rose to move for the production of correspondence with respect to the quarantine laws. He said, that although the topic was an uninviting one, yet the discussions which had taken place upon it had already led to very important changes in public opinion—had removed many of the prejudices which existed on the subject of the plague—had enabled this and other Governments to modify the legislation which was founded on superstition and ignorance. The delays, the vexations, the expenses of the quarantine system, had been considerably diminished. Travellers were subjected to fewer annoyances; vessels were detained for a shorter period; merchandise was allowed to be transported with less of interference; and nobody was found to contend for a moment that these relaxations had been accompanied by a shadow of danger. He was sure, also, that every additional discussion would tend towards the same end; and it was with that view that be felt it his duty to move for the continuation of the correspondence which had taken place since the subject was last under the attention of the House. He was persuaded that the existing system was founded on the most erroneous notions as to the best means of preserving the public health; that, far from diminishing disease, the plan of confining patients to lazzarets was most calculated to increase its intensity and augment its contagious power. He was not without hope that the time was not far distant when quarantine laws would be removed altogether. The history of the plague was like that of many other diseases. Local circumstances influenced its introduction and its propagation; and in the very proportion to the circumstances which favoured its development would its ravages be. It was one of the endemics to whose spontaneous birth the climate, soil, and social habits of Egypt and other parts of the Levant, were peculiarly favourable, and thus it grew and spread in proportion to the existence and the extent of these elements which assisted its propagation. To particular climates particular diseases belonged: as the yellow fever rages on the western coast of Africa—as fever and dysenteries dwell among the marshy lands of tropical regions—as typhus reigns in the crowded courts and filthy ill-ventilated lanes of our great towns—as the ague rules in the fens of Lincolnshire—so is the plague indigenous in many parts of the East—communicable only when it meets with the conditions to which it owes its birth. Plague, he repeated, like all other diseases, was materially increased when circumstances were favourable to promote its propagation, and the places where it had most raged were remarkable for their bad ventilation and gross impurities. Nothing could be more fatal to the public health than the confining and crowding people together. Such crowding and confinement would soon give a pestilential character even to a pure atmosphere. He need not refer to many instances in order to illustrate the truth of this proposition. That celebrated case in the black hole of Calcutta, where, out of 140 individuals, more than 100 perished in a single night, was a melancholy proof of it. That fact was notorious to every reader of history, and demonstrated the pernicious effects of unventilatcd and confined places. In the last Session attention had been called to the great mortality on board the Eclair; and that mortality was to be attributed to the same cause, and bore evidence to the truth of the theory to which he had called the attention of the House. He had moved for the report of Dr. M'William, who had been sent to Boa Vista to report on the character of the fever which had existed on board the Eclair, and which had been communicated to that island. He had reason to know, from personal interview with Dr. M'William, that there was nothing in that report to warrant the continuation of the existing quarantine system—that Dr. M'William attributed the infectious or contagious character of the disease solely to the circumstance of the patients being huddled together in a miasmatic and impure atmosphere—made more and more impure by the augmented number of the sick; that the causes and the intensity of the disease were greatly increased by the non-removal of the patients to a purer region—that to spread the patients about in an uncontaminated atmosphere would not tend to spread the disease, but to modify its character. He believed that if the sufferers on board the Eclair had been instantly removed from that vessel, on its arrival on our shores, many valuable lives would have been saved, which had been sacrificed to the ignorant inhumanity of our quarantine system. He knew that the long and valuable experience of his hon. Friend near him, the Member for Berwick, who had been and was so largely engaged in the African trade, confirmed the opinion, that it was to the close, confined, and ill-ventilated atmosphere too frequently found on board our steamers and ships on the African coast, that the Bulam fever of the Eclair owed its destructive character. To this was to be attributed the mortality on board slave-trading vessels—the ravages of gaol fevers — the mortal character of typhus, and other similar diseases. He begged to refer the House to a very valuable pamphlet of Dr. Milroy on quarantine and the plague, which he should frequently quote as giving a valuable résumé of the facts and the arguments of the case. In a despatch which had been sent by Lord Palmerston to Lord Ponsonby in 1839, and which had been presented to the Turkish Divan, these truths had been recognised. The passage was as follows:—

"With reference to the proposed regulations, I have to instruct your Excellency to endeavour strongly to impress upon the Turkish Government that they would more effectually prevent the breaking out and spreading of the plague, by introducing cleanliness and ventilation in the city and suburbs of Constantinople, than by any such violent interference as is proposed with the domestic arrangements of families.

"It is quite certain that the plague is much aggravated, if it is not actually generated by the want of cleanliness in streets, by the want of sufficient ventilation in houses, and by the want of proper drainage in places contiguous to habitations; and, if the Turkish Government would, in the first instance, apply vigorous measures to correct those evils, they would strike at once at the causes of the disease; whereas the measures which they have now in contemplation, will only be productive of inconvenience and suffering to numerous individuals."

He considered that by the progress of sanatory improvements in large cities, and not by the observance of quarantine laws, the elements of disease would be gradually removed. An amelioration in this respect was no doubt going on in Egypt, in Turkey, and in various other parts of the world; and he believed that a greater knowledge of the cases and character of the plague would tend to remove many of those apprehensions and groundless alarms which had been excited in the minds of the timid. In the time of Herodotus, Egypt was considered to be a very healthy country; but the utter neglect of cleanliness among the people—the disorders and anarchies which had existed for centuries—the accumulations of filth—the disregard of the police—the swampy character of the soil, in many parts—had tended to make that country one of the most unhealthy in the world, and consequently had peculiarly fitted it for the spontaneous birth and wide development of the plague. But the prevalence of that disease in that country could be accounted for upon other grounds than the supposition that it was contagious. In Egypt itself the mortality would be found dependent on the cleanliness, civilisation, and physical comfort of the various races. Dr. Aubert stated—

"The relative mortality in the different races, during the great plague at Alexandria in 1835, is thus exhibited:—Negroes and Nubians lost 1,528 out of 1,800, or 84 per cent; Fellahs lost 367 out of 600, or 61 per cent; Arabs, not soldiers, lost 10,936 out of 20,000, or 55 per cent.

"The Negroes, Nubians, and Arabs were all living in nearly the same hygienic conditions, and were all in free pratique. With respect to the other residents in Alexandria, be estimates that the Greeks lost 257 in 1,800, or 14 per cent; Jews, Armenians, and Copts lost 482 in 4,000, or 12 per cent; Turks lost 678 in 6,000, or 11 per cent; Italians and others from the South of Europe lost 118 in 1,600, or 7 per cent; French, English, Russians, and Germans lost 52 in 1,000, or 5 per cent;—

showing how completely the amount of mortality was regulated by the social condition of the different communities. An instructive illustration is afforded by Dr. Aubert:—

"On the banks of the canal which leads from Alexandria to the Nile, lies a property belonging to the Greek consul, M. Tossizza, who received it as a present from the Viceroy. The fellahs who work upon this property, being better treated and better fed than the fellahs of the surrounding villages, only lost, during the epidemic of 1835, 12 out of 400; while their neighbours, placed in the same conditions with respect to atmospheric influences and free communications, lost one half of their number."

And the French Academy of Medicine came to exactly the same conclusion:—

"If it has been proved that the existence of a pestilential constitution in a country, into which the plague is imported, is necessary for the transmission and propagation of the disease, it seems nevertheless certain that imported plague will not exercise any great ravages, if it does not meet with, in the character of the climate, atmosphere, and population of the place, the conditions that are favourable for its development."

It was a well-known fact that plague had never entered into any of the colder latitudes; and it was equally ascertained that it did not penetrate the tropics. It had never been found at a very high or a very low temperature. It had not visited Nubia to the south-west, nor Arabia to the south-east of Egypt. But in diseases of an undoubtedly infectious character, such as small-pox, measles, or hooping-cough, no varieties of temperature checked their progress. They were found in all latitudes. The voyage was now made from Egypt to India in a very few days, and yet the quarantine laws were not in force in the British possessions in India. On the other side of the Atlantic, where great attention was paid to the health of the inhabitants, in the United States, there were also no national quarantine laws; and vessels crossed the Atlantic in a much shorter time than they did heretofore; in ten or eleven days Europe now communicated with America. The precautions taken by the different States of America were of a local character, and had mainly reference to the yellow fever; and they seemed wholly regardless of the plague of the old world. As the quarantine laws were founded in ignorance, so in ignorance they had their support, and attachment to them was found strongest in those countries where the knowledge of medicine least prevailed. In those parts of Italy, where the science of medicine was most backward, such as Naples, they were most strict in the preservation and observation of quarantine. But with the progress of inquiry, and attention to the subject, the alarm would gradually be dissipated, and the previous accounts of the contagious character of the disease would be discovered to be without foundation. The end of all this had been, that great changes were extorted from Government by the might and irresistible influence of public opinion. The quarantine laws, however, were connected with the pecuniary interests of large and influential bodies of men. By a Parliamentary return it appeared that upwards of 15,000l. a-year was spent by the Government in this country alone to salaried officers for the support of this system. More than ninety functionaries were employed upon it in Liverpool, seventy in Rochester, and in all the quarantine ports there was a numerous troop of officers. From these priests of Ephesus no doubt the cry would come, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians;" and, in the same manner, every obsolete system would find its supporters amongst those whom it employed and paid. In other countries matters were far worse, the quarantine functionaries were bound and banded together—they exercised irresponsible power—they committed the most despotic acts— they violated correspondence—they arrested travellers—they taxed ships and merchandise; and all for the support of a delusion. But, to benefit a few interested individuals, would the Government continue a system which was most inconvenient to commerce and most unprofitable to the country? In the last ten years immense progress had been made. The great plagues of 1834 and 1835 had opened the eyes of medical men; and to the honour of that profession, which had been among the first to encourage prejudices and to justify quarantines, it now was furnishing irrefragable evidence of the mistakes under which their predecessors laboured. Let it not be forgotten that it was from plague countries—from physicians having the most accurate and the most extensive knowledge of the disease—that the ancient theories of contagion had received their death-blow. To such men as Clot Bey, Drs. Laidlaw, Abbott, Aubert, Rigaud, and others, a vast debt of gratitude was due. In 1838, our Commissioner at Malta, Mr. Lewis, reported that—

"It is notorious that the mode or modes in which plague is communicated are very imperfectly known, and that some of the maxims on which most important quarantine regulations rest, are little better than gratuitous hypotheses."

In 1841, Dr. Robertson, deputy-inspector of hospitals, and serving with the British troops in Syria, thus expresses himself in his official report to Government on the plague:—

"In reference to the contagious or non-contagious nature of this, at times, frightful disease, I beg to state that the result of all my experience leads me to believe that the disease originates in local causes, and that it is endemic in Syria and Egypt; that it is not of a highly contagious nature; and that, if ever so at all, some other concurrent circumstances are necessary to render it so. Extreme and exclusive opinions on the doctrine of contagion are hardly warranted by the present state of our knowledge. My own firm conviction is, that the plague cannot be communicated from one person to another in a pure atmosphere, even by contact; but I am not prepared to assert that, if plague-patients are crowded together in confined and ill-ventilated apartments, infection will not be produced, just as happens in typhus fever."

