said, that in the colonial circular of the Colonial Emigration Commission he had seen a number of extracts from the reports of the emigration agents resident in the colonies, who all concurred in representing the great de- mand that there was for labour in the colonies at present, and the additional facilities there would be for finding employment for labour if they should be furnished with a supply of it, and asked if the Government would lay on the Table the whole of the despatches from which these extracts had been published, and whether any additional reports had reached them to the same effect?

explained, that all the despatches from Canada, from which the extracts referred to by the hon. Baronet had been made, were already on the Table. With respect to the other reports, namely, those from Australia and the other colonies, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole of the despatches had been carefully examined and extracted from; and he was satisfied there was nothing more of any value on this subject stated in those despatches. Papers had been already ordered by the House which would contain further information; and between them and the papers on the Table, the hon. Baronet would now have all the information that it was possible for him to have on this question.

said, that the English Church at Alexandria, a site for building which had been granted by the Pasha, and the building of which was at a stand-still at present for want of funds, was in this situation, that a moderate estimate having been presented to the late Government of the probable expense of the building, and the English residents having subscribed a certain sum, the late Government, acting on the rule that had been laid down, authorized the advance of a certain proportionate sum. Certain parties there had, however, thrown aside that moderate estimate, and embarked in a more expensive plan, and the consequence was, that they had not only got through all the money which the late Government granted, but had got into debt; and they now were waiting a further sum to be advanced. The question was under the consideration of the Government, whether there were any grounds for making any further advances, as the local subscriptions formed but a very small portion of the sum which was necessary to defray the remaining expenses of building this church.

wished to put a question with respect to the contents of a petition which he had presented the other day from the parish of St. James, Westminster. It appeared that doubts had arisen respecting the interpretation of the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act with regard to non-resident paupers. The guardians of that parish had ordered relief to non-resident poor, on which the Poor Law Commissioners had written them a letter, censuring their conduct, and giving them to understand that they might be personally liable for the amount of rates so expended. He wished to know whether the Poor Law Commissioners had the authority of the Secretary of the Home Department for that censure?

replied, that no direct authority had been asked or obtained. The Poor Law Commissioners had obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this point, and having done that, had communicated it to the board of guardians of St. James's; and they had pointed out, he had no doubt, in this case, as they did in others, what would be the legal consequences, as they had been advised, of the guardians acting as they had done in this respect, and what ought to be the course of the guardians in future.

said, it was of some importance to learn from the Government what was the principle on which the dismissal of labourers from the public works in Ireland, as at present pursued, was founded. From the letter of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, he had been led to conclude that the dismissal could not take place until the other measures of the Government had come into operation. It now, appeared, however, that in many parts of Ireland the labourers had been dismissed in very great numbers before the measures for temporary relief came into operation at all. He had a letter from a Protestant clergyman in the county of Limerick, who was himself an active member of a relief committee, and who stated that in his district the Government officers had dismissed not only 20 per cent, but all the labourers from off the works; and the consequence would be, that they would be starved to death; that he had inferred from Mr. Labouchere's reply that such was not the intention of the Government, but that some had been dis- missed who had no means of subsistence but their daily labour, and that as there were no resident gentry, there was, consequently, no relief to be had from private employment. No one could justly object to the original principle laid down by the Government for conducting the dismissals upon; but then it ought to be carefully carried out. If the people dismissed had nothing to give wherewith to obtain food but their labour, and there was no private employment to be had, the consequence might be their death by starvation.

said, what he stated on a former occasion, and what he was now prepared to repeat, was this: Her Majesty's Government were satisfied, after the best inquiry they were able to make upon the subject, that it was expedient and proper that on a certain day the number of persons employed on the public works throughout Ireland should be reduced by twenty per cent. They thought that was a stop which, upon their responsibility, they were bound to adopt, and in that respect they left no discretion whatever with any one connected with the Irish Government; but the rule laid down was this—they required that twenty per cent should be reduced on the aggregate number of the persons employed throughout the whole of Ireland, leaving to the Board of Works in Ireland a discretion as to whether in each particular instance that precise number should be the proportion to be reduced or not. The Board of Works in Ireland thought they should best meet the views of the Government by striking off twenty per cent from the number of persons employed in each district; but it was not the case that that rule had been applied strictly and invariably on every public work in Ireland; and as a proof that such was the case, he would read an extract from a report which had been received from Captain O'Brien, the inspecting officer for Clare, and which was dated the 20th March instant. The right hon. Gentleman read the following extract:—

"As in some districts the numbers hitherto employed are much less than in others, it would be unjust to strike off the same per centage from all. I have, therefore, directed that the numbers in each district shall be reduced to a certain proportion of the population, so that at least twenty per cent will be reduced on the whole."

That was the manner in which this officer considered himself justified in acting under the order given. He reduced the number—if he (Mr. Labouchere) understood the extract rightly—by twenty per cent on the whole population employed in the district of which he was in charge; but he did not think it necessary to reduce the number on each particular public work in that precise proportion. He had the satisfaction to be able to state, that on the whole, considering the immense difficulty of a change of this description, the reduction had been carried into effect in Ireland in the most satisfactory manner. He believed that in one or two places alone had there been the slightest appearance of disturbance; and he had received the strongest assurances from various parts of the country that not only had the alteration been effected without disturbance, but without detriment to the interests of the people, and in a manner tending materially to the promotion of the cultivation of the soil. It was an undoubted fact that in many places people had got employment on the public works who never ought to have been placed there; and he believed the result of the recent change was, that these persons had been struck off the works, and that the intention of Her Majesty's Government in giving that order had been realized by its results. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Government had engaged that those persons should not be struck off the public works until the new Act had been brought fully into operation by the local committees. He believed, if the Government had made any such statement, they would have acted most improperly. They could not disguise from themselves the fact that in most parts of Ireland a great preference was shown for the public works over the new relief system; and if Her Majesty's Government had made such an announcement as that attributed to them by the hon. Gentleman, the greatest delay would assuredly have taken place in bringing the now Act into operation. But in reference to this part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he would read a letter that had been received that day, addressed from Colonel Jones, the chairman of the Board of Works, to Mr. Trevelyan:—

"Upon reading the Dublin journals, it would be supposed that the men discharged from the works had been deprived in an instant of their daily food; the fact is that they were not entitled to be paid until the Tuesday or Wednesday following, and the payments so made were to be their means of securing subsistence for another week, so that with the time between the publishing of the order, and the moment when the money would be expended, ample time was afforded for procuring other employment, or for the electoral division committees to have made the necessary preparations for supplying the destitute with food."

He trusted the House would be satisfied that as much consideration had been shown for the people as it was in their power to bestow; and he had the satisfaction to think that on the whole this great reduction had been carried into effect with as little temporary suffering and embarrassment as possible. There was only one point more in the statement of the hon. Gentleman to which he would advert. The hon. Gentleman said there was no means of finishing and completing the works that had been commenced. Such was not the case. At this very moment presentments passed at the sessions had been sent over to this country, and were receiving the concurrence of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that no means existed whereby the works now in progress could be completed. On the contrary, the only alteration made was that the presentments made by the sessions were not any longer to be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant on his own authority, but were sent over for the sanction and approval of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

wished to learn if he understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly in believing him to have stated on a former occasion that the public works would be suspended altogether when the relief committees were in operation. He would like to know, in such an event, how the people were to get employment in June and July, a period of the year when there was little or no agricultural labour to be had. He should also wish to know if it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to establish the system of soup-kitchens in each electoral division throughout Ireland. He would take the liberty of submitting to them a much more advantageous and much better system. He knew from his own experience that the difficulties were almost insurmountable, and in some mountainous and remote districts he might say that they were of a nature impossible to be overcome, in getting houses large enough to be converted into these kitchens, and in procuring boilers and other utensils, and in getting farmers on whom they could place sufficient confidence to conduct the arrangements. Besides, if bread was to be given with the soup, they should build ovens, as there were no ovens in the country at present available for the purpose. By the plan which he would venture to recommend, one pound of rice well boiled in three quarts of water, with the addition of a small quantity of meat, would make thirteen or fourteen pounds of good food.

said, in answer to the first question of the hon. Baronet, he had to state that it was the intention of the Government, as soon as the new Act was in operation, to reduce still farther the number of persons employed on the public works. With regard to the other question, he would say that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the relief should not be confined to soup; but the whole question of the manner in which relief could be best afforded to the people had been put into the hands of the Relief Commissioners, and he had no doubt but the best arrangements would be adopted by them. If the hon. Baronet was going over to Dublin, he was sure the Commissioners would be very happy to confer with him on the subject which he had mentioned.

I congratulate the House upon, the convalescence of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and at the same time I must express my regret at his recent absence, for it compelled me to postpone the question which I intended to put to him upon two former occasions. And as the Order of the Day is now not upon going into a Committee of Supply, but upon going into Committee upon a question of domestic policy, I should not be in order, I should be out of order, if I moved for the production of the papers of which I have given notice. Under these circumstances, therefore, in putting the question to the noble Lord which I am now about to put, I trust the House will allow me to say just so many words, and no more, as will make that question intelligible. The point to which I am desirous of directing the attention of the noble Lord is limited to one single fact—and if that fact stood alone, in the age and country in which it occurred, and which it has disgraced, it would carry with it its own antidote; for its atrocity would forbid imitation, and would necessarily limit its influence within the circle of its immediate and more direct action. But the fact, though single, is not solitary. It is only one of the thousand indicia of vice which take place in revolution, and which are so inseparably associated with the machinery of that dynasty, with regard to which it will shortly be no longer possible to conceal from Europe, that so long as that dynasty is permitted to remain upon the stage, such atrocities will continue to shock and to degrade mankind. That to which I will now at once proceed to direct the attention of the noble Lord is a proclamation issued by the late Commandant of Catalonia, under the Government of the Queen of Spain. It is dated "Barcelona, March 4," and it begins—

"The exertions and fatigues of the brave troops of this army will be incompetent to the extermination of the hordes of Vandals who have raised anew their banner of blood, with a view to reproduce the disasters of the last war, so long as these hordes shall find in the country that shelter and protection which can alone save them from the pursuit of our indefatigable columns."

So these "hordes of Vandals" are said to be protected by the peaceful people of the country. A question, therefore, arises for the consideration of the noble Lord, whether he would be able to do what General Breton has not been able to do—to draw a line of demarcation between these "hordes who are raising anew the banner of blood," and the peaceful, honest, and industrious people of the country. I assert, however, that there is no such distinction existing; and, speaking from this place as a Member of the British House of Commons, I state that at the time when this protection and shelter is said to have been given, not a musket had been fired, not a band formed, not an act in the shape of insurrection committed by any class of men, or under any banner, bloody or otherwise, in the name of the Conde de Montemolin; or, I may add, of any other person. This proclamation bears date the 4th of March and it thus proceeds:—

"I therefore ordain as follows:—

"The punishment of death shall be summarily inflicted—

"1. Upon every person who shall be taken, with or without arms, if accompanying any of the rebel bands.

"2. Upon all spies.

"3. Upon every individual detected in carrying letters or despatches for the rebels."

I pass over some other items which, if the country were under martial law, would be regular and usual. But I object to the application of martial law in the case. Nothing has occurred to justify it; but if the country were in a state of martial law, I should have no objection to the 6th or 7th items. But I come to the 8th, and against its cruelty I most loudly protest:—

"8. Upon every person who shall receive or conceal in his house, without giving information, any of the wounded or fugitives of the rebel forces."

The "wounded," it must not be forgotten, of persons who carry no arms! But it proceeds:—

"II. The alcaldes and judges of the towns shall continually keep some person on the lookout upon the steeple or other elevated position in their respective towns, or in the environs, if there be no commanding situation in the town itself. The watch, so soon as he may observe any suspicious assemblage, shall give notice to the authorities. Surprise being thus rendered impossible, the plea of it will not be accepted as an excuse for the alcaldes or judges, who will be subjected to the strictest responsibility, involving penalties that may, under particular circumstances, include that of death.

"III. The alcalde, having received information that a band is in sight, shall give immediate notice of the fact to the nearest column, fortified post, or town: and the tocsin shall be sounded without delay.

