newcastle) could only say that he never made any such charge in that House, and he was not aware, until the noble Earl's statement that night, that any charge of that kind had been made in such distinct terms in the other House.
  722
  He frankly admitted that such charges had been bruited about in public, but he had never heard that they had been brought forward in any substantial form. He must remind the noble Earl, who called upon the Government to institute an investigation of this nature, that there were other parties equally interested—namely, those against whom the charges were made, and who, if he remembered rightly, last year were not very anxious for an investigation.
  EARL GREYmust state, in justice to the New Zealand Company, that last year, and this year also, they had expressed their wish for the most full investigation, although they certainly had not wished that the New Zealand Bill should be delayed until the investigation took place; but an inquiry into this matter was not in the least affected by the fact of the Bill being passed. He could state that the directors of the New Zealand Company had directly called upon a gentleman who was supposed—and who, as he understood, did not deny the fact—to have been the means, through the public press, of bringing forward this charge, to move for a Committee of the House of Commons during the present Session, with the promise that a seconder should be found for his Motion; but the offer was declined. He thought, after that, it was a little unfair to the New Zealand Company to say that they had shrunk from inquiry. He could only say that if he had brought forward charges of this kind, he should have thought it his duty, when he was in a situation to do so, to take care that the charges should not drop; and he hoped and trusted that this would be a lesson to those who had brought forward these charges, of the groundlessness of which he was convinced, from their obvious reluctance to press them, they were now satisfied. He hoped this would be a lesson to them to be a little less rash in scattering scandalous imputations upon men of as high honour as themselves.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.