Mr. Brant, our consul at Erzeroum, writing about the same period respecting the then recent severe outbreak of the plague there, says—

"As far as my own experience goes, I have been led to doubt the contagions nature of the disease, as it showed itself here last summer; or, if it were contagious, it must have been in a very slight degree. I have had, within the sphere of my observation, many cases of the most complete and extensive contact, without the disease being communicated."

Mr. Sandison also, our consul at Brussa, informs us that—

"The cases are numerous in which persons escape the disease after contact with persons seized with it, even in its most malignant stage. There are frequent instances also of individuals being attacked by the plague, without being at all able to trace communication with any infected person or substance."

But by far the most important result was reached when, in 1844, the great Commission of the Royal Academy of Medicine in France, consisting of men of the highest character for medical science, had been appointed to inquire into the subject of the plague and quarantine. During two years they had been occupied with the thorough investigation of the matter; and, if he had no other evidence to offer, their report would alone be sufficient to show that the time had come for an alteration of the quarantine laws. The conclusions to which they had come were — firstly, that the plague was spontaneous in its origin; secondly, that—

"In all countries where the spontaneous plague has been observed, its development may be reasonably attributed to certain determinate conditions acting upon a large portion of the inhabitants. The principal of these conditions are, residence upon marshy alluvial soils near the Mediterranean or near certain rivers, as the Nile, Euphrates, and Danube; the dwellings being low, crowded, and badly ventilated; a warm moist atmosphere; the action of putrescent animal and vegetable matters, unwholesome and insufficient food; and great physical and moral wretchedness."

Thirdly, that in Egypt it was usually—for it visited Egypt every year—endemic, but that about every tenth year it became epidemic; and, fourthly, that there was no single fact to prove the transmissibility of the plague by contact—contact of person. In the words of the report—

"On the one hand, immediate contact with thousands of plague-patients has not been followed by any dangerous consequences to those who have been exposed to it in the open air or in well-ventilated chambers; and on the other, that there is not a single fact which indisputably proves the transmissibility of the plague by mere contact with the sick."

And with respect to communication by garments the Commission says—

"Very numerous facts prove that the clothes and effects belonging to plague-patients, have not communicated the disease to persons who have used them, even without any previous purification. The facts, which seem to indicate an opposite result, can only be considered valuable, if they are confirmed by fresh observations made beyond epidemic foci, at a distance alike from foci of miasmatic infection and from countries where the plague is endemic."

In the bazaars of Turkey, plague-spotted garments produced as good a price as those which were free from the disease. In the foul wards of the lazzaret there was no record of a single death having occurred from contact with a diseased person, or from infected clothes. As regarded merchandise, equally satisfactory was the evidence. In 1835, the epidemic plague raged at Alexandria among all the servants and employés living in the magazines of the Egyptian Government. Notwithstanding this, a vast number of hales of cotton, daily handled by the plague-infected, were exported from January to June—that is to say, during the whole continuance of the epidemic—to all the great ports of Europe. There were exported this year, to England, 31,709 hales; to Marseilles, 33,812 bales; to Leghorn, 424 bales; to Holland, 150 bales; to Trieste, 32,263 bales; and to other ports, 32 bales. Now, although no precautionary means were taken in the way of disinfecting this immense quantity of an article that had always been deemed highly susceptible of retaining the infectious effluvia, not one person seemed to have been infected in consequence. Of sixteen English vessels laden with cotton, which sailed from Alexandria from the beginning of January to the end of June, eight had the plague on board; and yet their cargoes did not prove more dangerous than those of the non-infected vessels. Besides this very conclusive evidence, the Commissioners mention upon official authority that, since the year 1720, not one of the porters employed at the lazzaretto of Marseilles, in discharging and landing the cargoes of suspected ships, had ever caught the plague. The conclusion was, therefore, fairly forced upon them that—

"There is nothing to prove that articles of merchandise can transport the disease beyond epidemic foci."

He (Dr. Bowring) moved for a return of the persons engaged in the foul departments of our lazzarets in the manipulation of infected or susceptible articles, and who had died of or been attacked by plague—that return was nil. But one of the great antagonist authorities, Sir W. Pym, himself honestly confesses that he could not ascertain that any one case of plague had been produced in consequence of the manipulation of merchandise in any one of the various lazzarets that he visited. An- other most important conclusion had been come to by the Commission, and one that should at once induce the Government to admit to pratique every vessel from the Levant which arrived without disease on board, viz. that—

"If it be true that a fixed and absolute term cannot be assigned to the incubation of the plague, it seems, nevertheless, to be clearly proved by well-established facts, that, at a distance from countries where it is endemic and beyond or away from epidemic foci, the disease has never broken out in persons who have been exposed to its influence after an isolation of eight days. The few facts which might be regarded as exceptional to this rule, are all susceptible of another interpretation."

This is a practical result, deserving the most serious consideration. The latent seeds of the plague have been by some faciful writers supposed to be undeveloped for centuries. Nay, one author traces them to the mummies of Thebes and Memphis; another avers that they are retained in garments for thirty years; a third avows that for two years they had been concealed in the clothes of a plague-patient who died in Syria; and at Genoa, at the late congress, physicians insisted that the plague might exist undeveloped for a month. But the authorities of the European Egyptian physican generally recognise seven days as the period of incubation. One limits it to two or three days. Clot Bey gives two or three days as the average; eight days as the maximum. On this subject Dr. Aubert states, that in a period of 125 years only sixty-four vessels crossing to Europe from the Levant have had the plague on board; that the cases of attack have been during the voyage, or after arrival; that no case has occurred of attack in a European port, unless there had been cases during the voyage; and that only twenty-six vessels had brought the plague with them to European lazzarets. In France, public opinion had already relieved Algiers from the oppression of the Levant quarantine laws. Greece had also been emancipated. Marseilles, the very seat of sinister interests and foolish prejudices—still under the impressions and recollections of the plague of 1720—had, in a congress comprised of contagionists, declared, "that the existing system requires modifications." At Genoa, last year, the scientific congress allowed the doctrines of contagion to be attacked and denounced; and concluded, that it might happen, a more thorough investigation and new discoveries of medical science might add to a future modification of opinion; and they resolved to re-open the subject at Venice in the next congress. Austria was giving way, and Russia was inquiring. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"For an Address of the Copies of such correspondence, or extracts of correspondence, as may have taken place since the last Parliamentary Returns, on the subject of the Quarantine Laws."

, in seconding the Motion, stated that, although the charge for the maintenance of the quarantine establishments was apparently only 190,000l. a year, yet that this was not one-tenth part of the expense to which the country was exposed by them, in consequence of the injury they did to the commerce of the country.

felt that he need not go into the question, as there was no objection to the production of the correspondence. There was no doubt but that the quarantine regulations of different countries had been injurious to commerce, and had been matter of just complaint. As far as England was concerned, the quarantine regulations had been so reduced as in many cases to make them almost nominal. The ships of the world were admitted in free pratique into the ports of the United Kingdom, if they were not loaded with susceptible articles. He would not express any further opinion on the subject beyond observing, that those who had charge of the quarantine regulations of this country were anxious to reduce them to the lowest point, so as to make them as little injurious as possible to the commerce of the country.

pressed on the Government the necessity of making further inquiries into the operation of these laws, with a view to their ultimate abolition.

said, that as long as there was such a large remittance of the rents of absentees to England, the evils attending the circumstance to the country whence they came, would not make much impression here, as this country derived all the benefit attending the expenditure of so much wealth. He had observed repeatedly the emaciation of his own country from the constant withdrawal of wealth from it, by the payment of the rents to the absentees; he therefore had felt it to be an imperative duty on him to bring the subject under the consideration of the House at this period, when they were so much called upon to adopt means of meeting the calamity which so severely afflicted Ireland. He had the more readily brought it forward, as it was not likely that the question would be taken up by the Government in the first instance; and if he should not be able to induce the House to adopt his resolution, he trusted that the impression which would be produced would still have a beneficial effect. All experience as well as authority coincided as to the evils of absenteeism. He was aware of the opinion formerly expressed by Mr. M'Culloch on the subject; but that gentleman had greatly modified his opinion as to the results of absenteeism, and no longer held the opinion that the country did not suffer from its produce being expended out of it. It was almost unnecessary for him to allude to the importance of having a large body of resident proprietors, who by their assistance, advice, and example, could afford most important aid to the country. He would show the difference that there was between a resident and non-resident proprietor, by referring to individual cases; and in doing this, he should endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, giving any offence. He would refer, in the first instance, to a case which existed in the two counties with which he was more immediately connected—he meant Clare and Limerick. The rental of the estates of the late Lord Egremont in these counties amounted to 25,000l. a year. He believed that the late Lord Egremont never saw those estates; and he (Mr. S. O'Brien) had reason to believe that the expenditure on those estates by the landlord, beyond the expense of collecting the rents, did not exceed 500l. a year. The late Lord Egremont was admitted by every man to have been one of the very best landlords in England; and if he had resided in Ireland, it is probable that he would there have fulfilled the same duty in the same way. Let them compare the conduct of the landlord of such an estate with that of Sir Robert Gore Booth, whose exemplary treatment of the people on his estate had been so properly alluded to the other night by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. If Sir Robert Booth had been an absentee landlord, and drew his rental from his Sligo property and expended it in England, what would have been the situation of the people on his property? He could not discharge by deputy those duties which he now so admirably performed in person. According to the most accurate calculations which had been made as to the amount of the absentee rent drawn from Ireland, it could not be less than 4,000,000l., which was nearly one-third of the whole rental of the country, and this was quite independent of other remittances. He had gone through the Peerage to make out a list of those who were absentee proprietors of estates in Ireland; but he found that he could not make out the list of individual proprietors who were not titled. The list which he had was very imperfect; but still, it would furnish an indication of what he meant. In the first place, however, he would mention the London Companies, and the Irish Society, which drew very large revenues from Ireland. He had heard a statement with regard to those London Companies, which the hon. Member for Southwark could probably give some explanation of, and he therefore should not then enter into it. He should merely observe, that under the present circumstances of the country, it would become them to make greater exertions for the amelioration of its condition. But to proceed with the list of large absentee proprietors. There were the London Companies, Irish Society, Duke of Devonshire, Duke of Buckingham, Duke of Bedford; Marquesses of Hertford, Conyngham, Thomond, Lansdowne, Anglesea, Clanricarde, Donegal, Abercorn (occasionally visit), Bath, Ely; Lords Fitzwilliam, Cork, Palmerston, Essex, Clan-william, Orkney; Viscount Chabot; Lords Stradbroke, Limerick, Beresford, Audley, Dillon, Southwell, Maryborough, Middleton, Trimleston, Albemarle, Portarlington, Dungannon, Boyne, Darnley, Clifden (occasionally resident). Sandwich, Normanton, Vaux, Congleton, Ranfurley (occasionally resident), Lady Bray, Lords Galway, Ashbrooke, Stanley, Arden, Portsmouth, Lifford, Lisle, Stanhope, Strafford, Fortescue (occasional visitor), Hawarden, Templemore, Valentia, Templetown; Count de Salis, Colonel Wyndham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Kelly (county Roscommon), Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. Greville, Mr. Fox Lane, Mr. O. Gore. A great portion of these proprietors never visited their estates at all. Some were occasional visitors only, and a very few were occasional residents. He did not produce that list of names for the purpose of raising any invidious feelings against those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who were probably all, and certainly very many of them, most amiable characters in every point of view. But he wanted them to join him in doing something for the benefit of the country. His object was to induce the House to impose such a tax as would leave only a choice to proprietors between residence upon their estates, or the sale of them to others who would reside upon them; or if it should fail to compel the adoption of either alternative, it would at least give to the country some sort of compensation for the loss sustained through an absent proprietary. There was nothing new in the proposition. It could not be said that there was any fear of setting a novel precedent by it. For a long series of years the course of legislation had been in favour of an absentee tax. In an able letter written by Mr. D'Alton, the following passages showed the early adoption of such a measure:—