"IV. The same obligation is imposed on all proprietors of country houses.

"V. So soon as a detachment of the enemy shall have appeared, the commandant-general of the province shall order all hermitages and chapels generally to be closed.

"VI. The alcaldes and judges shall be careful that no person above the age of fourteen shall quit his home without permission of the authorities.

"VII. If any adult shall leave his home to join the ranks of the rebels, the alcalde must give immediate information to the commandant-general of the province, who shall order that the father and mother, guardians, or relations (in case they should have influenced the adult to the commission of this crime by their advice or otherwise) be forthwith arrested and placed at the disposal of the Council of War. This tribunal shall try them, and inflict even the penalty of death, if they be found to have deserved it. Masters of apprentices and of young servants shall be liable to the same punishment.

"I reserve to myself the right to decide to what extent a town or population shall be considered guilty who may have permitted the presence of any factious band without offering resistance, and to inflict a heavy fine or some other more severe punishment, on the Ayuntamiento,

(Signed) "MANUEL BRETON.

"Barcelona, March 4."

I know perfectly well that it will be said, "But proof of the offences must be given before a council of war;" but this House will not have forgotten the fate of the mother of General Cabrera, at that time a young man, and a sudent in the university, who was shot because her son had left the university, and she was not able to say whither he had gone. The perpetrator of that foul and atrocious act was Nogueras, and the Government of the Queen promoted Nogueras. General Mina sanctioned it, and in his turn the Government promoted him. So we must read this proclamation, not with English but with Spanish eyes, and think of its force when it is addressed to the subjects of Isabella the Second. Queen Isabella is, unhappily, the ally of this country; and I cannot therefore call upon the noble Lord to do more than to use the weight of his great influence, and to remonstrate against such atrocities. But the important point is, that it is high time, before another day passes, that that influence should be used to prevent the recurrence of such barbarities. For there is but one thing that prevents the Spanish nation themselves from taking the vengeance which these barbarities would almost justify, and that is, the forbearance of the great majority of the people, who are devoted to him whom they believe to be their legitimate King, and, who, in obedience to his commands, refuse to retort by reprisals. To prove this I will read, not a proclamation, but a circular, dated London, 10th March, addressed by the Conde de Montemolin to his friends in Spain. The former proclamation which I have read is dated on the 4th of March, and did not appear in the London papers until the 17th. The Conde do Montemolin did not, therefore, know of the proclamation of the 10th; but having heard of the intention of the Government of the Queen to renew those barbarities, he thought it right to make public the following manifesto:—

"It has been brought to the knowledge of his Majesty, that the Government of Madrid proposes to adopt towards those who so heroically defend his just rights measures of extreme rigour, and even of atrocity, to oblige his friends, by such means, to imitate, in reprisals, the brutal conduct of their adversaries, and so to bring discredit on his Majesty's cause. Envious of the praiseworthy conduct of those chiefs who have hastened to anticipate the campaign, they fear, and not without reason, the effects and the adhesions which, not only among the mass of the population, but even among their own troops, are produced by such perfect order and admirable moderation.

"Such effects, when resulting from such causes, his Majesty desires not to forego, even should they involve on his part the greatest sacrifices.

"I am therefore commanded by his Majesty to impress upon you, that, be the conduct of the enemy what it may, you must on no account whatsoever make any reprisals. To all the atrocities which the enemy may commit, you must oppose only that steady discipline, order, moderation, and conciliation, winch his Majesty has so often and so anxiously recommended, in order that the guilt and opprobrium of the hateful acts which they only perpetrate may weigh upon themselves alone; and that Spain and Europe, judging strictly by the facts, may fix the responsibility on those to whom it truly belongs.

"In this manner you will augment your ranks; you will merit the approbation of the people whose guardians and protectors you will be; and the enemy, far from finding assistance and succour, will encounter only disgrace and defeat.

"His Majesty's desire is, that his arms may shine with the lustre of true valour, which is never separated from virtue and humanity, and that they should be employed against no enemies except those who oppose resistance in the open field of battle.

"God preserve your Excellency many years, &c.

"By royal order,

(A true copy.) (Signed) "MON.

"London, March 10, 1847."

I do not ask the noble Lord to become a partisan, or to interfere in any question of Spanish dynasties; but I wish to bring under his consideration the fact that, by the instrumentality of those gentlemen, to whose petition the noble Lord the Member for Lynn intends to call the attention of the House, and who assisted a foreign Government that they might turn to better account their idle money—that by means of English money that Government is disgracing Europe—is disgracing the name of Prince—nay, more, is even disgracing the name of woman! I allude not to that unhappy woman—to that unfortunate Princess—who is rather the victim than the agent of these enormities; but I allude to her ill-intentioned advisors, who with power derived from money which the lenders are now asking—I trust in vain asking—to be returned, have sacrificed their own honour, and the honour of their country, to their ambition, cruelty, and lust. My business is to ask the noble Lord to speak effectively; to say to this tide of horrid barbarity, "Hitherto hast thou come, but thy dark waves shall proceed no further." This it is in the power of the noble Lord to do. I doubt not that he will be willing to exert his power. It was my wish to have entered into the full merits of this question; but the Orders of the House forbid me, and I must rest contented with this brief and inadequate statement. I must not ask the permission of the House to read any other documents of the Conde de Montemolin; but if it be said that the circular I have read was written in London, and was dictated by the Conde de Montemolin at a time when an opposition to such barbarities would be sure to excite popularity, I hold in my hand his original proclamation—issued at that memorable time when his illustrious Father had just signed the abdication of all his rights. It breathes the very same sentiments:—

"Spaniards—The new position in which I am placed by the renunciation of his rights to the Crown of Spain made in my favour by my august Father, imposes upon me the duty of addressing you. But do not believe that I am about to cast amongst you a torch of discord. Enough of tears and of blood. My heart is oppressed by the bare remembrance of past calamities, and shrinks from the very idea of their recurrence.

"The events of former years may not unnaturally have left on some minds the impression that I am animated by the desire of avenging past injuries. My breast can harbour no such sentiments. If Divine Providence shall be pleased to open to me once again the portals of my country, I shall know no parties—I shall recognise only Spaniards.

"In the fluctuations of the revolution, eventful changes have taken place in the social and political organization of Spain; some of these, undoubtedly, both as a Prince and a Spaniard, I could not but deplore. But they are deceived who imagine me ignorant of the true situation of affairs, and desirous of attempting what is impossible. I know well, on the contrary, that the best means of avoiding the repetition of revolutions, is neither to attempt the destruction of all which they have created, nor yet the re-establishment of all which they have destroyed. Justice, without violence, reparation without reaction; the prudent and equitable adjustment of all interests; to profit by all the good which our forefathers have left us, without opposing the spirit of the times, as far as it contains what is salutary—this is my policy.

"There is in the royal family a question which sprung up at the end of the reign of my august uncle Ferdinand VII. (may he rest in peace!) and which provoked the civil war. I cannot forget the dignity of my birth nor the interests of my august family; but I at once assure you, Spaniards, that the fault will not be mine if this division is not terminated for ever. There is no sacrifice compatible with my conscience and my honour to which I am not ready to submit, if by such means I may put an end to civil discords, and accelerate the reconciliation of the royal family.

"If Heaven should vouchsafe to me the happiness to tread again the soil of my country, I shall desire no other shield than your loyalty and your love. I desire nothing more than to devote my life to the obliteration of every trace of past discords, and to the establishment among you of union, prosperity, and happiness.

"This will not be difficult for me if, as I hope, you will aid my earnest desires by endeavours worthy of your national character, by your love and reverence for the holy religion of our fathers, and with that magnanimity which rendered you so prodigal of life whenever it could be no longer preserved with honour.

(Signed) "CARLOS LOUIS.

"Bourges, 23rd May, 1845."

Fourteen years experience proves the truth of that with which I set out. From year to year, and from month to month, these facts have returned. There has been no single exception. No Minister has been an exception. Europe has been startled, and Spain has been degraded, by horrors the most atrocious and revolting. I deprecate those horrors, and I am sure the noble Lord will deprecate them as loudly as I do. It might be tempting to me to recur to former Parliaments and other years, in the course of which predictions were made by me, which at least do not exceed the truth. But in such triumphs of foresight or of opinion I have no pleasure—I take no pride. I only wish that the noble Lord, seeing the character of the two proclamations, "looking on this picture and on this," without taking any dynastic part in the affairs of Spain, would pronounce a voice in favour of justice, humanity, and truth. For even with the devoted loyalty, love, and affection towards him whom they believe and know to be their righteous Sovereign, it will be impossible for his endeavours to restrain the Spanish nation long from that vengeance which is natural when they see their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, butchered for no crime except it is adhesion to the interests of their country. The question which I have to put to the noble Lord is, whether the Government of Great Britain have addressed any remonstrance to the Government of Spain in consequence of this proclamation of General Breton; and if so, whether the noble Lord will have any objection to lay it upon the Table? If it is said that the author of that proclamation has been recalled—if the noble Lord refers to the Barcellonaise—a Barcelona paper—of the 15th of March, and to the Clamor Publico, published in Madrid on the 18th, he will find that the successor of General Breton has confirmed all the provisions of that detestable proclamation.

Sir, in giving an answer to the questions of the hon. Member, I beg to state that I have no official knowledge whatever of the proclamation which he has brought under the notice of the House. Indeed, the first knowledge that I had of such a proclamation being issued was from the hon. Gentleman himself, who had the goodness to send me an extract from a newspaper containing it. Of course no steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government on the subject: but if the hon. Gentleman or the House wishes to know the sentiments of the Government with regard to the order which he has read, I think that every Member present need only consult his own opinions in order to know the disapprobation, disgust, and indignation, which such a barbarous proclamation as that inspires in the mind of every Member of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member has read a document in contrast with it, which, no doubt, is highly honourable to the Prince whom he considers best entitled to the throne of Spain. And as far as moderation and the humane principles contained in that proclamation which he has read are concerned, it certainly contrasts strongly with the savage tone and intention of the proclamation of General Breton. As the hon. Gentleman said, General Breton is no longer in the office which he held when he issued this proclamation; but I was not aware that General Pavia, his successor, had adopted it. As far as any influence of the British Government can go, the hon. Member may rest assured that our object has always been, in any advice which we felt ourselves competent to give to the Spanish Government, to impress upon them the necessity of acting upon a humane and not a barbarous policy; and that any advice we may give will be actuated by that sense alone. At the same time, when we are considering, as the hon. Member has called upon the House to consider, where the greatest degree of blame and censure should be cast for this sort of atrocious practices, it is right the House should bear in mind that these practices are not of such recent date. It is impossible for the House to have forgotten the Durango decree. Although the hon. Member has wished to represent that these atrocities were committed entirely by the troops serving upon the side of the Queen, in point of fact they have been committed by both sides, only with this difference, that whilst Don Carlos was in Spain, there was nothing corresponding to them on the part of the officers of the Queen. But, Sir, it was not only at that period that the barbarous practice of shooting prisoners was adopted, because in the days of Ferdinand, according to the absolutist doctrines, which are no longer professed by that party, it was adopted. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman, it would, in my opinion, be extremely irregular to enter into a discussion upon the subject which it involves. I have only to express my admiration of the general tone of moderation in which the circular or proclamation he has read is couched; but I cannot, at the same time, refrain from expressing my regret at some expressions and at some indications contained in that document. That circular or proclamation talks of "ranks" and "arms," of "the open field of battle," and of "the enemy;" I those expressions are indications that the person by whom the proclamation is issued means again to render his native land a scene of that discord which the hon. Member says he wishes to prevent. That proclamation seems to me, if it mean anything, to mean this, that we are to expect Spain again to be the theatre of civil war; originating from, and carried on by, the adherents of that party of which that Prince is the chief. Sir, I should be most sorry, indeed, if such a result were to take place; and I must say, that, judging from the conduct which that Spanish Prince has pursued since he has been prominently before the public eye, if this course be pursued by his friends, and if through the partisans of his family Spain is again made the scene of a bloody civil war—I should say, judging from what has been seen of the character and conduct of that Prince—such a course would not meet his approbation or his sanction; and I should hope any person in this country who may have the means of giving advice to that illustrious individual would use their influence with him to induce him to restrain his followers, and prevent Spain from being again exposed to those calamities which have resulted to it during former civil wars.