"'All writers,' says the accomplished Sir John Davis, Attorney General to Queen Elizabeth and James I., 'do impute the decay and loss of Leinster,' then the extent of the English pale, 'to the absence of those Lords who married the Ave daughters of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke, to whom that great seignory descended. These great Lords, having greater inheritances in their own right in England than they had in Ireland in right of their wives (and yet each of the co-partners had an entire county allotted for her proportion), could not be drawn to make their personal residence in this kingdom, but managed their estates here by their seneschals and servants. The grievance did not long elude the vigilance of the English Justinian; and accordingly, in a few years after the titles alluded to had vested, viz., about the year 1295, it appears from that venerable muniment of one of our metropolitan cathedrals, the Liber Niger of Christ Church, that at a general Parliament, or great council, then held in Ireland, it was enacted, inter alia, that absentee English Lords, who drew the profits of their Irish territory, without any return, should be compelled to contribute a portion for the safety of their estates and tenantry."

Again, Mr. D'Alton states that—

"In 1310 an ordinance of a yet more cogent character was promulgated by the authority of the chief governor of Ireland, and the whole council. It directed an absolute estreat of the rents of all the lands of absentees, and that they should be deposited in the treasury, to be appropriated by the king for the conservation of the peace and defence of the land."

Again—

"In the year 1331, when King Edward III. meditated coming over to Ireland, he recognised the policy of suppressing absenteeism as essential for the peace of that country."

In 1352, the ordinance of 1310 was again confirmed by Act of Parliament. In an ordinance of 1368, it was set forth—

"So that by the default and negligence of those absentees, all the beforementioned evils have brought Ireland to destruction."

In the succeeding reign of Richard II. (in 1380), it was ordered by the King that all persons having estates, revenues, benefices, &c. should repair thither before St. John's Day of the next year, and there abide to defend and keep the peace of said lands, under pain of forfeiting two-thirds of the profits thereof. Henry IV., in the tenth year of his reign (1409), commanded the enforcement of the Statute of 1380; and "two years afterwards," according to Dr. Leland—

"The Irish Parliament passed an Act of a preventive and certainly very arbitrary nature in reference to this offence, directing as it did that the person and goods of an Irishman attempting to transport himself from his country without leave under the great seal of Ireland, might be sued by any subject, who was to receive one moiety of the goods for such service, the other to be forfeited to the King."

And in 1431—

"Immediately after the coronation of Henry VI., the provisions of those Acts were reiterated and enforced by two proclamations, and yet more, the records attest the frequent exaction of the fullest penalties. 'Amongst the rest,' says Davis, 'the Duke of Norfolk himself was not spared, but was impleaded upon the ordinance of King Richard fos two parts of his lands in the county of Wexford.'"

In the seventh year of the reign of Henry VIII. (A. D. 1516) an Act was passed whereby all grants of licenses of absence were absolutely repealed; and subsequently in the 28th Henry VIII., a Statute was passed whereby, after setting forth that

—"it was notorious and manifest that Ireland had grown into ruin, desolation, rebellion, and decay, by reason of great proprietors of it residing in England, and not providing for the good order and surety of the same;"

it was enacted that

—"the King, his heirs, &c., shall have and enjoy all houses, manors, lands, liberties, advowsons, &c., of certain nobles and great religious fraternities therein-named."

And Mr. D'Alton proceeded to state—

"This legislative sanction was followed by a resumption of the immense estates of the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Berkeley, in the counties of Carlow and Waterford, those of the Earl of Shrewsbury in the latter county, with certain other most extensive districts."

In 1634 the same spirit of legislation was again asserted by the Act 10, Charles I., sess. 3, c. 21; and in 1715—

"It was enacted in the Irish Parliament (2 Geo. I., c.3, s. 51), to the effect that during the two ensuing years (it was subsequently continued) all persons having any office, salary, place or pension, on the establishment here, who shall live out of the kingdom for six months during one whole year, shall pay unto his Majesty, his heirs, &c., 20 per cent out of their salaries or profits, same to be deducted yearly by the paymaster, &c."—And "the total revenue from this section of absentees, during the two years to 1717, was certified to Parliament by the receiver-general, as 10,320l. 4s. 10d."

He had heard amongst the objections to the proposal, that it violated the great principle of national and civil rights. But residence was one of the duties owing by those who claimed the privileges of those rights; and every well-minded and just man should admit it to be an incontestable position that some return should be made by the proprietor to the land from which he derived a large amount of his income. It was also urged against the principle of such a tax, that by its imposition voluntary exertions would be checked. But that was the old argument which had been advanced against the enactment of a poor law for Ireland. As to the difficulty of effecting the sale of estates, he should support the giving of every facility for their exchange. But it was urged that the great difficulty would be how to settle the question of residence. It was asked, why not tax a man, whose estates lay in Mayo, for residing in Cork? But the question had arisen, and had been solved before; for when a part of France belonged to the English Crown, and absenteeism prevailed, it was stopped by an ordinance of Edward III., which compelled all Englishmen, having estates both in France and England, to sell their French estates, notwithstanding an entailment, to a remainder man, and made it a case of forfeiture if the estates were not disposed of; and as to the explanation of what might be deemed residence, he would refer to the proviso in clause 90, 5 and 6 Vict., c. 35 (Income and Property Tax):—

"Provided that no person (other than a Member of either House of Parliament, entitled to be exempted from the duties of assessed taxes, under the provisions in that behalf contained in the Acts relating to the said last mentioned duties) shall be deemed to be resident in Ireland, within the intent and meaning of this Act, who shall have been absent from Ireland at one or several times for a period equal in the whole to six months or more during the space of one year, immediately preceding the day on which such annuities, dividends, and shares, shall respectively have become payable."

A six months residence in the year might be therefore deemed sufficient; and as to the mode of collecting and employing the tax, the boards of guardians of the poor-law unions could easily ascertain what was the amount of property in the districts, and whether the proprietors were resident or otherwise. If any man should then be taxed improperly, it would be easy for him to come forward and show that he had been resident during the six months required by the Act of Parliament. He was not prepared to say that was the best possible mode of carrying out the principle of the Bill; but if that principle were affirmed, there would be no difficulty in deciding upon the best mode, though he was in favour of using the already existing machinery of the boards of guardians in imposing the tax. The next question was the amount of the tax. He should say the minimum ought to be 10 per cent. He knew some would say that was too moderate; but he would also take powers to increase that per centage, if it was found to be ineffective. With regard to the argument that the measure would have a tendency to lower the value of property in Ireland, he entirely dissented from it. Large masses of property might change hands; but he thought the amount greatly exaggerated; and he thought that those very changes, by removing incumbrances, would throw so much capital into the market, as would, in point of fact, create an increased number of bidders, and prevent depreciation. He expected to be met on that occasion by the exception so often used by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, that his proposition was only a resolution, and therefore of no practical good; but he would, with all respect for such high authority, contend that a resolution was the best of all methods in that preliminary stage to ascertain the opinion of the House as to the principle of the proposed measure. If the principle were ascertained, he would undertake, without delay, to submit a Bill. He had not, however, the remotest idea that it was possible to carry the Motion. He knew that the mere proposition of an income tax was enough to subject him to the ridicule of the House. He merely brought the measure forward, though fully convinced of its justice and the benefit it would be to Ireland, to show those who cried out for practical measures to prevent absenteeism, how small a minority of the House would support such a proposition. At all events he had done his duty to Ireland, and he appealed to the House to perform its duty also. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That, inasmuch as the non-residence of landed proprietors in Ireland is one of the causes of social disorganisation of that kingdom, it is expedient to impose a charge by way of special assess- ment in aid of local objects of an useful nature, upon the estates of absentee proprietors, with a view to make some compensation for the evils resulting from their non-residence."

seconded the Motion. He had observed a strong spirit of hostility in the House to the Irish proprietors, and he admitted that some of them had not done their duty in the manner in which they ought to have done; but were there not also a great number of English proprietors who had also neglected that duty, and who possessed at the same time large properties, who had considerable influence in that country, and who derived large incomes from it? He would take a practical view of how the system of absenteeism acted on the country. Great injury had been caused under present circumstances by landlords being absent from their estates; and he attributed to their absence from their duty the failure of the Labour-rate Act. Had they been resident, an early application of reproductive labour, such as drainage and other improvements, would have commenced at the earliest approach of famine, and the results of that visitation would not have been nearly so fatal. In the county of Longford there were many resident landlords, and the people were employed in useful works. In one district Mr. Edgworth, Major Blackstock, Mr. Fox, and himself, had carried on such a system for a long time; but the want of assistance from the absentees rendered it a difficult task. In that same county of Longford there were a number of what were called "Cromwellian debentures," small properties given by Cromwell as rewards to his soldiery or political agents. The holders of these tenures had little or no connexion with the tenants except to screw the rent out of them. They did not attend to the social or charitable duties incumbent on landlords; and although the rents they received amounted altogether to 16,000l. a year, they only subscribed 410l. In the county which he represented (Westmeath), there was in one relief district 604l. subscribed by the resident proprietors. Ten farmers, who held from 60 to 300 acres of land each, gave 67l. 10s.; but what did the English proprietors in the same district do? Five of them never subscribed a farthing, but regularly as the 2nd of November or the 2nd of May came, they sent their agents down for the rents. The resident proprietors, besides subscribing, kept 240 labourers employed up to the time when the Labour-rate Act came into operation, at which time they were obliged to discontinue that employment, solely because the non-residents did not join in it. The non-residents did not employ a single labourer, or subscribe a single penny to the relief committee. One of these was a Scotch lady, whom they could never find, though she always contrived to get her rent. Another was an insurance company, which received 300l. a year, and did not subscribe one farthing. Of those who did give, one was a reverend doctor, in the receipt of 3,000l. a year out of the district, and he subscribed 18l. Without dwelling further on the injury the absence of landed proprietors did to the poor, he must also say it was an injustice to the landowners who were resident. The absentees escaped all county duties, at sessions or grand juries, and as magistrates. In Longford sometimes they were not able to make a grand jury, and they had been obliged to appoint a stipendiary magistrate, because those who should have done the duty were non-resident. He was bound to say, however, that there were some absentees who did their duty admirably, as far as regarded subscriptions and measures for alleviating distress. The Marquess of Lansdowne and the Duke of Devonshire set noble examples of munificence, which if followed more generally would have greatly aided the resident proprietors. He also mentioned, in high terms of commendation, the Marquess of Londonderry and Lord Devon, as samples of that class of laud proprietors who gave some personal attention to the management of their estates. In the Queen's County the absentee rents amounted to 25,878l., and their subscription to 208l.; the residents received 4,550l., and subscribed 459l. Lord Stanhope had observed that proprietors who had no houses on their estates could not be expected to reside, and he had neither house nor inn on his estate at Ballykill; but he could assure the noble Lord that there was an excellent inn at Abbeyleix close by, where he could get a good well-aired bed, and even in these times a rasher of bacon. He, therefore, considered that it was no excuse for neglect of duty to say there was neither house nor inn. It had been said that no Government had a right to interfere with a man's residence; but he thought that if Government, on instituting an inquiry, found great evils and injuries inflicted on the country by absenteeism, they were bound to interfere. With regard to remarks often made respecting the outrages committed in Ireland, he did not agree in thinking that they could not be suppressed. On the contrary, he knew cases in which a change of agent often had the effect of quieting a large body of tenantry. Within his own knowledge some eight or nine years ago an agent of the Courtenay property, who appeared to have made himself extremely hostile to the people, had been changed by the present Earl of Devon when he came into possession of the property, and the consequence was that everything appeared new upon the estate, the people peaceable and industrious, and affairs went on in the most satisfactory manner. His own experience of Ireland had always shown him that when the law was administered in an equitable and fearless manner, that personal violence and intimidation disappeared. An hon. Baronet, in his own neighbourhood, who was a large landed proprietor, had ejected a number of people from their holdings on his estate, and he had excellent reasons for so doing, but he never had been visited with any agrarian outrage. He believed that nothing could be more beneficial to Ireland than the institution of a severe scrutiny into the whole question of absenteeism. The present drain of revenue extracted from the country now amounted to four millions per annum; and could it be supposed that any country could be happy or prosperous as long as the proprietors of the major part of the soil lived away from it, and expended their incomes wholly regardless of the duties which attached to the possession of property? The injury which resulted from not attending to small properties was a fruitful source of crime in Ireland, and occasioned a great amount of misery to the country at large. Believing that the imposition of an income tax would to some extent afford a remedy for these evils, he cordially seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Limerick.

observed that if he had known the hon. Member for Limerick had intended to bring charges against the London Companies, for not properly discharging the duties they owed to their Irish properties, he would have come prepared with documents to show him the very fallacious nature of the foundation upon which he had made his charges. The London Companies possessed large properties in the north of Ireland, and some of them spent, not the tenth part, which the hon. Member for Limerick considered an equitable absentee tax, but four-fifths of the entire rentals, in improving their estates. The rental of the Irish Society, of which he had the honour to be president, amounted to 9,000l. or 10,000l. a year, and they expended annually in Londonderry 7,000l. of that money in promoting the cause of education and religious instruction. They never refused an application made by the clergy for assistance in improving their chapels and churches, neither did they ever refuse any money to be applied to purposes of education. He believed there were no less than sixty schools which received annually various sums of money from that society. As for the hon. Gentleman saying they did nothing with their money but expend it upon feeding Gentlemen of that House, he begged to say that the hon. Member never could have attended any of those "feeds," as he was pleased to term them, otherwise he would have heard statements of a different kind. The entire sum spent in feeding the Members of that House only amounted to 450l. a year out of the whole funds derivable from the estates. He was connected also with a company who possessed a large property in the neighbourhood of Coleraine, the rental of which was 7,000l. a year, and yet they had only expended, during the course of ten years, 3,000l. in London; the whole of the remaining portion was devoted to the improvement of the property. The Mercers' Company had also large estates in Ireland, and he believed they expended their funds pretty much in a similar manner. The hon. Member for Limerick had no doubt travelled through the north of Ireland, and thus must have observed the improvements which had been effected on the estates of the London Companies. The result of imposing an absentee tax upon those companies would inevitably be that they would pay the minimum 10 per cent or the maximum 20 per cent upon their rentals, but no more. They would not, in such case, expend the great proportion of their incomes, as they did now, among the people around their estates. The hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the Globe Insurance Office, and remarked that that corporation derived 300l. a year from Ireland, and had contributed nothing towards alleviating the condition of the people in the neighbourhood of their property. Now, it was most natural to suppose that the Globe Insurance Company had lent their money on mortgage on some Irish estate, and it was not to be expected that they would subscribe out of the 300l. a year which they received from that property towards the mitigation of the distress which might exist in its vicinity. It was unusual to expect a contribution from them under such circumstances; but he was sure if the Globe Insurance Company possessed estates in Ireland, they would cheerfully discharge those duties which would devolve upon them by such possession. He would be glad to know the amount of property which Noblemen and Gentlemen in that House possessed in Ireland, and what proportion of their annual rentals they expended in improvements. He thought they would find the absentee landlords who represented 4,000,000l. per annum of Irish property, returned 2,000,000l. in the improvement of the estates. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "No, no;" but if such were not the case, the hon. Member for Westmeath, who seconded the Motion, had thrown overboard the argument of the Proposer, because he mentioned gentlemen who spent the whole of their incomes in the improvement of their estates. [Mr. TUITE: Only one.] More than one. There was the Courtenay estate; the estate of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and the estate of the Marquess of Lansdowne. He should like very much to have a return showing the property of Irish absentees, and the amount of money they laid out upon such property; and he thought it would be found that there was more money beneficially expended by the absentee proprietors, whose names had been mentioned in the House that night, than by a great proportion of the resident gentry of that country. It should be remembered that not one of the Loudon Companies had mortgaged their estates; and, such being the case, it would be unfair to put gentlemen with deeply mortgaged estates on terms of parity with those companies, whose estates were wholly unencumbered. He should not have deemed it necessary to rise, had not a most unfounded charge been made against the London Companies and the Irish Society, that they had not spent their funds in improving their Irish estates. He denied that they squandered their resources in giving dinners to the Members of that House; and he could only say, if the hon. Member for Limerick expended the same proportion of his income that they did in educating the poor, in giving religious instruction, in building and supporting religious houses and schools in the neigh- bourhood of his property, as they did in the vicinity of theirs, he would speedily find Ireland in a changed position—he would find her with greater inducements to residence—he would find her condition prosperous, and he would find her people contented.

was ready to pay his tribute of admiration to the temperate and argumentative speech of the hon. Member for Limerick. The hon. Gentleman commenced by stating that he could not expect the proposal he was about to make to the House would receive the sanction of the English Members, for although the present state of absentee property in Ireland was a drain and an evil to that country, that inasmuch as the money lost in Ireland was gained to England, he could not expect the English Members would sanction a measure the object of which was to tax themselves in consideration of that gain. He assured the hon. Member that if he resisted the Motion he would not do so on any such grounds, for no man could be more convinced than he was that whatever tended to the impoverishment and distress of Ireland, was inconsistent with the prosperity and security of the United Kingdom. And if he could believe that by acceding to the hon. Member's proposal he would be really consulting the best interests of Ireland, he should say it became the Imperial Parliament, not only on account of what was due to the interests of Ireland, but on account of what was due to the interests of the empire, to accede unhesitatingly to his proposal. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the objections which were sometimes made to propositions not being brought forward as specific measures, but embodied in the form of a resolution. He shared in that dislike; and he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in thinking that questions of this kind ought not to be dealt with by resolutions in preference to Bills. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick had brought the question forward so fairly, and had been so clear in the statement of his views, that he had supplied whatever there was of ambiguity in the resolutions, and had distinctly informed them of what he wished them to affirm. The hon. Member told them that he wished the House to sanction a proposal that it should not be possible for any one to hold property at the same time in England and in Ireland; and even went the length of saying, that persons ought not to be permitted to hold landed property in different parts of Ireland. He had no hesitation in saying, that neither the Parliament of England, nor the Government of any other country in the world advanced in civilization, ought to adopt such a principle, which, in his opinion, would be absolutely destructive to the first principle of property. With regard to absenteeism in Ireland, he did not deny that it was a grievous misfortune that a large proportion, of the property in that country was held by persons who did not reside in it. This was a great evil, which he trusted would be amended; and he thought they ought to counteract it as much as possible, by fair and legitimate means. In order to effect that desirable object, there were two measures in contemplation; one had been proposed to the House, and the other had been announced by the Government, for the consideration of the Legislature. These measures would, he hoped, counteract the evils which Ireland had so long laboured under from an absentee proprietary. The first of these measures was the poor law lately discussed in that House, the strongest recommendation of which, in his mind, was, that it would oblige; proprietors, whether absentee or resident, to contribute a fair share towards the maintenance of the poor. For he was willing to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Tuite), that in the course of his official experience in Ireland he had been much struck with many cases in which the honourable exertions of resident proprietors to meet and avert the distress which existed around them, had been thwarted and checked by the refusal of those not resident to co-operate with them. Upon this account he rejoiced to think it would be no longer possible for them to avoid contributing by purse, if not by personal exertion, towards the mitigation of the distress which prevailed in the neighbourhood of their properties. Such was one of the measures to which he had referred in order as likely to attain the object sought by the resolution of the hon. Member for Limerick; but the other was of equal importance. He believed the great evil of Ireland was not so much that the property was in the hands of absentees, as that it was in the hands of persons so incumbered with debt, that, whether resident or absentee, they were unable to perform the duties which attached to property, or to the nominal possession of it. He did trust the facilities that would be given by the Bill to render more easy the sale and transfer of estates, would have a beneficial effect in placing property in the hands of persons with means and disposition to improve that property, and to perform all the duties of landed proprietors towards their poorer neighbours. He believed, also, it would naturally have the effect of throwing the property of Ireland much more into the hands of resident proprietors. He knew that many absentee proprietors did their duty; but he was not prepared to say, that there were many others who did not. But where hon. Gentlemen talked of absentee landlords, he could not include in the list those who passed a portion of the year in Ireland, and the other portion on their estates in England. There were many such proprietors; and among them he could mention the names of the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Abercorn, and the Earl of Devon, all of whom passed a portion of the year on their Irish estates, and were among the best landlords in Ireland. So far from deprecating the partial residence, he approved of it; for he considered the mutual intercourse between the gentry of the two countries could not but prove beneficial to the interests of both. He had only to look across the House to find instances in corroboration of what he stated. There was, for instance, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. S. O'Brien), the representative of an English county, but who owned estates in Ireland; and, usefully to that country and honourably to himself, he resided a portion of his time upon them, and by his excellent example stimulated and encouraged his neighbours to perform those duties which attached to the possession of property. He was quite willing to agree with those who censured that class of proprietors who were really absentees, and who never went near the country; but even admitting they were persons of less humanity and less benevolence, it was but natural they should not so readily relieve the distress they did not see, nor discharge so efficiently the duties of property which they had never visited. He had lately been looking into a pamphlet, written a hundred years ago, by Mr. Thomas Prior, who founded the Dublin Society. It was on absenteeism, and had made considerable noise at the time. The writer said—

"We must own that there are many of our gentlemen abroad who wish well to our country, and would abhor having a hand in the ruin of it, and who, when they come to consider the difficulties of poverty and misery under which we labour, will act as becomes them—will see that they must share in it, and that it is their duty to endeavour to prevent it."