participated in the wish expressed by the noble Lord that Spain should not again be the theatre of a civil war, and did not wish to impute to the hon. Member who had introduced the subject any intention of promoting such a design. But it was due to his own character not to sit silent when he heard general remarks, even incidentally, from the noble Lord, which might seem to impute indiscriminate conduct of the kind he had condemned to all those who bore arms during the last civil war. He arrived in Spain immediately after the Elliot Convention, and he continued to serve there during the whole period of his engagement—namely, two years. With regard to the observations thrown out by the noble Lord, as if both parties had been equally criminal, he was bound to say, and he could state it upon his honour, that to his knowlege not one of the general officers serving under the Queen, who were in co-operation with him, were otherwise than most anxious, throughout the whole of those two years, to carry the Elliot Convention into effect. From private conversations with the officers themselves, and from his own personal knowledge—for he was aware of their actions—he repeated, he did not believe that any one of the Spanish gene- rals serving Her Majesty Queen Isabella had violated that convention during the whole time he served with them. With reference to himself, it was notorious that he had not only observed the treaty, but by observing it he even suffered murders and assassinations—for they were nothing else—to be committed upon our fellow-subjects, in direct violation of the convention. It was, therefore, rather extraordinary to hear the representatives of a fallen dynasty—for it was fallen—plume themselves upon their peculiar humanity. He did not mean to deny that great outrages had been committed by both parties during some periods of the civil war; but as to that in the Basque provinces, whilst he was there, he could bear testimony that the general officers of the Queen were anxious to humanize it, and they had not in the slightest degree subjected themselves to reproach. As to his own conduct, in consequence of the Durango decree, he was sorry to say, that, not having been sufficiently discountenanced as it should have been by either Government—for he always thought both the Spanish and the English Governments should have stepped in and protected British subjects from such barbarous treatment—he, as an individual, could not take upon himself the responsibility of avenging the cruel punishments inflicted under it, seeing that he was supported by neither Government. He was, therefore, obliged to conduct his operations with more caution, so as to protect the lives of the officers and men under his command, and to see that they did not undertake any operations which might expose them to the danger of falling into the enemy's hands. The consequence was, that in the two years, during which he was being constantly denounced in that House, not one detachment, not so much as a sergeant's guard, were taken prisoners from his troops. But some individuals, by falling back from the column, were caught hold of or kidnapped: they numbered about forty during the two years, and they were murdered in a cruel and cowardly manner, under the authority of those officers who were now ready to hoist the standard of the Count de Montemolin in Spain. He repeated once more, that it was too much for these gentlemen to plume themselves now upon their humane mode of conducting their part of the civil war in that country. And what had been the eventual result of his proceedings? Why, that he had himself one ground of vindication which was to him a matter of the highest satis- faction. On one occasion he took 1,000 prisoners and 100 officers. He had these men in his hands, with the full power of putting every one of them to death, in retaliation for the atrocities upon the other side; but he did not use his power. The consequence was, those officers addressed a letter to Don Carlos, deploring the atrocities to which they had previously been parties towards some of his (Sir De Lacy Evans's) men; beseeching Don Carlos to change the conduct which he had adopted during the war, and to treat in future the prisoners who would fall into his hands with humanity. He said, then, that in this letter to Don Carlos, which was afterwards applauded by his most violent opponents, he had his vindication and satisfaction. But he would go further. After he left Spain, what had been the effect of this address — an address which surely ought to have produced some change in the counsels of Don Carlos? Why, that a hundred men, who had re-enlisted in the Spanish army after he had left the country, were taken prisoners, and every one put to death. This was his vindication; and it was his answer to the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the subject.

said, when the gallant Gentleman, an English officer, took credit to himself for not causing 1,000 soldiers and 100 officers to be put to death in cold blood, he should recollect that the troops thus spared had been taken prisoners while fighting for what they believed the claims of their rightful Sovereign, and the true interests of their native country; while the troops the gallant Gentleman had commanded were engaged in an unscrupulous and unprincipled invasion, and were fighting in a cause in which they had no legitimate interest or concern. With pleasure he turned from the gallant Gentleman to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), and he trusted that the tone and spirit the noble Lord had exhibited would be imitated. With reference to the illustrious Prince alluded to by the noble Lord, he believed that everything that had fallen from the noble Lord would be received by the Prince with respect and deference. He trusted that what had fallen from the noble Lord would have the effect of inducing the officers of the Queen of Spain to act upon principles more humane than those expressed in the proclamation referred to as recently issued, and that there would be, not only in Spain, but throughout Europe, one feeling of horror and detestation against any set of men, or any Government, perpetrating such monstrosities.

wished to ask the noble Lord, whether it was according to the true construction of international laws, that a proclamation denouncing civil war in a foreign country, should be permitted to be put forth by a person who was at the time receiving the hospitality of this country?

wished to explain. He thought he had very cautiously guarded himself in every word he said against any possible allusion, however remote, to the conduct of either the one side or the other in the late civil war in Spain. He had not one word of blame to cast upon the gallant Officer; and those who remembered what passed during the absence in Spain of the gallant Officer, would acquit him of ever having said one word inconsistent with the respect for the gallant Officer which he had always entertained for him. He did not say one syllabic against the gallant Officer or any one else. He meant himself to say that the observations to which he had given utterance, referred to the conduct of the Count de Montemolin and the present state of Spain, and that the proclamation which he read to the House had been misconstrued by the gallant Officer. He would leave the noble Lord to answer the gallant Officer as he thought proper; but he (Mr. Borthwick) must explain that the proclamation which he read did not threaten to make war, but, on the contrary, forbade the partisans of the Count de Montemolin in Spain from making any reprisals when war was made on them.

said, that in answer to his gallant Friend he would state, that it would be a great abuse of the hospitality which this country afforded to all foreigners, whatever might be their rank or title, who chose to reside here, to issue proclamations or publications intending to excite war in friendly foreign States.

wished to renew the inquiry he had made a few days previously on the subject of the mortality in Ireland. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland whether he had made any serious and energetic efforts to obtain a comparative return of the number of deaths which had occurred this year with those which had occurred in previous years? He had already shown the right hon. Gentleman a letter which he had that day received from Ireland, and when he stated from whom it came, the House would not doubt the authority of the writer upon this subject. It would be in the recollection of the House, that at first it was denied that the Protestant clergy of Ireland kept any registry of the deaths. When it appeared that that was an entirely incorrect assumption, it was replied to him that it was not possible to obtain a return of the number of deaths which had occurred in the flocks of the Roman Catholic clergy. He had that day received a letter from John, archbishop of Tuam; and when he read it, he thought the House would be satisfied that there was no difficulty, if the Government desired it, of obtaining a return of the number of deaths in the flocks of the Roman Catholic clergy. The letter was to this effect:—

"The return your Lordship requires of the number of deaths that have occurred from, say the 1st of January, of this year, to the 25th of March, can be supplied by the Roman Catholic clergy, and signed by the medical attendant in the locality. But, alas! contrasted with the number of deaths that occurred within the same period of other years, it will show 20 to 1, at the least, this year, more than in any preceding it. The names of the persons can also be given."

He, therefore, begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared or not to send a circular to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, asking for a comparative return of the mortality that had occurred in the period he had before named?

said, that upon a former occasion, when the noble Lord had introduced this subject, he had stated that he was not at all prepared to deny the unfortunate fact, that a great mortality had occurred in Ireland, owing to the distressed condition of that country. He also stated that as far as any accurate information could be procured on that subject, he had no objection to produce it, and that the Government had consented to refer to the coroners' inquests in the different parts of the country, and also to the constabulary, to obtain, as far as they could, that information; but he stated also, that he thought on this subject that from sources of such a vague and conjectural character the accuracy of the information could not be relied on. The noble Lord spoke of obtaining the return through the means of the Protestant clergy, who kept a registry of burials. In consequence of what the noble Lord said upon that occasion, he wrote to Ireland for information on the subject; and he had that morning received from Mr. Redington a communication which showed that he was not wrong as to the great difficulty of obtaining information through the means of the Protestant clergy. Mr. Redington said—

"I have since seen Dr. Hinds, and he says, that 'he does not consider that the registry of deaths kept by the incumbent of each parish could be relied on, as he is aware that it is most imperfect in many places. Moreover, it would be a register only of those interred in the yard adjoining the church, and would not contain any notice of interments made in open churchyards (the principal places of interment in Ireland), and, in fact, it would be quite defective.'"

He thought the noble Lord would agree with him that a return of this kind would be most unsatisfactory, and answer no purpose. The noble Lord now called his attention to the possibility of obtaining a return of the same kind through the medium of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. It must be observed that they were not public functionaries in the same sense as the clergy of the Established Church; and he presumed that the Government had no power of enforcing a return. When, too, the subject was discussed in that House, several Roman Catholic Members rose in their places and said that those returns could not be relied on. The noble Lord, therefore, could not be surprised if he doubted the possibility of procuring, by such means, the information the noble Lord required. He would say, however, that in consequence of the letter which the noble Lord read, he would again make inquiry, and endeavour to find out whether, through the medium of the Roman Catholic clergy, it were possible or practicable to obtain returns on this subject, the accuracy of which could be relied on. He confessed that he greatly doubted it, and he was confirmed in that by several Roman Catholic Members with whom he had conversed on the subject. He assured the noble Lord that any opposition which he appeared to make to any suggestions originated on this subject, did not proceed from any desire to prevent that House from obtaining accurate information, but from the belief he entertained that none could be had upon the accuracy of which they could rely.

held in his hand a letter from a rector, in which that gentleman took notice of a statement made in Parliament to the effect that there existed no means whatever of ascertaining, with accuracy, the number of deaths which took place in any part of Ireland during any given period. The writer of the letter considered such statement to be exceedingly strange, and denied that it had any foundation.

wished to take that opportunity of saying that the returns moved for by the Members of that House occasioned a vast increase of labour in the public offices, both here and in Ireland. In Dublin, especially, there had never been known a pressure of business so severe as that which now unhappily prevailed in the offices connected with the Government. The clerks were often employed from five o'clock in the morning till eleven at night; and he hoped that when hon. Members asked for a great number of returns, comprising a great number of figures, they would bear in mind that the subordinate officers of the Government had already much more to got through than it was practicable for them to accomplish.

confirmed the statement mede by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. It was impossible for the Catholic clergy to supply information respecting the deaths of persons not belonging to their own flocks; and even as regarded their own flocks, he did not believe it was always possible for them to be perfectly accurate. Then, it was to be remembered that the Catholic clergy were under no obligation to make these returns; and he feared that, if made, they would, on the whole, not prove satisfactory.

observed, that the remark made by the noble Lord on the state of the public service might be very just; but he could not help saying, that if returns were moved for of the quantities of pigs and poultry consumed within a given time, there would not be the least objection raised to any such return. Now there was, however, a remarkable and unprecedented mortality afflicting the sister kingdom, and the difficulties placed in the way of obtaining an exact statement of the deaths appeared to be insuperable.

said, his observations applied to returns generally, and not to the particular case now under consideration.

wished to know if Dr. M'Hale should volunteer to supply those returns, whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would lay them on the Table of the House?

could have no objection to laying accurate information on the Table of the House; but he should not willingly supply to Parliament returns obtained in any unusual manner.

hoped that the Government would make it the first duty of the relief committees to take a census, contrasting the present and the former condition of the country in reference to the numbers of destitute persons. It was apparent, from several documents laid on the Table of that House, that most deplorable ignorance prevailed with regard to the condition of the people of Ireland; but, if an accurate census were made, they would no longer hear of persons dying from neglect.

said, that one of the earliest steps which the Committees were taking, was to obtain lists of the destitute poor in their respective districts: whether they would go further in that way, he was not then prepared to state.