He went on, however, to inveigh against others, of whom he said—

"Some of those have drained from 100,000l. to 300,000l. within the last twenty years, yet have not contributed so much as the meanest person who pays the least part of the taxes. We cannot suppose that such rich landlords will relieve any poor whose miseries they never see, or that they will ever make the necessary improvements on their estates. But I hope the Legislature will take care that those who thus spend their fortunes abroad shall not be the only persons exempted from taxation."

The writer then went on to state what he thought ought to be the remedies; and, although favourable to an absentee tax, yet he laid much greater stress on other remedies of a more definite nature. For instance, he advocated "a change of the laws with respect to land, so as to secure a better distribution of property, that property might be more equally divided; his reason being, that "overgrown estates were generally consumed abroad, while small fortunes were spent at home." He fully agreed in this remark; and he trusted that the measure announced by the Government for facilitating the division of estates would produce a good effect, and that the lands which might be parted with would be placed in the hands of persons able to discharge their duties as landlords. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, however, proposed that a tax should be imposed upon the estates of absentee proprietors. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not think the word "tax" was the proper word to apply to this imposition with the object and intention which the hon. Gentleman would impose. If an imposition of this sort were merely made with a view to raise the revenue, it ought to be laid on all property alike. He thought the object of the resolution was to frame a principle that the imposition should be more as a penalty, by a tax to compel the sale of estates. This sounded to his car very like confiscation. He thought it would be unjust to affirm a principle that no person who owned English estates should have Irish estates also, or that no owner of an Irish estate should possess an English one; for the principle, if applied at all, ought to apply to both. Such a principle would be inconsistent with the political and social union of the two countries. No State in the world, either free or despotic, ever laid down the principle that its subjects should not possess property in different parts of the empire. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick that it was highly desirable that at this moment, and in the present distressed condition of Ireland, that Irish proprietors should be found discharging the duties which now so urgently were required of them to perform. He also agreed that it was desirable they should take care in their legislation, by all fair and legitimate means, to facilitate the division of large properties in such a manner as to favour the growth and development of that which he conceived to be a great and essential benefit to any country—a landed gentry. All these were legitimate—all were questions which he trusted would not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government in the new poor law, and in the Bill for facilitating the sale and transfer of landed property; but with regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick, that they should assert the principle that British subjects should not hold estates in both countries, he entirely dissented. He was opposed to the principle, because it was inconsistent with the union or amalgamation between the two countries, which he wished to see preserved in all its integrity, and consequently he should feel it his duty, if the hon. and learned Member pressed for a division, to record his vote against his resolution.

agreed with the hon. Member for Westmeath, that many of the evils of Ireland resulted from absenteeism. Two years ago, when a similar question was before the House, he had taken the liberty of suggesting a measure with that view, the purport of which was, that a tax limited to 15 or 20 per cent should be levied on all absentee property, the amount so levied to be expended upon the property in draining, sub-soiling, fencing, building farm-houses and labourers' cottages, and so forth, the works to be under the superintendence of an officer to be appointed by the Government. If the Government, instead of the out-door relief measure, had brought forward a measure for the improvement of property generally in Ireland, he would have gone any length to support such a tax. He could not approve of the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick, that a man should be obliged to give up his property in Ireland because he happened to hold property in England. That would be practically carrying out a repeal of the Union. Besides it was perfectly possible for a man holding property in both countries to discharge the duties devolving on him as a landlord. He knew Irish landlords of large property who resided in England, and when applied to by relief committees for subscriptions on behalf of the poor in Ireland, they only sent over 4l. or 5l. Other proprietors, such as Lord Devonshire, Lord Fitzwilliam, Colonel Wyndham and others, looked so well after their property, and performed their duties as landlords so properly, that they could not be called absentees. These, however, were solitary instances of good landlords. He could mention hundreds of absentees, some of whom had not visited their properties for forty years. Was it possible that gentlemen, with even the best disposition to promote the welfare of their tenantry, could, under such circumstances, rightly appreciate their condition? It was not in the power of any agent to afford that relief and assistance to the people which a landlord could do in person. But the advantage derivable from a resident gentry did not altogether consist in the amount of money that might be expended; the moral influence exercised by the landlord and his family on the minds of the poorer classes, was of still greater importance. He was quite happy to add his testimony to that of the worthy Alderman (Humphery) as to the excellent manner in which the properties of the London Companies were managed. He wished that all the properties in Ireland were as well attended to. If all the Irish landlords performed their respective duties as well as the London Companies, Ireland would not be in its present wretched condition. If the hon. Member for Limerick should divide the House on the question, he (Sir A. Brooke) would vote with him.

disapproved of absenteeism, but did not think a tax on absentees would have the desired effect. He did not believe that absenteeism was the cause of the evil, but the want of capital. There were several estates in Ireland, the property of absentees, which were admirably managed; while estates alongside of them, and belonging to residents, were so much neglected that the occupiers were in the most wretched condition. Absenteeism was only an incident, and not the cause of the evil; and he thought it was misleading the public mind, and giving a wrong direction to popular feeling in Ireland, to propose an absentee tax as a remedy for the evils of Ireland. An efficient poor law would correct the evils of absenteeism, by giving confidence to those able to invest capital in the country. We could not lay out of our minds the causes of the evils of Ireland. These were mainly the cultivation of the potato and the subdivision of land. There were several concurrent causes, such as the penal code, the 40s. freeholds, the middlemen, and, after the middlemen were destroyed by the termination of the war, the ejection of the people from their holdings. All these things tended to make property insecure in Ireland. In 1830, there was a law in existence sufficient in itself to account for a considerable share of the outrages that were committed. That law made the occupying tenant responsible for the rent of the middleman. He conceived that the power of selling property would be a principal means towards the regeneration of Ireland. But if absenteeism were put an end to to-morrow, and those measures not passed, Ireland would be very little better than she was at present. In addition to a poor law, he thought it would be essential to have a system of emigration, and for public works. All that was wanting in Ireland, was confidence for the investment of capital; and confidence could not be had so long as 2,500,000 people were in a state of destitution. Dr. Kane, in his work on the industrial resources of Ireland, stated that what Ireland wanted was capital to develop her resources. He should be sorry for one moment to admit that all the absentee landlords had done their duty. He was sorry to say that he knew instances of men who derived upwards of 5,000l. a year from their estates, and when applied to for assistance by a relief committee, they wrote back to say that the distress was greatly exaggerated. But when told that if they did not subscribe to the relief of the poor, the committee would publish the correspondence, then they sent in their contributions; and one agent, connected with a property worth 5,000l. a year, gave 35l. There were many such cases; but, nevertheless, it would be misleading the public mind to say that absenteeism was one of the main causes of the distress of Ireland. He believed that a poor law, by securing the lower classes from the danger of starvation, would give security to capital and greatly improve the social condition of Ireland.

thought that English Gentlemen who had considered carefully the effects of the poor-law system on their own country, would not be too ready to recommend the application of a similar system to Ireland. The hon. Member for Limerick proposed an absentee tax as one of the remedies for the evils of Ireland, but not as a measure that would of itself regenerate that country. The hon. Member for Louth attributed the distress of Ireland more to the cultivation of the potato, than to the drain of capital caused by absenteeism. But agriculture alone could not insure the prosperity of a country. The assistance of manufactures was necessary. The people of Ireland had been thrown altogether on the resources which agriculture supplied; this led to an undue bidding for land, and consequently to rack-rents, and caused the people to be reduced to the lowest scale of comforts—to live upon potatoes. The misery of Ireland was chiefly owing to the destruction of her manufactures, and the removal of her resident Parliament; which led to the abstraction of her capital. The work of Sir Robert Kane had been referred to; but that writer had entirely overlooked the circumstances which caused capital to be drained out of Ireland. Ireland had suffered most peculiarly from the evils of absenteeism. Other countries had suffered from the same cause; but in Ireland absenteeism was always felt to be so great an evil, that the word was adopted into the English language, and explained in Johnson's Dictionary by a reference to the conduct of the Irish landlords. In Ireland, absenteeism existed even during the continuance of the Irish Parliament. And why did it exist? Because that Parliament had been for a long time held in the most unconstitutional bondage. The prosperity of Ireland was restricted by laws against her commerce and native industry. Of course, under such circumstances, there was no inducement to the proprietors of the soil to remain in the country. At the end of the seventeenth century, the absentee drain was calculated at 136,000l.; in 1769, it had increased to 1,221,980l.; and in 1782, to 2,233,232l. At this period the Irish Parliament was made free and independent; commercial restrictions were almost entirely abrogated, and freedom of trade secured. From 1782 to 1800, according to Lord Clare, who could not be supposed to be a too favourable witness, no country in the world ever made such progress in manufactures, commerce, and general prosperity, as Ireland did in those eighteen years. During that period, the annual absentee drain was diminished to 623,322l.; but immediately after the Union the absentee drain rose again, until, according to a statement of Lord Cloncurry in the House of Lords, it readied 6,500,000l. According to the statements of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson, it had been the policy of England before the Union to deprive Ireland of the use of her resources, and to restrict her manufactures. Since the Union, several Acts had been passed tending to draw away every shilling of her surplus capital. The grand effort of English policy at this time should be to stop those drains, and to keep Irish capital in Ireland. Ireland should have the use not of English, but of Irish capital. But to say that English capital was kept out of Ireland by Irish disturbances, was the silliest thing that ever entered into the brain of the shallowest theorist. It was well known by those who were connected with Ireland, that it was impossible for the people of that country, in the absence of a rich resident proprietary, to compete with the English in manufactures; the English capitalists were able to drive them out of their own market, in consequence of the absentee system. It was, then, the object of his hon. Friend, in bringing forward this Motion, to remedy that evil. Ireland was drained of the funds that were absolutely necessary to sustain commerce or manufactures in that country. England, with her large capital, was able to take small profits, and grant long credit in her commercial transactions; and every effort that Ireland had made to carry on trade or commerce had failed in consequence of the advantages enjoyed by the English manufacturers. When Ireland essayed to became a manufacturing country, she was immediately stopped by the ruinously low prices at which England was enabled to sell her goods. He did not mean to say a hard word against English capitalists driving the Irish manufacturer out of his own market; but he would maintain that the Legislature ought to have stepped in and given aid to Ireland, by preventing the annual drain from her resources, without which it was impossible for her to maintain her proper position. If Ireland would not make an effort to develop her resources, then indeed she did not deserve commiseration, then her people deserved impoverishment; but since it was well known that she had often made efforts to develop her natural resources by manufacturing industry, but failed in consequence of the evils under which she laboured, which could be remedied by the Legislature, he contended that it was the duty of Parliament to remove those evils. Parliament could cure the evil, and abolish the impoverishment of Ireland, and they ought not to shrink from doing so. It had been said that, in many instances, the absentee landlords of Ireland had properly and faithfully discharged their duties to their tenants. He was quite prepared to join with the hon. Member who had made that statement, in bearing testimony to the excellent conduct of a few individuals, who, though absentees, had, through the medium of their stewards, conferred great benefits upon the tenants of their estates in Ireland. He regretted that he had not been able to bring down to the House a letter which he had received last year from a most estimable clergyman, the rev. Dr. Fogarty, the parish priest of Lismore, who acknowledged in the most grateful terms the great good which had been conferred upon that district by the Duke of Devonshire, who possessed the greater part of the property there. Great credit was also due to the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Abercorn, and other noble Lords, for the benefits which they had respectively conferred upon their Irish tenantry. But it was absolutely beside the question to quote such solitary instances of the good conduct of the Irish absentee landlords, until they could prove that the effect of their going back to reside in Ireland would instantly make them bad landlords. Why, if they were good landlords now, should they become bad landlords the instant they went to reside in Ireland? Cœlum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt; would their natures be changed by the sky or the soil of Ireland? Would the mere fact of their returning to Ireland make them bad landlords? If they went back to Ireland, their good example would have a beneficial influence upon their tenantry, and the capital and prosperity of Ireland would increase. Let them tax the Irish landlords as much as they pleased, Ireland never could prosper unless she had the benefits of a resident proprietary. It had been stated on good authority that the annual drain from Ireland by absenteeism amounted to 6,500,000l., but whether that was correct or not he would not undertake to say; but he was confident, in taking the amount at 5,000,000l., he was not overstating it. He wished the House to pay attention to the statements which he was about to lay before them as to the expenditure of Ireland. He held in his hand a paper which was a return (numbered 662) which he had moved for in May, 1845, as to the amount of Irish remittances Into the British Exchequer. The House would find, by that return, that there had been, up to the year 1845, an excess of Irish remittances over the British into the national Exchequer of upwards of 19,000,000l. He was glad to see that the hon. Member for South Lancashire had moved for papers which would bear out his argument on this point. He was not quite sure whether that hon. Member had the same object in view as he had, in moving for those returns; but he was glad to be able to show by those returns which had been presented to the House on the 23rd of February, this Session, that during the years 1842, 1843, and 1844, whilst there had not been a single penny remitted from England, there had been 550,000l. remitted from Ireland into the national Exchequer, which, together with the previous sum, showed the aggregate amount of remittances from Ireland since the Union to be 20,000,000l., which was equal to an annual remittance from Ireland, over and above that remitted from England, of 250,000l. And if to the sum of 20,000,000l. they added what had been on the importation of British and foreign manufactures, &c., it would give a total of 22,250,000l. It had been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, that the present was not an opportune time for introducing such legislation as that proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick. But surely this time of distress and general poverty in Ireland was the very time in which the Legislature should compel the landlords of that country to do their duty faithfully to their tenants, and so mitigate the evils under which they laboured. At present there was no inducement for the Irish landlords to live in Ireland; and what he desired was to supply such inducement, for, without it, they would never have prosperity in Ireland. He called upon the House to forget awhile the strict principles of political economy, of which they had heard so much, and to help Ireland to the establishment of commerce and the development of her natural resources. If another year of distress should unfortunately come upon Ireland, they would then regret their apathy in this matter; they would find that they had been acting in any but a wise manner in refusing to encourage the landed proprietors of Ireland to spend their money in that country.

did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, but merely to express his concurrence in the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Bellew), to the effect that absenteeism was not the sole or even the greatest evil of Ireland. If anything could induce the proprietors of Ireland to reside on their estates at present, surely the distress which prevailed there should. He was glad to know that there were many resident landlords in that country, who were attending to the wants of their people during the present calamity. He entertained a confident hope, that the proposed poor law for Ireland would have the effect of reducing the greater portion of the evils with which Ireland was afflicted. With respect to this Motion, he admitted that he was not prepared to repudiate it; but under the present circumstances of Ireland, and when the Government bad promised to introduce Bills to facilitate the sale of landed property in Ireland, he thought it would not be wise to adopt this Motion, which would have the effect most probably of deterring Englishmen from purchasing those estates, and the objects of the Government in introducing those Bills would be thereby frustrated. He thought that the present was an inopportune occasion to introduce a measure which would damp the efforts of the Irish landowners during the present distress. He would advise the House to wait until they saw the results of the new poor law, which would make the landlords responsible for the poverty of Ireland. He thought that if that law were made to extend to the holders of jointures, mortgages, &c., it would be but acting justly towards the people of Ireland. In many instances he knew that the agents of absentee Irish landlords had lessoned in a great measure the evils which flowed from Irish absenteeism; but at the same time he must say that no steward or agent, however humanely disposed, or however humanely he was instructed to act by his employer towards the tenantry of whom he had charge, could be as serviceable to that tenantry as the landlord himself. He hoped sincerely that the spirit which had been manifested in that House, and on this side of the water generally, towards the Irish landlords, would have the effect of inducing them to discharge their duties in a faithful and liberal manner. He regretted that two hon. Gentlemen of that House had thought fit to make what he might perhaps designate as vicious attacks upon the Irish landlords. He alluded to the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), who appeared to show them up as much as he possibly could. He found that the hon. Baronet had already had his reward; for it appeared by the newspapers that the parish which he represented had passed a vote of thanks to him. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Rocbuck) was not in his place, because he could have assured him that there was in Ireland no small number of landlords who had done their duty faithfully to their tenants, and who were anxious to submit to all the inconveniences of poverty, that they were, in fact, prepared to lose their estates sooner than see their fellow-countrymen die of starvation.

wished for a moment to call the attention of the House to the wording of the resolution before the House. He was sure that the hon. Member for Limerick deserved great praise for the language in which he had couched his Motion. It appeared to him, that if the Motion were carried, it would really have the effect of conferring a benefit upon the absentee landlords of Ireland; for the tax that would be levied from them under this resolution would have to be laid out in the improvement of their own estates, on which they refused to reside. Why surely no one could object to such a resolution as that. They had already examples of the excellent effect which such a measure would have upon Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) did not reside upon his estate in Ireland; yet all the rent he received from that estate was expended in the improvement of it. He was inclined to say with the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that this resolution scarcely went far enough; and that in his opinion holders of jointures, mortgages, &c., should be included in it. He thought that the House and the country had a right to expect that such parties should contribute as well as others to the support of the poor of Ireland. He believed that in many instances the tax proposed by this resolution had been voluntarily imposed upon landowners in Ireland, and that it had produced the most beneficial results. He agreed with the noble Lord who preceded him, that one of the great evils of Ireland was not merely the non-expenditure in that country of the rents which her landlords received from her, but also the absence of that moral in- fluence which resident proprietors conferred upon a country. He thought that it was impossible for any one to travel through Ireland without instantly seeing the great difference between those parts of the country where there was a resident proprietary and those where there was not. The face of the country proclaimed at once whether or not there had been a kind and beneficent landed proprietary to superintend the labouring classes. The wives and daughters of the landed gentry conferred a benefit upon the neighbourhoods in which they resided by visiting the poor and promoting their comforts. Great praise was certainly due to the ladies of Ireland for the benevolent exertions which they had made on behalf of the suffering people of that country during the present crisis. By voting for the resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, he wished it to be implied, that in his opinion it was right to make such landlords as neglected to perform their duties to their tenants pay a penalty for the destitution which their neglect brought upon the country, and that the moral influence which their residence amongst their tenantry produced, was as beneficial to the country as the expenditure of those rents amongst them. He wished it to be implied that those proprietors were highly culpable for depriving their tenants of the advantages which they ought to confer upon them, by discharging amongst them the duties of magistrates, grand jurors, &c. He had not the slightest wish to throw blame upon any one of the landed proprietors of Ireland who was at present faithfully discharging his duty; but he contended that it should not be left to the mere caprice of a landlord as to whether or not he should discharge his duties to his tenants. He conceived that the scenes of woo which at present exhibited themselves in Ireland, should induce those Irish proprietors who had hitherto absented themselves from their estates, now, at least, to return to them, so that they might alleviate the sufferings of the people of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member read a letter from a lady in Armagh, which represented that county to be in a lamentable state of destitution, notwithstanding the boast of the Premier that the small holdings of the north of Ireland had made that part of the country prosperous and happy. He concluded by stating, that he conceived it to be his duty not to shrink on this occasion from voting in accordance with his hon. Friend's Mo- tion, although he did not wish it to be understood that in so doing, he attributed the whole of Ireland's ills merely to the non-expenditure of her rents amongst her people.

thought that the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Rawdon) had given to this question a more important phase than it appeared to have before. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken in the course of this debate, had said that absenteeism was not the great evil of Ireland, but a want of capital. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had never heard a more absurd argument than that. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there was an annual drain of 4,000,000l. out of Ireland in the shape of rents to the absentee landlords; and yet he said not absenteeism, but want of money, was the great evil of Ireland, forgetting that the drain which was annually taken out of that country was its legitimate capital. Unfortunately England had thought it politic not to remedy that evil of absenteeism, and Ireland was now ruined by it. The hon. Member for Southwark had made some most extraordinary statements that evening. That hon. Gentleman had said that no charge could be justly brought against the London Companies who possessed property in Ireland, because nearly the whole of the rents from their Irish estates were expended in the improvement of those estates. Indeed he said that they actually spent more in Ireland than the resident landlords. Now he happened to know that that was not the case in Galway at least, for the resident landlords there, actually spent more than they received. He admitted that the London company of which the hon. Gentleman was president, had spent more of their rents recently than formerly on their Irish estates; but that improvement had only occurred within the last few years; and he believed that what improvement there had been in that respect in Ireland, was due in a great measure to the statistics which had been repeatedly brought before the public by the members of Conciliation Hall. He fully agreed in the resolution, and felt that he should not discharge his duty if he did not express his gratitude to the hon. Member for Limerick in bringing it forward. The instances of the evil effects of absenteeism were numerous—he could mention one, where the owner of the property (Mrs. Oliver Gascoyne), which was situated in Cork, had not seen her tenantry for forty years. Lord Ormonde sold his English property, and resided upon his Irish estates in Kilkenny; and Lords Glengall and Mountcashell likewise resided on their property, and took care of the interests of their tenants and dependants.

wished to propound two questions—first, how absenteeism was to be defined; and secondly, how the proposed tax upon it was to be reconciled with the great constitutional right of the subject to his liberty? If any Gentleman would answer these two questions as shortly as he put them, he would vote for the Motion.

agreed in the principle of the resolution, but found great difficulty in voting for it. As long as Ireland continued a part of the United Kingdom, it would be unfair to put a tax upon Irish proprietors residing in England, without also taxing English proprietors residing in Ireland. If such a law were passed, it might be productive of some good, but would be likewise attended with great evil. The proprietor who resided in one part of Ireland, whilst his property lay in another part of the same country, might neglect that property as much as if he resided out of the country altogether. Many of the absentee landlords had their estates much better managed, and a more comfortable tenantry, than some of those who resided in Ireland. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

, in moving for—

"A Select Committee to inquire into the necessity for the removal of Smithfield market, as a nuisance in the centre of the British metropolis, to some appropriate site comprising an area of not less than 12 acres, and the establishment of abattoirs in the vicinity of London,"—

said he was happy to inform the House that it would not be necessary for him to trespass on their attention, as his Motion was not opposed. He had been requested, however, by the Members of the city of London, to postpone the nomination of the Committee; and in order that every facility should be given to each side for thoroughly sifting the question, he should name Monday week, as that on which he should nominate the Committee.