moved the insertion of a clause, enlarging the maximum extent of land which the guardians of any union are empowered to purchase or hire and occupy with their workhouse, from twelve to two hundred acres; and likewise that any buildings hired or erected by them upon or near to such land, be considered a part of such workhouse. Then he contended that there was a degree of harshness in confining a large number of able bodied paupers in a close building, without the opportunity of out-door exercise, whereby their health might be improved, and the country benefited by their labour. There was a union near Manchester, which had often been referred to for its enterprise and good arrangement. The board of guardians had purchased and reclaimed a portion of Chat Moss by the labour of their paupers, and land which was formerly worth nothing was now worth 50s. an acre. What had been done on the bogs in England, might be done on the bogs in Ireland. The difficulty of employing the able-bodied poor in Ireland had been always great. That difficulty would be much increased now; and were they to say that the able-bodied going into the workhouse, were to be confined there in a state of idleness, their country losing their services, and themselves losing their habits of industry? He thought it most desirable that boards of guardians should be enabled to purchase 200 acres of waste land to employ their paupers upon. As soon as one 200 acres was reclaimed, it might be sold, and another lot purchased. Thus would they give to boards of guardians a greatly extended sphere of usefulness, whilst he did not see one principle upon which the plan could be opposed. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the clause be brought up.

said, he trusted the hon. Member would take the opinion of the House upon this Motion; and if he did, he (Mr. O'Brien) should certainly vote for him. He thought that great good would result in many cases from the adoption of the plan proposed. Small estates in fee would be erected, and the able-bodied pauper would be beneficially employed.

supported the Motion. Their great object was to make pauper labour productive. If they could make the pauper support himself, and at the same time add to the improvement of the country, they would do much to diminish the evils of the poor law.

entirely objected to the principle of the clause. He had before opposed the Board of Works being made the public farmers of Ireland. He thought it would be still worse to employ the boards of guardians in that capacity. The great desideratum in Ireland was to teach the labourers habits of independence and self-reliance. How would it be possible to employ paupers to a large extent in the cultivation of the soil, without in the same proportion displacing independent labour. Let the House recollect—he had often repeated the statement in the House, but it was of the very essence of the poor-law question, and bore upon it in almost every shape and variety—and that must be his excuse—that the proportion of labourers in Ireland to those in England, compared with the produce of the land, was as four to one—the average wages as 2s. 6d. a week in Ireland to 10s. in England. Would the hon. Gentleman then inform the Committee how, under such circumstances, the condition of the pauper labourer could be rendered inferior to that of the independent labourer? No one deplored more than he that such was the condition of the Irish labourer; but they must deal with the fact as it existed; and while they endeavoured to employ that surplus labour which caused it on public works, improvement of estates, reclamation of waste lands, and by every other means of independent earning to the labourer, let them avoid such a system as that proposed by the hon. Member, whereby the pauper labourer would be better fed, better housed, and better clothed than the independent labourer, and employed at lazy work, where his wages would not depend upon his exertions, else you would draw off the entire labouring population from free, industrious employment, and demoralise the whole community.

had seen much advantage derived from the employment of paupers in making clothes, and in similar occupations. Their present difficulty was, that they had a large number of paupers whom they did not know how to employ. He (Colonel Rawdon) thought they might be employed advantageously in obtaining their own subsistence, and he saw no objection to allowing boards of guardians purchasing laud and employing the paupers upon it.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud seemed to think that there was a great inconsistency in Parliament proposing a measure for the reclamation of waste lands, and yet opposing his Motion for the employment of paupers in the manner proposed by him. Now it certainly appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the clause which the hon. Member had proposed, instead of having the effect he conceived, would be the means of increasing pauperism. He was of opinion that to enable boards of guardians to employ paupers in any farm work or reclamation of waste land, coupled with that important provision of the hon. Member's that that land need not be near the workhouse, would only be to provide an extensive system of out-door relief. The hon. Member assumed the fact that they were shutting up in the workhouses a large number of able-bodied men; and he showed how absurd it was for them to do that. Now, the largest rural workhouses in Ireland held about 1,000 persons; but not one-fifth or one-sixth of those were "able-bodied," the great majority being women, children, and infirm persons. It must also be remembered that there was at present a provision by law, by which twelve acres of land contiguous to the workhouse might be used by the guardians for the employment of the inmates of the workhouse; and he was assured that, up to the present time, the guardians had not been able to cultivate even these twelve acres of land, but had been obliged to employ hired labour for the purpose. The fact was, there had been very few able-bodied men in the workhouse; and he hoped and believed that when other sources of work should be opened up to them, there would be fewer still. The present year must not be taken by any means as a criterion. When the Bill for the reclamation of waste lands should come into operation, and other measures of a similar nature, it would not be necessary for the guardians of the poor with their pauper labour to enter upon work which properly belonged to, and should be executed by, independent labour. Upon these grounds he must oppose the clause which his hon. Friend had proposed.

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) was substantially right. A few of the union workhouses contained more than 1,000 persons; but, on the average the workhouses contained less; for there were 130 workhouses accommodating about 100,000 persons. Of those there were returned 50,000 children under fifteen years of age, being the half. He believed there would be found a fourth of adult young women, who would be driven to ruin if turned out. The remainder were composed principally of the aged, sick, and infirm; so that there were but few able-bodied men in the workhouses; and, even if it were not on principle undesirable, it would be in fact impracticable, to till the quantity of land proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. P. Scrope) to be taken by the guardians, supposing him to confine the agricultural labour to those in the workhouse; but assuming, as he did, that the hon. Member meant to extend it to the class of labourers who might, under that Bill, receive out-door relief, then he repeated that that would tend to pauperise the whole labouring population.

, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), observed, that he thought the strict confinement, the workhouse diet, and the other workhouse restraints, would be quite sufficient to render the condition of the pauper inferior to that of the independent labourer.

said, that eight years' experience as a member of a board of guardians had convinced him that the proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud provided the most wholesome and practically useful method of employing the pauper that he had heard devised. Though the Irish were exclusively an agricultural people, yet there was nothing the poor was so deficient in as a practical knowledge of agricultural pursuits. He thought that deficiency might be supplied by having a farm of a moderate size attached to every rural workhouse throughout that country; and he should make those farms model farms, with the view of improving the general husbandry of the country. He did not see any one mischief that could arise from such a system. As for the paupers being better off than independent labourers, he would observe first, that the Irish did not like restraint. In addition to that, how could it be said, if men would not remain in the workhouse when they had no work to do, that they would remain when work was exacted from them? But suppose the expenditure should prove a failure. There was no risk, and could be no loss. They were not called upon to make any grant; no capital was required. The capital was in their own hands, it was the labour of the poor man whom at present they were supporting. If they failed, no loss was incurred—if they succeeded, a great benefit was to be derived, and he should most certainly vote for the clause.

said: I believe the House cannot make a greater mistake, in considering the Bill before it, than by pursuing the course of my hon. Friend behind me, who would have us consider two or three objects at the same time. When you are considering a matter of public works, it is your duty to make them as effective and useful as possible; and when you are considering a Poor Belief Bill, make it as efficient as possible; but do not aim at the accomplishment of other objects at the same time. My hon. Friend behind me wishes to make model farms—he wishes to establish a great deal of pauper labour under the conduct of the poor-law guardians, and thereby to improve the agriculture of Ireland. Now, I believe that in so doing he would fail in his object. He would neither improve agriculture nor make good model farms. He would have a number of paupers who would be inefficient labourers, employed under unskilful overseers, and would, while engaged in this object, lose the object which he had in view, namely, the relieving in the best possible manner of those people who are starving. When I say, in the best possible manner, I mean by applying a test to those to whom you give relief. I would say to the pauper, "As you are quietly starving,; and have no means of obtaining labour and wages, we will give you food, sustenance, and shelter; but it shall be on a condition that shall show you have no other resources, and are obliged to ask for this support." My hon. Friend says he does not understand why it would be at all better for a man to be confined in a workhouse, than to employ him as a pauper labourer upon farms. The reason is, as we know by experience—by very costly experience, I am sure—that confinement in the workhouse is found to be very irksome to the labourer. He does not resort to it without he is obliged to do so. If he is confined in the workhouse, he is, as it were, in a barrack; he will rather work for the greater part of the day in the fields, and return to the workhouse in the evening; he will not find it so unpleasant a life as the usual life of a hard-worked independent labourer; and he will, therefore, have resort to the workhouse when he is not actually obliged to it by necessity, and we should have evils such as have been pointed out by the Archbishop of Dublin. I do not apprehend so much evil from the working of the proposed system as he has mentioned; but I do not think, if you adopt a clause of this kind, you would give to the workhouse the character which it ought to have among the labouring population. I think the workhouse, under such a system, would become an object of resort to those who are not obliged to resort to it for their sustenance. I must repeat, that I think, when you are considering the question of poor relief, you had better consider what is the best system of affording relief to the poor of Ireland, and that the question of agricultural relief, or the establishment of model farms, should be entirely a subject of a separate measure. I think that you had better confine this measure to that object for which it is intended.

concurred in the views of the noble Lord as to the desirableness of confining this measure to its original object; but he might observe, that, in addition to the instance which the hon. Member for Strond (Mr. Scrope) had brought forward, there was another union in this country with which he (Col. Rolleston) was acquainted, in which the guardians had employed a portion of their able-bodied men on a farm attached to the workhouse; and he knew that the best results had followed. He was not prepared to go to the extent of the hon. Gentleman; but he should willingly support a modified system of farming in connexion with the workhouses. The union in England to which he alluded, employed between thirty and forty able-bodied persons on their farm, and found the system to work economically and beneficially: not only men, but young women and boys, were employed on the farm. He hoped that steps would be hereafter taken by the Legislature to carry out, on a modified scale, the proposals of the hon. Member for Stroud, as he was convinced that Ireland would be greatly benefited by such a scheme.

could not accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud, because he believed that it would act prejudicially towards Ireland. It would have a tendency to destroy an independent spirit upon the part of the labouring classes of Ireland. Besides the fallacious scheme of the hon. Member for Stroud, there was another fallacy which appeared to him to be equally dangerous—he alluded to the doctrine which had been laid down as to the duty of the Government to feed the people, irrespective of any effort on the part of the people to feed themselves. But while he said that, he wished it to be understood that he was prepared to second the views of the hon. Member for Stroud on a modified scale, because he considered it to be preferable to what was called the workhouse system of the country—he was convinced that many evils resulted from continual confinement in the workhouses, which became a species of gaol to the people. He would not say that the evils flowing from continual confinement in the workhouse were as great as those which attended confinement in gaols; but, to a great extent, the same evils, the same corruption of morals, certainly did result from the present workhouse system. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would object to alter the clause as regarded the number of acres to be attached to the workhouses? He would suggest that the number be extended from twelve to twenty-five acres, or some such number. If the ground attached to a workhouse were extended to some such number as twenty-five acres, there would be an opportunity of establishing extensive industrial training schools. He believed that schools of that nature were at present attached to the workhouses in Ireland. Practical instruction in agriculture, &c., might be given to the able-bodied inmates of the workhouses, from which the most beneficial results would flow. At present the boards of guardians were not allowed to exercise sufficient discretion as to the parties to whom they gave encouragement. They ought to be allowed, as regarded employment in the gardens attached to workhouses, to confine their encouragement to persons of good character.

was most anxious to see the attention of the Government directed to the great advantages which might be derived from the establishment of agricultural schools; but he did not think the workhouses were exactly the places to turn into such schools. It had been truly said that the Irish labourer entertained an indisposition to enter the workhouse, and he hoped that such a disinclination would long continue to characterize him.

said, that some hon. Members appeared to have misunderstood his suggestion. His object was that they should use the capital they were about to apply in the best possible manner. He had no doubt that the labour out of the workhouse would be of a superior description to that performed by the inmates of such an establishment; nor did he suppose that the farms to which he had alluded could be made model farms of the best description. They ought, in his opinion, to make the best they could of the capital to be employed; and he thought, at all events, an option might be given to the guardians to take more land than that which each union possessed at present in any case when the guardians thought fit.

objected to any increase in the number of acres, as he feared that great manœuvring would take place between the guardians if the number were increased; they might play into each other's hands with regard to the purchase of the land. He objected to the clause of the hon. Member for Stroud, as he believed that it would induce a great many able-bodied labourers to apply for parochial relief who would otherwise be content to employ themselves in out-door work without trouble to the unions.

said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud was entirely different to that of the hon. Gentleman be- hind him (Sir W. James). He would take into consideration whether it would be prudent to give the boards of guardians power to attach more than twelve acres to the workhouses of their unions; and, if he approved of the proposal, he would be prepared with an additional clause to that effect when the Bill arrived at its last stage.

said, that it was intended that three acres should be allotted to each workhouse for the purpose of erecting a fever hospital. Those three acres would be quite distinct from the twelve acres to be attached to the workhouse for other purposes.