There was a report on the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Motion in the year 1828; and he believed the city of Loudon had adopted many of the improvements suggested in that report, and had enlarged the area of the market. But still it was undeniable that there remained great ground of complaint, both as to the safety for life and the health of the neighbouring district. He was, therefore, glad to find that the Members for the city of London did not oppose the Motion for still further inquiry. Still less was there any disposition on the part of Government to oppose any obstacle to the appointment of a Committee; but he thought it only fair to all the interests concerned that no proceedings should be taken without due consideration.

As the proposal of the hon. Gentleman very much affected the interests of the county which he represented, he should have thought it his duty to enter into detail, if the hon. Gentleman had entered upon the consideration of the question. As the hon. Gentleman, however, had not gone into detail on one side, he should avoid doing so on the other. But he thought it right to say, that none of those with whom he was connected, at all wished to avoid the appointment of a Committee; and he believed that that appointment would be productive of the best consequences.

He had been requested by a large body of his constituents to oppose this Motion; but he really could not, as he believed it to be of the greatest public importance that the evils of the present system should be exposed by a full and searching inquiry. The present practice was attended with great cruelty, and he trusted that the result of the inquiry would give full satisfaction, not only to the metropolis, but to the country at large.

suggested the propriety of the market being held on a Tuesday instead of Monday. At present, by the preparations for the market, the Sabbath-day was much infringed upon; and an old Smithfield drover once told him, that he had not either had rest or been at any place of divine service for forty years on the Sunday, having been always either on the road for Smithfield or preparing for it. He could not see any good reason which could be urged against the change.

suggested that if Smithfield market were abolished, abattoirs should be established in the outskirts of London, as otherwise the removal of the market from the centre to any extremity of London would increase the nuisance instead of diminishing it, by driving cattle from one end of the town to the other.

I beg to say that that idea is mine, and I am very proud of it.

recommended that Government should take this matter into their own hands.

replied, and said he should be extremely happy to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; or if the Committee were granted, he would take care that it should be impartial.

then rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Richard Weston Mara, barrister, Dublin, which was printed with the Votes on the 9th ult. The noble Lord reminded the House, that early last Session the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) moved for leave to bring in a Bill respecting friendly societies in the three kingdoms—the object being to rectify certain inconveniences which had arisen to those societies from a decision by Mr. Justice Wightman. With some amendments the Bill passed the House of Commons. It was then sent to the House of Lords, without any clause affecting the appointments of registrars of friendly societies, which, as respected England, was in the gift of the Commissioners for the National Debt; as respected Ireland, in the gift of the Attorney General; and as respected Scotland, in the gift of the Lord Advocate. But before the Bill was read a third time in the House of Lords, it was deemed advisable to refer it to a Select Committee, with a view to more mature consideration. In this Committee it was proposed, and eventually agreed to, that the mode of appointment in future should be altered; that the appointment should in all cases be in the gift of the Commissioners for the National Debt; and that the holders of these appointments should not vacate them with change of Government, as had been the practice heretofore. In conformity with this recommendation, a clause was drawn up with a view of carrying this resolution into effect, and in this shape the Bill passed. It was understood that the holders of the offices at the time the Act passed, should be allowed to continue in them; and Mr. Mara, who was the barrister appointed to certify to rules of friendly societies in Ireland, upon this understanding, took an office at 50l. a year, and engaged a clerk, with a view to the performance of the new duties. In the meantime, however, a change of Government took place; and two months after the Act passed, the present Ministers of the Crown removed the petitioner on the ground that he had not been reappointed by the preceding Government after the passing of the Act, as was required; and appointed another person (Mr. Connor), a private friend of the Attorney General for Ireland. Now, he maintained that not only did the late Government entertain no idea that the appointment of Mr. Mara would lapse; but that the present Government, for two months after they came into office, entertained precisely the same opinion as their predecessors. To prove this, he read extracts from certain letters from the Home Office, recognising Mr. Mara as the registrar for Ireland. He contended, further (and quoted the Act of Parliament to show), that the removal of Mr. Mara and the appointment of Mr. Connor was illegal; and that, if legal, it was in direct contravention of the intention of the Legislature. The arguments he had used were not mere assertions; he had corroborated his own construction of the wording of the Act by the opinions of high legal authorities; and he thought he had shown very plainly that the course pursued in this instance was one impolitic as regarded the public, and unjust in the extreme as regarded the individual. He thought that this case indicated something like a wish on the part of Government to grasp after small hits of patronage. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between the Commissioners and Mr. Mara on the subject.

said, the noble Lord was wrong in asserting that Mr. Mara was a man experienced in the duties of the office, for he had not discharged the duties for six months when the change of Ministry occurred, which led to a fresh apppointment. Previous to the passing of the Act to which the noble Lord had referred, as making out his case in favour of the continuance of Mr. Mara, the invariable practice was for the Attorney General for Ireland for the time being to appoint an officer to certify the rules of friendly societies in that country. The Lord Advocate made the same appointment as regarded Scotland; and as to England, Mr. Tidd Pratt had discharged the duties for many years. Supposing, therefore, that the now Act had not passed, Mr. Mara must have experienced the same fate as his predecessors, and retired from office with the Attorney General who had appointed him. When he came into office, he was not aware that any Act regulating the appointment had passed; but, on his attention being directed to the fact, he went over the Act, and found that it was imperative on him to make a new appointment. It was required that, after the passing of the Act, the title of the office should be changed, and, also, that the appointment of the officer should rest with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. He could not see how any person who had been appointed by the previous Attorney General could be regarded as an officer who had been appointed by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and although Mr. Mara had been continued, it would have been necessary that he should have received an appointment in accordance with the Act. It was unfortunate for that gentleman that the change of Government did take place; because he believed that had the late Government remained in office he would have received the appointment. The question which he had to decide, on becoming acquainted with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, was, who should be appointed; one who had been recommended by the late Attorney General, or the one recommended by the present Attorney General. In the first case the individual had not held office for six months: he had therefore no vested right in the appointment, nor any claim from experience, and altogether he thought there was nothing in his case which called upon him to depart from the usual practice. There was nothing in the Act to show that the person who hold the office when the Act passed, was to receive the appointment. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he would not object to the production of the correspondence moved for.

did not entertain the least doubt as to the accuracy of the statement which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the previous practice; but the object of the Act was to prevent a continuance of that practice, it having been found exceedingly inconvenient that such officers should be changed with every change of Government. As to the legal construction of the clause, he was not prepared to offer an opinion; but if it was right that a new appointment should be made by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, the intentions of the framers of the Act ought to have been considered as to the person who should receive the appointment. Mr. Mara was in office, and if a new appointment was necessary, it ought to have been made on the day subsequent to the passing of the Act. There was another point to which he wished to direct attention—the fact that in one case the appointment of one of the officers had been ante-dated so as to legalize the certificates he had given during the interval that he was not legally in office; but in his opinion this was not sufficient to cure the evil; and that in point of fact all the acts of the person he referred to were illegal. Had the hon. Member for Finsbury been present, he would have directed his particular attention to that fact. As to Mr. Mara, his opinion was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in superseding him, had exercised a patronage-which it would have been better had he avoided.

begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think there had been any removal, because he did not understand that the person who held the office under the late Attorney General was in office when the new Ministers came into power. He should be extremely sorry to think that anything connected with the transaction could be construed into any reflection on the character or ability of Mr. Mara.

moved for the following documents:—

"Copies of a Despatch from the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Right honourable the Governor-General of India, respecting the Ex-Rajah of Sattara, dated the 24th day of March, 1846; and a Copy of the reply of the Right honourable the Governor-General of India to that Despatch; together with Copies of the several documents referred to in that reply, or connected with it:—Of any other Letters which have been addressed by the present Governor-General of India to the Court of Directors of the East India Company, or to the Secret Committee of the East India Company, relating to the case of the Ex-Rajah of Sattara, from the period of his Lordship's arrival in India to the present time:—And of the Minutes of Dissent of Members of the Court of Directors which have been recorded by any member of that Court, and not hitherto published, relating to the case of the Ex-Rajah of Sattara, from the 30th day of April, 1810, to the present time."