, in reply, said, that he did not seek by his clause for any increase in the number of acres. He would not trouble the Committee by asking them to divide upon his proposal; but, before he sat down, he wished to say this, that the whole of the arguments on this question seemed to him to consist of the invidious use of the term "pauper labourer;" but he must say, that he thought that pauper labour was better than pauper idleness.

moved the insertion of the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, that if it shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the board of guardians, at any time, that any occupier of land within such union, rated at a net annual value, not exceeding 5l., shall be willing to give up possession of the said land, whether held under lease or as tenant at will, and to emigrate, together with all persons who may be dependent upon him for their support and maintenance; and that such occupier shall have been approved by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, or such person as he may appoint for that purpose, as a fit and proper person to be admitted as an emigrant; and that the immediate lessor of such occupier is willing, upon the emigration of such occupier and his family, and upon the surrender of the land occupied by him, to forego any claim for rent which he may have upon the said occupier, and also to provide two-thirds of such fair and reasonable sum as shall be required for the emigration of such occupier and his family; then, and in such case, it shall be lawful for the board of guardians of such union, upon payment of such last-mentioned sum, to charge upon the rates of the electoral division, and to pay over to such person and in such manner as shall be directed by the Poor Law Commissioners, in aid of the emigration of such occupier, any sum not exceeding one-half of the sum contributed and paid by such immediate lessor as aforesaid, notwithstanding that any sum or sums so charged and paid may exceed in any one year one shilling in the pound on the rates of such electoral division, and notwithstanding that such occupier and his family may not be, nor have been, inmates of the workhouse of such union."

He trusted that the clause had been drawn up in such a manner, that it would not meet with any objection on the part of the Committee. He had thought it right that the general board of guardians, and not the guardians of the electoral divisions, should be the arbitrators in every case. He believed that some hon. Gentlemen considered it unfair that so large a proportion of the expenses as two-thirds, should be placed on the landlords; but he deemed it right and expedient that it should be so, because they would be greatly relieved by the removal of whole families at once from their districts. He would not enter into the general question of emigration, as it would be unseasonable to do so at the present moment; and, besides, he had a Motion on the subject on the Votes, which he would bring forward as soon as possible after Easter.

said, he had a Motion on the same subject upon the Paper, which he thought was preferable to that of the hon. Member for Dublin. If, however, the House preferred his hon. Friend's Motion, he would, of course, acquiesce in their decision, and forbear bringing forward his Motion.

said, the Government were not inclined to object to the introduction of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gregory's) clause. He did not see any reason why poor parties that were desirous of emigrating from Ireland, should be compelled to remain three months in the workhouse previous to their emigration; he thought that that system involved an unnecessary expense. It was intended hereafter that the parties that applied for funds to enable them to emigrate, should first be approved of by the agents of the Secretary of State as fit parties to be sent out to the colonies. There had been several complaints made very justly by the colonists not long ago, that the parties who were forwarded to the colonics from this country were of the most depraved character; and it was therefore desirable that every precaution should be taken here against such abuses. Parties had hitherto been sent out who were totally incapable, and some of them unwilling, to work. He thought the clause of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) would meet that objection against the present system.

was quite satisfied with the expression of the right hon. Gen- tleman's sentiments with regard to the clause before the Committee; he thought that from the words "it shall be lawful," it would appear that it would be compulsory upon the guardians to act. He thought it would be better to add, after "it shall be lawful for the guardians," the words, "if they shall think fit;" and at all events words ought to be inserted which would remove all doubt upon the subject.

considered that the words "it shall be lawful," implied a discretion in the guardians; but he had no objection to the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick.

inquired if the right hon. Baronet intended that these parties should be allowed to emigrate wherever they thought fit, or only to our own colonics.

observed, that the persons about to emigrate must be approved of by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and it was quite clear that the Secretary of State could not accede to any system of deportation. With regard to the clause of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, it opened at once the question of a system of colonization.

suggested that, after the word "emigrate," should be added, "to any British colony." If a party emigrated, and the cost of emigration was defrayed from his own resources, he ought to be at liberty to go where he liked; but if he went out assisted by the resources of the public, then he ought to go to a British colony.

was of opinion that an emigrant ought to be allowed to go where he liked.

rose to propose the following Clause:—

"And be it further Enacted, That no person who shall be in the occupation, whether under lease or agreement, or as tenant-at-will, or from year to year, or in any other manner whatsoever, of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre, shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of this Act, or of any former Act of Parliament; nor shall it be lawful for any board of guardians to grant any relief whatever in or out of the workhouse to any such occupier, his wife, or children. And if any person having been such occupier as aforesaid shall apply to any board of guardians for relief as a destitute poor person, it shall not be lawful to such guardians to grant such relief, until they shall be satisfied that such person has bonâ fide, and without collusion, absolutely parted with and surrendered any right or title which he may have had to the occupation of any land over and above such extent as aforesaid, of one quarter of a statute acre."

In proposing the above clause, he wished not to be understood as having changed his opinion as to the principle of out-door relief; but the House was so strongly in favour of it, that it was impossible longer to resist, especially when he found that that feeling in favour of it was more than reciprocated out of doors. Under such circumstances, it would be most wise in him and those who thought with him to abstain from further interference with the progress of the Bill; on the contrary, their duty was to endeavour to have the measure so fenced and guarded that fraud and imposture might not be encouraged. In consequence of the circumstances of Ireland, and the lax discipline which prevailed there, nothing ought to be left indefinite or undetermined. Some limit must be fixed where destitution might be said to cease, and out-door relief to end. It was impossible to define who was destitute, to gauge the amount of misery which constituted destitution; but it was clearly in the power of the Legislature to enact and to enforce that possessors of property beyond a certain amount should not be entitled to relief out of the public purse. It was to guard against such a contingency as persons of this class receiving public relief, that he brought forward this clause—that persons should not be encouraged to exercise the double vocation of pauper and farmer. Since he gave notice of his intention to move this clause, he had been in Ireland. He consulted persons the most intelligent and the most conversant with the condition of the people, and was by them assured that the limits of holding which he had formerly designed, "half an acre," was by far too extensive; and that there was no chance of the law working satisfactorily if persons holding more than "a quarter of an acre," were allowed to apply for relief. He accordingly inserted "quarter of an acre" in the clause. That was the quantity of land which it was stated was fitting for the labourers to hold in the Commons Enclosure Bill. In the original draft of that Bill, "half an acre" was the quantity defined; but subsequent inquiry and consideration induced its promoters to fix it at a quarter of an acre. Notwithstanding his repugnance to the general principle, he must admit that the able-bodied labourer had some claim for outdoor relief. And suppose, for instance, the case of a labourer who worked hard all his life, increased the productiveness of the soil, and realized large property for the owner; accident, sickness, old age, or misfortune, placed him in destitution; his habits, feelings, instincts, were averse to the workhouse; in such a case who would say it might not be judicious to administer outdoor relief, even where he might have a little garden and cottage? But the case was different where a man held a large piece of land—half an acre, one, two, or three acres—he was no longer an object of pity. He did not come before the public in formâ pauperis—he had not given up his holding—he had not done that which, by the bankruptcy law, would entitle him to his certificate. When he did so he would be entitled to relief the same as any other destitute person, but not until then. For these reasons he trusted the House would sanction the clause.

said, that as he understood the Government were determined to accede to this clause, it would be useless for him to remonstrate against it. There were many instances, however, where it would operate harshly. If a man was only to have a right to out-door relief upon condition of his giving up his land, a person might receive relief for a few weeks, and become a beggar for ever. He thought this was a cruel enactment, and should therefore enter his remonstrance against it.

opposed the clause. It was restricting relief to the poor of Ireland, which relief might be sadly needed by that very class against whom this clause was intended to operate. He hoped the Government would not give it their sanction, as he could assure them the provision would be most unpopular in this country. The clause was meant to benefit the Irish landlords—a class which deserved little sympathy from the House or the country. What was a quarter of an acre of land? The peasant grew potatoes on it. Suppose his crop failed him; he must, in such case, give it up and go into the workhouse, or starve. It might be that the poor man, having a lease, would not surrender it. What then—must he hold it and starve?

had always understood that these small holdings were the bane of Ireland. The Government had given this subject much consideration, and were of opinion that great evil might ensue from an indiscriminate relief of all possessors of small holdings; they thought it would not be judicious that all such persons should be classed under the head "destitute persons," and entitled to the relief which was only meant for those who were really so. It was an ascertained fact, that among persons seeking for relief on the public works were the holders of small farms, many of whom gave up the cultivation of their own little holdings in order to earn 6s. a week under the Government system. It would be unwise to allow persons who held a considerable quantity of land to receive relief—it would be an encouragement to such persons to abstain from honest industry, and to throw themselves on the poor rates for support. At the same time it would be hard to say that those who held but a small garden and a cottage should, in no case, be recipients of public charity. Cases might arise where such was extremely desirable; but, as a standard must be fixed somewhere, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Dublin, and support the clause. As, however, its immediate operation might press with hardship, owing to the present unfortunate condition of the country, he should move that some words, giving the clause a prospective operation, be inserted; say, for instance, from the 1st of November next.

thought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Curteis) did not very clearly state what the feeling of the people of England was upon this subject. It surely could not be in favour of a law which would press with greater severity on the poor man than the English Poor Law, but rather the reverse. Now, this law was much less stringent; for whereas the English law would allow no labourer to be relieved who possessed anything more than his working tools, this measure, adapting itself to the circumstances of Ireland, would afford out-door relief to the man who held a cottage and a quarter of an acre of a garden. This provision he (Mr. Newdegate) thought was merciful and wise.

was of opinion that the clause would most essentially aid the well working of the Bill in Ireland, and would tend to the gradual absorption of the small holdings now so extensively held, as well as the conversion of masses of starving peasantry into useful and well-paid labourers. Without such a clause, the poor law would tend rather to retard than to expedite this happy result.

objected to carrying the clause so suddenly into execution. Its consequence would be a complete clearance of the small farmers in Ireland—a change which would amount to a perfect social revolution in the state of things in that country. Such a change might be desirable, if effected by degrees; but to introduce it at once would have the effect of turning great masses of pauperism adrift on the community—a catastrophe which would undoubtedly not be without its effects in this country. He might as well take the opportunity, while upon his legs, of setting right the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) as to the operation of the English Poor Law. By that law it was not imperative upon the pauper receiving relief to part entirely with any property which he might possess. The matter was left in a great measure to the discretion of the board of guardians to be guided by the peculiar circumstances of each individual case.