He had occasion at a former time to explain the injustice that had been done to the Rajah of Sattara, and he thought his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control ought, as an act of justice, to produce these papers.

said, it was a very invidious task at any time, or from any motive, for a Government to refuse the production of papers; but at the same time he thought, when he had stated the plain case to the House, they would agree with him that these were documents which ought not to be given. His hon. Friend had stated what he conceived to be the contents of the papers; but his hon. Friend was quite wrong in his description of them. But whether he was wrong or right, the question was whether, as a general proposition, it was a proper thing that the correspondence between the Governor General and his servants, and persons employed by him in the performance of delicate functions, should, on such a statement as that made by his hon. Friend, be produced before the House. But, independently of that consideration, there was a fact which he wished to state to the House that was conclusive on the subject. He was sorry to say it—for it redounded to the disgrace of the parties concerned—that copies of those confidential despatches had some way or other found their way into England. His hon. Friend would not deny the fact. His hon. Friend had been fair enough to tell him of it, and it was no breach of confidence to state it. He had just looked to the envelope, and he saw that by some means or other those despatches had been purloined from the Secret Department, either in Calcutta or in England. Now he would ask the House whether, by giving the sanction of Parliament to the production of those papers, they would encourage that which was a fraud, a perjury, a breach of trust; and which, if it were to receive the slightest encouragement from the House of Commons, or any branch of the Legislature, would make government not only impossible in India, but impossible anywhere. This must be the effect if the secret despatches of parties in those responsible situations, were to be procured by such modes. The Governor General was answerable to the home authorities. Major Carpenter was answerable to the Governor General; and it was quite clear from the correspondence of his hon. Friend, that some such breach of confidence must have taken place, for he saw that the date of the letter was mentioned. How was it possible for any person to know the date of the letter, but by a breach of trust and confidence? He did not think it at all necessary to go into the question of the innocence or guilt of the Rajah; but what he said was, that the House of Commons ought not to do anything to encourage for the future the possibility of such an act as this. It ought not to receive encouragement; for suppose any man wanted to get at the secrets of the State in India, he had nothing to do but to get at some scrap of information or piece of paper from any of the departments, and then say in the House that he had got this in his possession, and they might as well consent to give it to him. Did his hon. Friend want to know what the sentiments of Major Carpenter were? [Mr. HUME: Of the Governor General.] His hon. Friend knew them. Why did not the parties who had obtained these papers publish them in a newspaper? Because they were ashamed of the transaction — they were ashamed of having procured them by these indirect means, and did not choose to argue on them. For any honest man would say, how did you get those papers? Did you pay for them? Did you steal them? Did you purloin them? He asked his hon. Friend how he had got them? [Mr. HUME: I told you.] Though his hon. Friend did not approve of the transaction, he was putting a seal on it which, if the House of Commons consented to the production of those papers, would not be very easily removed. He disclaimed any wish to prejudge the case, or do anything unfair to this unfortunate person; and he would tell his hon. Friend, that had it not been for the fact of this roguery, of this thievery, he would most willingly have produced those papers. But as it was, he threw himself on the House of Commons to protect him in the refusal of those papers. He begged leave to say that this was not the first refusal of them, for the Court of Directors had had the matter under consideration, and by a majority of 14 to 8 refused the papers. At the same time he must protest against any inference which might be drawn that he wished to conceal anything Major Carpenter might have said. The time would come when he should not object to the production of the papers.

said, it was the opinion of many persons well acquainted with the facts, that this unfortunate Rajah had been dispossessed by roguery, yet when means had been discovered of proving this roguery, the right hon. Gentleman refused the production of the papers, because they had been procured, as he said, in some surreptitious manner. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to deny that those papers vindicated the character of the Rajah? [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: I said they did not.] The House of Commons had a right to know whether the Rajah had been treated in the disgraceful manner which, was asserted; and it was the duty of the Board of Control to afford the documents necessary to ascertain the facts.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had made charges against parties interested in the production of those papers; but he happened to know some of those who were much interested in this question, and he knew perfectly well that they were totally ignorant of the source whence those papers had come. Every person acquainted with India must know that it was not a difficult thing there to obtain copies of the despatches that passed between official persons. The right hon. Gentleman had no objection to produce the papers, or to let the country know what they contained; but because he thought there had been some dishonesty in the mode of obtaining them, he would withhold from the country the evidence necessary to arrive at the facts. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did very great injustice to the Rajah in placing his refusal, on so low a ground. Seeing that the character of our Indian Government was at stake in their treatment of this prince, he thought the public mind both in this country and India ought to be set at rest as to the cause.

thought the House should be put in possession of full information with respect to the conduct of the Home Government, and unless his right hon. Friend said that injury would result from the production of those papers, he did not think he had made out a strong case for their refusal.

suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to produce one portion of the papers, his hon. Friend might postpone his Motion affecting the rest.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir. J. C. Hobhouse) was perfectly right in refusing to lend the sanction of Parliament to the very improper manner in which these papers had been obtained. The example would be most, prejudicial if the House were to lend its sanction to such a proceeding. Suppose on the subject of Cracow, recently under discussion, some hon. Member had come down to the House and said, "I am in possession of important papers bearing upon this question. It is quite true I got them in a very reprehensible manner, through a connexion which I had established with some parties belonging to the Foreign Office; but having got them, there can be no objection to their production by the Government." Why, if that conduct were sanctioned by the House, it would be destructive of all confidence. Under such circumstances nothing could be more improper than to produce them.

did not conceive that the surreptitious manner in which those papers had been obtained, afforded the right hon. Baronet sufficient ground for refusing to lay them before the House. Was it not a fact that the correspondence between Lord Castlereagh and the Emperor of Russia appeared in The Times newspaper before its production by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? and yet that noble Lord did not refuse the production of copies of that correspondence when called for by the House.

observed, that there was a great distinction between the two cases. The correspondence between Lord Castlereagh and the Emperor of Russia was legally and properly in the possession of other persons, and no fraudulent abstraction had been made by any party from the Foreign Office. It never was supposed that the editor of The Times journal had obtained possession of those papers improperly, or that any infraction of good faith had been committed. He had no hesitation in saying that if that correspondence had not been published in the newspapers, there was nothing in it which would have prevented him from laying it before the House.

said, he had reason to believe that the papers had been sent from Calcutta to this country, and he had no doubt they had been forwarded by some person who had a strong sense of the injustice done to the Rajah. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he was willing for the present to withdraw all but the last paragraph of his Motion.

moved for—

"A Return of the number of persons flogged in the British Navy in each of the years 1845 and 1846, specifying the name of the ship, the offence, the sentence, and the number of lashes inflicted.

"Also for an 'Abstract of the total number of Corporal Punishments in the Navy, and the total number of lashes inflicted, in each year, up to the 31st day of December, 1846 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 308 of Session 1845')."

I was not aware when I before opposed the production of those returns, that similar ones had been acceded to by the War Office last year at a very late period of the Session, August 17th, when Parliament was on the point of being prorogued, in consequence of a most unjust and groundless clamour excited by the extraordinary proceedings of an inquest at Hounslow; and I cannot refrain from observing that if the Secretary at War had, instead of allowing himself to be intimidated by this clamour, sent a firm and able lawyer to watch the coroner's conduct—to see that the inquiry was legally and impartially carried on—that no lawful evidence was excluded, and no suspicious testimony sought for—he would have better performed his duty, and would have protected Her Majesty's service from these unfounded aspersions. However, Sir, my present object is with these returns moved for by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, in the shape in which they are asked; and I beg most clearly to explain that I do not in the slightest degree object to the production of all the information which may be necessary to enable the House to ascertain the increase or decrease of corporal punishment in the Navy; and nobody will rejoice more sincerely than myself at the arrival of that day when the steadiness, sobriety, and good conduct of our seamen may render it no longer indispensable for the preservation of order and discipline. With a very large proportion, that period has already arrived; and I would only therefore most earnestly caution the House against the danger of defeating our own object by indiscreet and ill-judged precipitation. What I distinctly and strongly do object to in these returns is, the giving the names of the ships, because I am certain that most unjust and painful reflections will be cast on the characters of many deserving and honourable officers who, in the execution of their duty, and without the slightest blame attaching to them, have, from circumstances beyond their control, and which cannot now be explained, been more severe than others. I am fully aware that I shall be met by the plausible question—"Is there anything which should be kept back with respect to the Navy, when it has been granted for the Army?" But contend, that no fair comparison can be drawn between corporal punishments in the two services. A regiment is always in a state of organization and discipline. The young recruits mixed up with old and steady soldiers, are daily imbibing instruction in order and regularity, and, above all, that esprit da corps so invaluable in a soldier. The commanding officer has also always the means of confinement at hand, either in barracks or prisons, besides many other secondary punishments. But how different is the situation of the Navy—a ship (especially the smaller classes) has no place of confinement whatever for more than one or two men. Very few secondary punishments can be resorted to; and, what is the strongest part of my case, our system of disbanding and discharging our men every three years, and then recommencing what we have just destroyed—the organization and discipline of our ships—imposes a double amount of difficulty on our officers, and, as may easily be imagined, there is an inevitable increase in the amount of offences and punishments during the first year of a ship being in commission. But how cruel and unjust will it be to an officer who has been faithfully and zealously performing a difficult and painful duty, to hold him up to the ignorant and prejudiced part of the public as a tyrant and oppressor! And yet this is inevitable if the names of the ships are given. I also strongly object to an irresponsible body like this House, assuming the functions of the Executive Government, and virtually constituting itself a court of appeal against the proceedings of military and naval tribunals. The only effect of this proceeding will be to shake the confidence of our men in the justice of their superiors, and thus increase offences and insubordination; and let those who advise this course remember that a former House of Commons succeeded, it is true, both in detaching the Army from its allegiance, and dethroning their monarch; but they were themselves very soon afterwards expelled from their own seats within these walls, by that very Army which they had courted and corrupted. I am fully aware that if Her Majesty's Government is determined to lay these returns on the Table, no opposition of mine can prevent their doing so; but I earnestly entreat them at least to reconsider the question, which has been now, perhaps for the first time, fairly placed before them, before they come to any final and irrevocable decision.

very much regretted that the hon. and gallant Admiral should have thought it necessary to differ from the opinion which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government, after much delibe- ration upon the subject before the House. They thought that the publication of these returns would be productive of the most beneficial results. He was prepared to sustain the system of corporal punishments on board ship, admitting, as he did, the difference between the two services alluded to by the gallant Admiral, and because he thought that in some instances it could not be dispensed with. But he thought it was desirous to have the safeguard of publicity, under which he did not think that any stigma could affix to those officers who did their duty.

was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral say that he would be glad to see the day when corporal punishment would be dispensed with altogether. But as a proof of the beneficial effects which had followed the publication of the returns of the punishments inflicted, he should observe, that during the close of the year 1845, and the first seven months of the year 1846, the number of corporal punishments inflicted in the Army stationed at home was 316, whilst the total number inflicted since the publication had been only five.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually contained in Acts for paving, draining, cleansing, lighting, and improving towns.

wished to know whether the Government intended to bring in a general Bill on the subject.

replied, that the subject was under consideration with a view to that object.

observed, that if this Bill did not put a stop to the applications for private Bills, it would not fulfil the anticipations held forth in Her Majesty's Speech at the commencement of the Session. The object should be to make a Model Bill, so that persons might be enabled to tax themselves in matters for improving the health of towns.

stated that the Bill was of a declaratory nature. With respect to the general Bill for the promotion of the sanitary condition of towns, he had given notice of it for Tuesday week. As for a Model Bill on this subject, he could not take it for granted that the Bill would pass; but if it did, it would facilitate the passing of such a Bill on a future occasion.

was sure, from his own experience, that the noble Lord would find it better to put a stop to private legislation on this subject until after he had introduced his general Bill.

trusted that the Bill would prove satisfactory; but it would not be expedient to put a stop to private legislation until the Government could tell whether the measure would pass, or at any rate until the House had decided on it.

moved that the Committee on this Bill should be postponed until Monday.

said, the adoption of this Bill would lead to a most wanton and improper interference with private property. It would take away the right of occupying wharfs which extended for thirty miles on each bank of the Severn. He had taken the opinion of counsel on the subject, and he was assured that rights of the people which had existed for 700 years would be taken away by a clause which was in this Bill. He could not conceive why the Admiralty should introduce such a measure.

observed, that the Bill did not originate with the Admiralty. It contained no enacting powers, but was merely intended to consolidate Acts already in existence. He hoped to be able to introduce a clause which would meet the objections of his hon. Friend, and save all existing rights.