, admitting that some limitation was necessary as to persons holding small farms and receiving public relief, yet could not agree to this clause, which was too imperative in its restrictions. If a man were to build a cottage on a small holding, it would be very hard, if under the pressure of sickness or some other calamity he should be obliged to part with his little property. He thought that under such circumstances relief might be afforded as a loan charged upon the property of the recipient. At all events, relief ought to be discretionary with the board of guardians. He should divide the House against the clause.

said, that where the poor were afflicted by sickness, they could apply to the hospitals or dispensaries, which were admirably managed and generally well supported.

wished to know, supposing the principle of the hon. Member for Rochdale to be adopted, where it was to stop? A man in the situation put by the hon. Member would be worth property to the extent of 30l. or 40l.; and certainly no such person ought to be flung as a burden upon ratepayers, themselves removed but one step from destitution.

explained. The principle of the English Poor Law was as he had stated. It was only left discretionary with boards of guardians to dispense in particular cases with the letter of the enactment.

feared that the clause would be the means of producing very much oppression in Ireland.

held it to be quite right that a man occupying half an acre of land should be obliged to give it up before receiving relief from the public. If there was anything which raised his hope of an Irish Poor Law being attended with advantage, it was this clause, the operation of which would tend to the conversion of small farmers to better paid labourers. He repeated that it was in this clause that he saw the prospect of a decided advantage to the people of Ireland.

said, it would be perfectly impossible, unless they placed the limit of relief somewhere, that any hope could be justly entertained that the agriculture of Ireland would prosper—that a system of money wages would be introduced—that the labourer would be independent—and the farmer enterprising; or that the landlord would invest his capital in the land.

said, the difference in the circumstances of England and Ireland were not sufficiently regarded. In England the landlord built a cottage for the labourer—in Ireland he built it for himself; and the effect of this clause would be to enable the landlord, if he chose, to take possession of the poor man's property.

must say that some hon. Gentlemen maintained the right of the poor to relief to an extent so extensive that they seemed to look on the property of Ireland as exhaustless. Many hon. Members insisted that the operation of a clause of this kind would destroy all the small farmers. If it could have such an effect, he did not see of what use such small farmers could possibly be. He should of course adopt any reasonable amendment that was proposed; but if some such clause as he had submitted was not carried, the cry of the "poor man's guardian" would be raised in every electoral division in Ireland, and the proper working of the Bill be thereby greatly impeded.

looked on that clause as a valuable alteration. It might not give complete, satisfaction at first; but he was sure that before many years it would be found most useful. It would prevent that description of applicants who were neither labourers nor farmers—who were without the industry of the labourer, or the skill of the farmer. The hon. Member for Dublin had not perhaps taken the precise quantity of land as the groundwork of his clause, which he (Mr. O'Con- nell) should have selected; but to the principle he gave his decided support.

It might be a question how far such a clause as this affected the rights of descendants. Such a case was an extreme one; but it might occur, and should be considered.

felt bound to support this clause. To show the abuses which it was calculated to check, he might mention the fact that he knew a man holding twenty acres of land who applied for employment on the public works, A man holding ten acres of land had been admitted, and be believed was still employed on them. Men who retained these small holdings, and yet sought relief, were a nuisance, and the sooner they were deprived of their land the better. He did not wish that they should be harshly dealt with; but they ought not to be allowed to receive relief and yet retain their holdings.

, in deference to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh, said, that the holder of one-fourth of an acre was required to give up his land before he acquired any right to relief; but to say that the descendants of a man so circumstanced could be affected in their rights of property, would require a considerable stretch of the imagination.

wished to know whether the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had formed any proximate estimate of the number of persons who were now receiving relief, but who, if this clause came into operation, must be left destitute, if they did not consent to give up their holdings?

had not made any such estimate: but he was satisfied that the effect of the clause would be to diminish the number of applicants for relief, and would have the effect of separating the really destitute from those who were in possession of land, but who really derived no benefit from it.

thought a quarter of an acre in the proposed clause should be changed to five acres.

was afraid his hon. Friend did not clearly see the effect of his own Amendment. All holders of land up to 4¾ acres, would, according to such an amendment, be enabled to obtain relief without selling their land. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that a quarter of an acre was the minimum quantity of land designated; and the holder of two, five, or ten acres was of course compelled to sell his land before he could establish any claim to relief.

must still express a hope that the clause would be reconsidered. When a man was starving, and was not allowed to endeavour to subsist by begging, it was left in the power of the guardians to refuse relief until they were satisfied that such a claimant had given up all the small holding he might possess. He thought such a provision inconsistent with the principle of the Bill—that all the destitute should have a right to relief.

rose to move the following Clause:—

"Whereas it appears that in the formation of electoral divisions pauperism has been so allocated, in respect of the property liable for its relief, as to cause the pressure of poor-rate taxation to be very unequal: be it therefore enacted, that the Poor Law Commissioners shall revise and reconstitute the electoral divisions of the several unions in such a manner as that the pauperism of each district shall bear to the property liable for its relief as nearly an uniform proportion throughout each union as circumstances will allow."

The disproportion between the rating area and the amount of property in the electoral divisions was very great, as compared in the various electoral divisions. In some cases the poor rates were 1s. 6d., and in the adjoining division but 2½d. in the pound.

replied, that the inconveniences to which the hon. Member referred could be remedied by the Commissioners, who had power, under the existing law, to make regulations to obviate local grievances. It was, therefore, not necessary to insert an additional clause for that object. Disproportion of areas and rated property did no doubt exist; but it was impossible to lay down any general principle for the division of the country into districts which would bear an equal proportion of rating in every care as compared with the population.

could assure the Government there was nothing which created such dissatisfaction and caused such obstacles to the effective working of the system, as the disproportion between population and property in the existing divisions of the country. The electoral districts were laid down hastily and without sufficient care to observe a due propor- tion in this case; and it would be well if Government would instruct the Commissioners to revise them.

then moved the following Clause:—

"Whereas much inconvenience has been found to result from the great size of several of the unions of Ireland: be it enacted, that the Pool Law Commissioners shall revise and re-constitute the unions, so that no union shall contain more than 150,000 acres."

The size of the unions as they were at present constituted, was, in many instances, so great as to produce the most serious inconvenience, and to obstruct the operation of the system of relief. In one case the boundary of the union was thirty miles from the workhouse; and the distance which the guardians had to go in order to attend board meetings, and inquire into cases requiring relief, was so great as to render it very inconvenient, if not impossible, to attend to their duties.

objected to the introduction of a territorial standard, which might be found inconvenient in its application. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause.

said, there were 130 unions in Ireland, the average of each of which was 227 square miles, so that some of the people, if they had occasion to go to the workhouse to ascertain if they could have relief, would have to travel, there and back, 24 miles. In others they would have to travel 21 miles. It must be admitted that this was a most enormous grievance, and nothing made the poor law in this country more unpopular than the large size of the unions. The Ballina union was past endurance. It covered 792 square miles, and the workhouse was situated at one side of the union; and the result was, that a person might have to travel in going to it, there and back, 46 miles. This grievance, which affected guardians as well as the poor, called loudly for redress, and he thought it would have been a great advantage if Her Majesty's Ministers had taken the opportunity of increasing the number of workhouses on a very great scale. If they had increased the workhouses to the same extent in Ireland as in England, it would have been of great benefit, and would have carried out the poor-law system upon a more wholesome principle, without demoralising the people, whilst it would have saved upwards of 4,000,000l. sterling this year. He did not mean by building palaces like some of the workhouses, but buildings upon a cheaper scale. If this had been done, thousands and tens of thousands, he believed hundreds of thousands, might have been kept at far less expense, without the jobbing attending employment upon public works. Upon this subject he had consulted Mr. Gulson, who, of all the Poor Law Commissioners, was the best acquainted with Ireland, and who had constructed houses for the reception of fever patients at a very small expense. By a return which had been circulated on Saturday last, he saw that the expenditure upon public works in Ireland, exclusive of draining, for the whole year, would be no less than 13,142,000l., expended in the course of the year. The expense of the staff in the course of one year was 1,193,000l. Now, he was in a condition to show that if the Government had extended their works, and had erected 400 workhouses upon the principle adopted by Mr. Gulson, capable of containing 400,000 pauper families, which, reckoning 5½ in each family, according to the census of Ireland, would have made 2,200,000 persons—if this had been done, it might have been accomplished at an outlay of 800,000l. Then, taking the rations published last week, the whole of these people have been subsisted at an expense of 7,204,166l. 13s. 4d. [Laughter.] Yes, the Chief Secretary for Ireland laughs! He thinks it a very good joke to throw away millions of the public money. There never was a Government that lavished the money of the country in the way in which it has been lavished by the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and then he thinks it a good joke when a Gentleman gets up and shows to him that 4,000,000l. might have been saved under a different administration from that which has been adopted by the Government, for which he is responsible. He took (the noble Lord continued) the rations as they were promulgated last week by the Irish Government, and, upon that footing, that 2,200,000 persons, reckoning 400,000 men, 400,000 women, and the remainder children, might have been subsisted for 7,204,166l. According to their own reports, the expense of necessaries and clothing amounted to 3d. a head; that, he was assured, was a very high estimate, considering there were so many children. But, taking it at 3d., that would add 1,430,000l. to this expense. Then the land would have to be purchased for the sites of these 400 workhouses, which, according to the average paid for the sites of those now existing, viz. 50l. an acre, would entail a cost of 160,000l. But it would only be reasonable to take the interest of money at 3½ per cent for the land, which would give about 5,600l. for interest. In like manner, it would be only reasonable to take for the outlay of the 800,000l. for the workhouses 6l. 10s. per cent, which, for twenty-two years, would give an annual cost of 52,000l. per year. But there were other expenses connected with the workhouses; there were masters, matrons, physicians, apothecaries, clerks, relieving officers, porters, nurses, and, more important still, schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, chaplains of the Church of England, priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and ministers of the Presbyterian religion—all these matters he had taken into consideration, and, according to the payments made to these various persons under the present law, he found that the whole of these upon the staff, with 400 new workhouses, containing each 5,500 inmates, would cost no more than 142,000l. a year. So that the maintenance of a staff of this description, consisting of 5,200 persons, would cost but 142,000l., whilst the staff, under the present system, consisted of 11,587 persons, and cost 1,193,000l. a year. Thus, upon the staff alone, there might have been, effected a saving of 1,050,000l. a year; whilst, taking the whole charge together, these 2,200,000 persons might have been as well subsisted, clothed, and educated, as they now were for 8,823,766l., instead of the lavish expenditure of 13,143,500l. upon useless works—works worse than useless, because the people had been employed upon spoiling the roads. He, therefore, had shown that by his scheme of erecting 400 new workhouses, they might have had 530 unions and 530 workhouses, instead of 130 unions and as many workhouses, which would not only have added to the comforts of the poor, and brought the workhouses within three miles and a half of every inmate of the union, and within the same distance of every guardian to overlook them, and have thus brought all official persons under close and immediate supervision, but it would have saved, at the same time, no less a sum than 4,319,736l. in the course of a single year. They would also have had this security—they would have ceased to demoralise the peasantry who could get labour elsewhere, for they would not have consented to come into these workhouses; and none but the destitute, the sick, and those incapable of getting work, would have entered them. There would, at the same time, have been no quitting the cultivation of the land for the sake of getting small wages upon the public works. The land would have been tilled, and the people saved from dying; whilst the children would have been improved in their morals and habits, and in every respect the condition of the people would have been raised. "I am perfectly certain (said the noble Lord) that if you had had recourse to this system, we should not have heard of the thousands, the tens of thousands, or the hundreds of thousands—but we cannot learn from the Government how many hundreds of thousands they are, who have perished. It is the only subject of secrecy with the Irish Government. We can learn the number of bushels of potatoes, and the quarters of wheat and of oats that have been thrown on the coast of Ireland; but there is one point upon which alone the Irish Government are totally ignorant, totally careless, or else are determined to keep this country in darkness; and that is the mortality that has occurred during their maladministration of Irish affairs. Yes! they shrank from telling us. They are ashamed to tell us. They know that the people have died by thousands; and I dare them to ask—I dare them to inquire what the numbers of the dead have been—dead, through their mismanagement; dead, chiefly through their principles of free trade. Yes, free trade with the lives of the Irish people, leaving the people to take care of themselves when Providence has swept the food from the face of the earth—leaving the people, in a country where there are neither mills, nor stores, nor granaries, to perish. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no!] Ay, the right hon. Gentleman may cry "No, no!" why does he not give us information, then? If he does not shrink from telling us the truth, why does he not give us the information which he now conceals from us, and then we shall know what the effects of his administration have been? How was it possible that a people suddenly deprived of their food, in a country where no description of food was allowed to cross without an escort, where no food grew amongst them save grass for cattle, and where the only food fit for man was stored in granaries by corn dealers who were attempting to feed the people with a now species of grain, to which they were not accustomed—how could such a people procure corn from their own resources? It was out of the question. And when the Government knew in the month of August that the potato crops, to the value of 16,000,000l., had been swept away from a people who had no money to purchase other food with—potatoes being the labour coin of the country—how was it possible there should have been any other result than that that should happen which has happened, and that there should die such a number of persons as has never before been paralleled in any Christian country? ["Oh, oh!"] Oh, you groan, but you will hear again of this. The time will come when we shall know what the amount of the mortality is, and though you Gentlemen may groan, and wish to conceal the truth, yet the truth shall and will be known; the time will come when the public, and the world itself, will be able to estimate at its proper value your management of the affairs of Ireland."

said: I beg to remind the Committee that the clause upon which they have to decide, and upon which the speech they have just heard is, I suppose, to be considered a commentary, is to this effect:—

"That whereas it appears that in the formation of electoral divisions pauperism has been so allocated as to cause an unequal pressure of the poor rate: be it enacted that the Commissioners shall reconstitute the divisions in such manner as shall proportion the pauperism of each district to the property thereof."

Now, I am far too anxious that the Committee should proceed to the consideration of the important Bill now before them, to be tempted, even by the extraordinary project which the noble Lord has brought forward as a panacea for all the evils that afflict Ireland, to enter into any discussion. But the noble Lord has thought fit to make an assertion which I owe it to myself, to my own character, and to the character and feelings of the Government with whom I act, to make some reference to. The noble Lord has said that the Government were indifferent to the sufferings of the people of Ireland; and he has added that we were anxious to conceal the truth from the House and the country with regard to the effect of our measures. Sir, I shall content myself with giving to that assertion of the noble Lord a contradiction as explicit, as direct, and as complete, as my respect for this House will allow me. I will not be tempted by the tone which the noble Lord has adopted, to pursue this discussion. I feel too deeply the responsibility which rests upon me as a Minister of the Crown to lose, I trust, my temper in discussing a question of this infinite importance. In the present condition of the people of Ireland, no provocation shall induce me to do so. But I feel that, after having heard such an assertion as that which the noble Lord has made, I could not and ought not to have said less to the noble Lord than that which I have said. I apologize to the House for having interfered even for a moment with the business of the Committee, when that moment has been spent in a reply to such a speech as that which we have just heard from the noble Lord. I trust that we shall now return to the subject more calmly; and I hope that our future discussions with regard to Irish subjects—and I must say that, during the present Session, those discussions have, for the most part, been conducted on all sides with an entire absence of party feeling, from all inflammatory language, and with a careful and cautious desire to abstain from anything that might increase the difficulties of the Government, or produce excitement elsewhere,—will be resumed with a due sense of the magnitude of the responsibility that attaches to them, and that the same spirit which has hitherto been shown will be persevered in. I can assure the House of this, that if I have said anything that for a moment might be supposed to indicate a different spirit, it has been wrung from me by the charge that has been made by the noble Lord against the Government with which I am connected, and which I felt it impossible to sit silently by and hear without expressing my remonstrance against it.

thought that the clause was unnecessary, and hoped it would not be pressed.

was extremely sorry to observe the course that had been taken by the noble Member for Lynn, in the speech he had just delivered. He admired the Government for their endeavours to ameliorate the unhappy condition of Ireland, and offered them the humble tribute of his praise for their good, hearty, and, he believed honest intentions towards the people of that country.

wished to place on record his opinion on this subject, and therefore should not withdraw the clause.

confessed that, ex- cited by his argument, the noble Lord, perhaps, might have used language stronger than he had intended; but he concurred with the noble Lord in this—he did think that the Government were grievously impeded by an adherence to the principles of political economy, in the first instance, in dealing with the calamity in Ireland. He could not, therefore, concur with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Repton) in the encomium which he had passed upon the Government; but he would admit that the Government had made great exertions afterwards to free themselves from the embarrassments in which they were involved by having at first adopted those principles. At the commencement of the distress, he thought there had been a most unfortunate delay on the part of the Government, in coming forward to protect the people from this calamity. He would give the Government every credit for being taken by surprise at first; but he could not exonerate them altogether, and could not account for the fact except by attributing the delay to the stringent principles of political economy which were then adhered to, and which every humane man must be rejoiced to see had been since abandoned.

then proposed a clause for the permanent establishment of relief committees in each electoral division; a clause to the effect, that workhouses should be provided by a national rate; a clause for a uniform valuation of rateable property; a clause rendering jointures, rent-charges, and other annuities rateable; and also a clause empowering guardians to put out to nurse orphans and deserted children not above 13 years of age: all of which were negatived.

moved clauses to enable guardians to attach buildings or wards as infirmaries, where no infirmary was within six miles of the workhouse, and to enable the guardians to defray the expenses of conveying persons requiring surgical assistance to hospitals, and maintaining them there.

thought the clause would prejudice the full consideration of the subject of medical charities, and interfere with private subscription.

Sir, it will not be necessary for me to detain the Committee for any long period in offering for their consideration the two clauses of which I have given notice. It has been the univer- sal expression of every Gentleman took part in these discussions, that we ought, as nearly as possible, to assimilate the Poor Law of Ireland to the Poor Law of England; and the object of the first clause, of which I have given notice, is to liken the Poor Law of Ireland to the Poor Law of England. My object is to throw the entire rate upon the occupying tenant. This is the rule in England; and I believe that every gentleman conversant with the working of the English Poor Law knows that if it were not the case—if there were not those strong excitements to the ratepayers, and to those who employ the poor, at once to economise the rates, to prevent lavish expenditure, and to give profitable employment to the people, and thus, by employing the people profitably, keep them off the rates, the land of England, far richer than the land of Ireland, would be consumed by the poor. Therefore, the first clause which I propose to insert is, that for the future, holding sacred all existing interests—preserving all existing contracts as they are—to prohibit the occupying tenant, who, by the Irish Poor Act, is obliged to pay the rate—my object, I say, is to prohibit the ratepayer from deducting any part of the rate so paid from the lessor. The provision, therefore, is, that in all leases hereafter to be made, and as regards all tenants at will after the 1st of January, 1849, the occupying tenant shall pay the rate. I assume that the consequence of this provision will be that an equitable arrangement will hereafter take place between the occupying tenant and the lessor, and that henceforth every occupying tenant will reduce the amount of rent by the probable extent of the poor rate which the landlord would have to pay if the law as it at present stands had continued to be the law of Ireland. Irish Gentlemen are well acquainted with the provisions of the Irish Poor Law; but I had, perhaps, better explain the difference between it and the English law. By the English law, the occupying tenant pays the rates, but by the Irish Poor Law Act the occupying tenant does not pay the entire poor rate. He deducts a portion of the rent, amounting to half the rate he himself pays on the poor-law valuation. It is necessary to explain that the poor-law valuation in Ireland is estimated according to the net value, and it is paid after deducting all the probable charges for repairs, for maintaining the hereditaments which he holds, insurance, and every charge except tithes. The practical result is, that the valuers for the poor-law assessment are glad to set the lease at three quarters of the rackrent; so that while the rental of Ireland is 13,000,000l., the presumption is, that the rackrent is 17,000,000l. sterling at the very least. The effect of this is, that while, nominally, the occupying tenant pays one half of the rate, the landlord practically pays two-thirds of the rate. Thus the inducement of occupying tenants to keep down the rate is much diminished. His poor relations get more by a high rate, than he loses by paying his proportion of it. Now, Sir, seeing that Ireland has only on the one hand 15,900 houses possessed by gentry, clergy, and farmers, whose rental is above 50l.; and on the other hand upwards of a million, inhabited by five and a half millions of people, a large proportion of which live in mud houses or cabins, which consist of a single room without windows or door, it must be apparent to the House that unless the most energetic measures are taken to watch the expenditure of the poor rate, it will, in fact, amount to confiscation. If I assume, as I think I safely may, that the expenditure now going on under the name of public works, will, in truth, be converted into poor-law relief, after the passing of this Bill; and when I reflect that they are spending at the rate of upwards of 13,000,000l. per annum, while the assessed rental is but 13,178,000l.; and consider all the other circumstances on which Irish property is placed, I do not exaggerate in the least when I say that her poor rate will be more than 20s. in the pound; therefore, it is of the utmost importance for us to guard in every way the expenditure of out-door relief from any unnecessary claims. I will not quote in proof of this more than one example. It happened in Queen's County, at Ballybogue, under the Poor Relief Act—called in Ireland Sir James Graham's Act—passed in the 9th of Victoria, chap. 2, by which power was given to employ the people on public works, charging the payment thereof on the cesspayers, a presentment sessions was held. Considerable distress existed in the parish before this expedient was adopted; at the sessions it was agreed, in preference to public works, to try to employ them in useful and productive labour. They did so, and though the cesspayers had to pay for the maintenance of the poor, they had the advantage of having their fields cultivated and improved. The Labour-rate Act passed by the noble Lord came into operation in the month of October, and then a change took place. By that Act the burden of employing the people was taken off the shoulders of the cesspayers, and placed on the landlords. Another presentment took place at Ballybogue East in the month of October; and there was no reason to suppose the distress was greater than in the month of April, when the first sessions was held. But then the cesspayers had changed their minds. They said then there was great distress, and they made presentments for the employ of 2,000 persons. The same persons who had decided to employ the people themselves in the month of August, decided also that they were extremely distressed in the month of April; while the fact was, that if the farmers and cesspayers had employed the people as they had done before, there would have been no necessity for public works; and for the 1,000 persons they had provided for, 1,500 were employed on the public works, and none in the cultivation of the land. When this was explained at the sessions, a titter ran round the assembly which plainly said, "They pay this rate, while we had to pay for the labour we employed." That is a practical example of the benefit to be derived from throwing the burden on the tenant. It may be truly said, that the landlord ought to do something; but what can 16,000 persons, the number of the landlords do, compared with 500,000 or 600,000 tenant-farmers? These are the reasons which have made me think that it will be for the benefit of all parties to throw the responsibility on the ratepayer; the effect of which will be, instead of having no interest in keeping down the rate as now, he will bargain with the landlord for a lower rent, and have both that and lower rates. All he can save out of the poor rates in employing the poor in the cultivation of land, will also be so much gained. In proposing this Amendment, I am only acting up to the principle laid down by the noble Lord who introduced this measure, in proposing to go into Committee of the whole House upon it, namely, "If we propose a rate, and say that the destitute must be paid out of that rate, every one will have an object in keeping down that rate." That is the object of the clauses I now propose. It is that the ratepayers shall have the greatest possible interest in keeping down the rate. The noble Lord acknowledges it is difficult to prevent abuses in the distribution of out-door relief; and it appears to me totally out of any one's power to prevent them, unless the great mass of the ratepayers are interested in their prevention. I think I ought to have the support of a considerable portion of Her Majesty's Ministers on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a late discussion, said three times over in the course of his speech, that their great object ought to be to assimilate as near as possible the poor law in Ireland and that of England. Under these circumstances I have a perfect right to claim the vote of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a similar remark. Sir, I am aware that there will be objections raised to these clauses by the hon. Member for Limerick, whom I regret not to see in his place. His objection, I am told, is, that the clauses bear too bard on the middleman. I am bound to admit that they may bear hard on the middleman. I will assume, for instance, the case of an estate of 400 acres, in which shall be interested four landlords besides the occupiers. The head landlord A, receives 100l. a year from B; B, in his turn, receives 200l. a year from C; C receives 300l. from D; and D gets 400l. a year from the tenant. A, the landlord, lets the estate on a lease of 99 years; B for 21 years; C for 14 years; and D lets it to the tenant yearly. One of the effects of these clauses, if they he carried, supposing these relations to continue, would be, that the occupying tenant would pay, supposing the rate to be laid on, the 8s. in the pound which the poor law allows for the present expenditure; and I fear 8s. in the pound is lower than it will be this year or the next. The effect will be, that if the rates be paid by the occupying tenant in the first instance, he will deduct from D 80l., or one-half; D deducts from the landlord over him 60l. C. 40l., and B 20l. By my clause the occupier will be discharged from deducting anything at all, and he will be compelled to make a new contract with D, and so will the others. And arguing on the same grounds, he would have to pay no less than 80l. out of the rates, and the others in proportion. This would certainty fall exceedingly heavy on the occupier and the middleman; because the only way in which he would be able to contend against this increased demand would be by carrying out the original intention of his lease, and him- self becoming the occupying tenant, in which case the remainder of the contract would remain untouched by my clause; one set of tenants would be done away with—one class of middlemen (and the middlemen are by universal consent looked upon as the curse of Ireland) would be done away with; and instead of having a miserable set of poor tenantry under him, he would be obliged, either by himself or others, to cultivate his land, or employ others to cultivate it—he would be obliged to employ those who have been well described to-night as being neither farmers nor labourers, the one being without capital or skill, and the other without industry—to become regular labourers in his service. Therefore, I contend, that though the effect of my clause would be to cause this hardship on the middleman—on him who though he took a lease on an understanding that he should occupy it himself—yet it would have the good effect of obliging him to fulfil the duties of an occupying tenant. Sir, I think I need not trouble the House any further as regards that first clause. I hope I have made myself clearly understood as to the operation of that clause, and that I have kept nothing back. I now go on to the second clause. The object of the second clause is to reduce the number of little ratepayers, from whom it is very difficult to obtain the rate, and by reducing the number of those small ratepayers, to diminish also the inducement to sub-let farms. It is undoubtedly within the knowledge of all the Irish Members, that when the Poor Law for Ireland (the 1st and 2nd Vic. c. 56) was first passed, all the occupiers paid rates; but in the course of a few years it was found extremely difficult to collect the rates from some of those occupiers; and the 6th and 7th Vic. c. 92, was passed, by which the rates levied on all the occupiers up to 4l. were thrown upon the landlords. It will be also in the knowledge of English Gentlemen, that it is a common practice in many of the towns in this country to relieve the ratepayers under 6l., and sometimes under 8l., from the payment of those rates, and to throw the burden on the landlords. The intention of this law was to reduce the number of ratepayers from whom the rates in Ireland were collected, from 1,339,792 to 585,723. The effect of the clause which I propose for insertion in the Bill, will be to still further reduce the number of ratepayers by 76,527. There will still remain 509,196 occupying tenants. I do not wish to conceal it from the House, that the change proposed will have the effect of throwing, to a certain extent, the burden of the rates upon the landlords; but on the other hand, it will have the effect of reducing the number of the lowest class of ratepayers, and of raising the general character of the ratepayers that remain; and I hope it will also have the effect of improving the character and station of the guardians to be elected by them. All must depend upon the conduct, the exertions, and the independence of the guardians who are hereafter to control the expenditure of this enormous sum of money. I think, Sir, I have now explained the intent of both the clauses that I have proposed to introduce into this Bill. I believe, in common with every gentleman both in and out of the House, that this Bill is a terrible experiment. I feel that there is too much reason to fear that the effect of this poor law must be something very like a confiscation of property in Ireland. And, when I saw that the existing workhouses contained 111,000 paupers, whilst there were 708,000 more employed on the public works, I did feel that my right hon. and learned Friend (the Recorder for the city of Dublin) was thrown upon the horns of a dilemma by the noble Lord opposite, when he asked—"If you do not agree with our plan, what plan have you to propose in return?" I, for one, hoped that other means might be found to employ the people of Ireland. I do not share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder of Dublin, the blame of not suggesting some other measure for the employment of the people of Ireland. I did hope that there would be, in addition to that which I proposed, many other measures, on a great scale, and of a similar description, proposed by Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of giving profitable employment to the people of Ireland. But that is not the case. I must deal with the matter as I find it; and I find it in this position, that there are 780,000 heads of families, representing at least 2,500,000 persons, for whom no means of subsistence can be found, unless this measure of out-door relief be carried. I felt that, if I acted upon what might, perhaps, be the true principle of refusing out-door relief, and seeing that the workhouses were already crammed, I must shut out all those persons from any relief whatever. If I said, "I have not room to put these starving people in the workhouse, and yet I will not give out-door relief to the able-bodied," I felt that I should be passing a sentence of death upon 2,000,000 of people. And anxious as I am by every possible means in my power to protect the property of the Irish landlord, yet if the naked question is put to me in all its hideous ugliness, "Will you consent to confiscate the property of those 16,000 gentlemen, or will you pass sentence of death upon 2,000,000 of people who live in mud cabins without chimneys or windows?" I must say that the interests of property must give way to the greater interests of humanity. But, Sir, whilst I must say I feel it my most bounden duty, by every means that lies in my power to preserve property, as long as I am able, from any unnecessary waste, I do hope that in proposing the clause of which I have given notice, I shall go some way, at least, towards attaining the other object of providing for the poor. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, That, save as hereinafter provided, it shall not be lawful for any occupier of rateable property holding under any lease or agreement to be made or entered into after the passing of this Act, nor for any tenant at will, or from year to year, after the 1st day of January, 1849, to deduct from the rent to which he may be liable in respect of such property, any amount whatever in respect of any rate which may be imposed at any period subsequent to the date of such lease or agreement, or subsequent to such 1st day of January, as the case may be."

thought it would be very unreasonable to place the whole burden of the poor rates on the occupying tenant, and at the same time he had a great objection to increase the burden on the landlords. He entertained the strongest conviction that under present circumstances it would be inexpedient to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord. He did not agree in the statement that the 700,000 or 800,000 persons now employed on the public works were all heads of families, neither did he believe that they would be all thrown on the poor rates for subsistence when those works were completed. It was mischievous to hold out any such expectation to them. The object of the Legislature should rather be to stimulate them to raise themselves by increased activity and industry from their present deplorable condition. He could not consent to throw upon the occupying tenant the whole burden of the rates, nor did he see how doing so would have the effect of lessening the amount of those rates.

was astonished that upon no stronger grounds than those stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Government should resist the reasonable proposition of his noble Friend—to assimilate in the important respect then under consideration, the English and the Irish law. The House had forced upon Ireland the evil, and would it refuse them the advantage, of the English Poor Law? His noble Friend's calculation—with his known eminence as a calculator—might well alarm all Irish interests—for what said his noble Friend? That the rate would be eight shillings in the pound, and upon a rental of 13,197,000l., be a charge of 5,278,800l. He (Mr. Shaw) would not be tempted back to the principle he had so anxiously contended against on a former evening, of out-door relief to the able-bodied; but when his noble Friend said that it became a question which he would sacrifice, the rentals of the landlords, or the lives of the population, and he could not hesitate between them—so, for his part, would he say—sacrifice the few, by all means, to save the many—provided only you could show him that by sacrificing the one you could save the other. But according to the showing of his noble Friend himself, that was not in the nature of things. You were only deluding the people by a promise which could not be realized. But, supposing the rate to be eight shillings in the pound, the right hon. Baronet said, how monstrous to throw that on the tenant! But did not the right hon. Baronet know perfectly that it was the landlord who would virtually pay it: the clause was to be prospective in its operation; and, as every landlord in England knew, the tenant would, of course, agree to pay so much the less rent by whatever would be the probable average charge for the poor rate; but then the great advantage was, that the occupying farmer would have the whole interest in keeping down the actual yearly rate, for as much as it exceeded the average would he lose, and in the same proportion that it was under it he would gain—he, too, being in the position to influence the amount by the employment of labourers, and a daily watchfulness over the rate. Then, when the right hon. Baronet boasted that they had granted the increase of ex-officio guardians, because the Irish landlord was more burdened than the English; his answer was, that even in that respect they had refused them the full benefit of the English law; for in England all the justices were ex-officio guardians, and in Ireland it was still only part. When his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire first declared that he was willing to take the English law in its entierty, he (Mr. Shaw) dissented—because they had not in the Irish law either the right to relief, or out-door relief to the able-bodied; but now that they had inflicted those principles on them in Ireland, he agreed with his hon. Friend they had given them the bad points of the English law—let them also give them the good. Above all others, that of securing, that while in the cud the landlord paid the average rate which was alone under the law chargeable upon his net rent—still, that by making the occupier wholly liable to the actual annual charge, you interested him to the utmost to watch over the administration of the poor law. At the commencement of the Session, the clamour in that House and that country was—extend the English Poor Law to Ireland. He then on behalf of Ireland demanded, in the conclusion of his speech as he had at the commencement, that as the House had given them the evils of the English Poor Law, they would at least let them also have its advantages.

moved that the Speaker report progress. ["No, no!"] All the Orders of the Day had yet to be gone through.

thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government wes entitled to much credit for the manner in which he had grappled with the very difficult subject of providing parochial relief for the poor of Ireland. He could not but express the surprise which he felt at the statement that it would prove ruinous to Ireland if out-door relief were allowed to the able-bodied labourer, whilst in England that system was found to work most economically and beneficially.

, amidst cries of "Question," approved of the proposals of the noble Lord. He thought that the greatest possible good would result from making the occupying tenant liable to the rate.

felt it to be his duty, as an Irish Member, to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, that the Irish people had not called for a poor law. Under the plan proposed by the noble Lord, he was certain that more evil would be done to Ireland than all the good which they had attempted to do this Session.

had never heard such outrageous amendments as the clauses proposed by the noble Lord. The whole of the tenantry of Ireland would be taxed for the relief of the poor; but the administration of that relief would be left entirely in the hands of the superior landlords. Such a proposition would be only sanctioned in an assembly of landlords.

, in answer to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. P. Scrope) would ask one single question: "Do you, proud landlords of England, then, not contribute one shilling to the poor rate of England?"

protested against the introduction of the proposal of the noble Lord, which would take the people of Ireland completely by surprise. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin knew that the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland were very different to those in England, he had yet said that it was but right that the Irish Poor Law should be assimilated to the English Poor Law.

then proposed to bring up clauses for the relief of the Irish clergy from the very unjust pressure of the poor law, as it affected their incomes under the existing law. The Government had agreed to those clauses. They were not everything he had desired; but as they were the best he could succeed in obtaining, with the consent of the Government, and it was in vain to divide the House againt the Government, he was obliged to be satisfied. They at all events recognised the principle, that the tithe-owner should be charged upon his net and not upon his gross income; and although the Government refused some of the deductions he sought, yet these clauses would remove a great injustice, and place the tithe-owner upon the same footing in respect of the mode of calculating his net income as the landlord stood, namely—the rent for which, one year with another, their incomes would let from year to year—all rates, taxes, costs of collection, &c., being assumed for the purpose of the estimate to be paid by the tenant. As he had stated the case of the Irish clergy at considerable length before, and he was now proposing those clauses with the assent of the Government, he would bring up the clauses without further observation. The right hon. Gentleman moved the following clauses:—

"1. And whereas under the provisions of the said recited Act, the tithe composition, or rent-charge in lieu thereof, is liable to be rated only as and with the hereditaments upon which such composition, or rent-charge, is charged, and it is expedient that such provisions be amended: be it, therefore, enacted, that in all rates made for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, after the 1st day of November next, all tithe composition, or rent-charge in lieu thereof, shall be a rateable hereditament, and shall be separately rated as such.

"2. And be it enacted, that the rate made upon such rent-charge, or composition for tithe, shall be made upon the person in the receipt or enjoyment thereof, and shall be payable by him, and may be recovered by all the ways and means by which any rate made on any lessor may be re-covered.

"3. And be it enacted, that from and after the 1st day of November next, every rate made for the relief of the poor in Ireland shall be a poundage rate made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereto: that is to say, of the rent for which, one year with another, the same might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year: the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditaments in their actual state; and all rates, taxes, and public charges, being assumed for the purpose of estimating the net annual value to be paid by the tenant.

"4. And be it enacted, that in every valuation to be made for the purposes of poor-law assessment by the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland, under the Act passed in the 10th year of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to amend the law relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland'—tithe composition or rent-charge in lieu thereof, shall be separately valued, and the said Commissioners shall cause every rateable hereditament to be valued on an estimate of its net annual value, to be ascertained, as hereinbefore by this Act is provided; and every rate which, under the provisions of the said Act of the 10th year of Her present Majesty shall be made by any board in guardians on the valuation furnished to them by such Commissioners of Valuation, shall be made upon the person liable to be rated in such rate, according to the laws in force for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, anything in the said last-mentioned Act to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the separate rating of tithe composition, or rent-charge in lieu thereof, for the purposes of any county cess or grand-jury rate, or any other rate whatsoever to which such tithe composition or rent-charge is not otherwise rateable by law."

objected to the clauses being then proceeded with. They were of too important a nature to be hastily discussed, and should have been printed in the usual manner.

supported these clauses.