said, that the proposed Amendment raised an important question, by those words which authorised going beyond the boundary of any one union in forming the dispensary district. That provision militated against the principle of the Bill, and he could easily show the great importance of not exceeding the bounds of the union. The effect of the Amendment would also be, that it would bring the boards of guardians and the central authority into collision; and he feared that want of confidence between the two would be increased, if an appeal were given to the Lord Lieutenant. In conducting this Bill, he was most anxious to consult the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House; and if it really seemed desirable to the Committee that an appeal should be provided, and perhaps also that the plan of local arrangements should first proceed from the local authorities, he would offer no objection to such an arrangement. There might be this compromise, that the first scheme or sketch should be proposed by the different local authorities, and if that scheme received the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, he should not object to the Amendment.

could not see why the right hon. Secretary objected to the appeal, for it did not appear likely there would be many such appeals; and they would not be resorted to except in gross cases of abuse.

wished to bring forward his Amendment, which was to the effect of so altering the clause as to give the initiation or origination in the matter entirely to the boards of guardians, and that the Commissioners should have the same powers they now possessed.

did not see how the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin could be reconciled with that of the hon. Member for Leitrim.

thought that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University did not go far enough, and hoped he would endeavour to extend its operation.

offered to withdraw that part of his Amendment which would legalise exceeding the boundaries of one union in the formation of the districts, and taking parts of adjoining unions to form one dispensary district.

suggested, that the best course would be to withdraw the clause for the present, in order to incorporate with it the several Amendments proposed to be inserted; and then the entire clause would be in an intelligible form before the Committee.

then moved—

"At the end of the last Amendment to add the words 'but so, nevertheless, that no electoral division formed under the Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor shall be divided; and in such scheme or plan the said Commissioners shall also state the number and salaries of the officers to he appointed for the service of each such Dispensary District, and the number of persons who shall be members of the committee of management of such district as hereinafter is provided.'"

said, that the decision of the amount of remuneration to the medical officers ought not to vest with the hoards of guardians; for practical experience had shown that many of their decisions had been regulated in fact by no principle at all, but from motives the most capricious, personal, and partial. While in some districts medical officers had been appointed at salaries which it was wonderful the veriest drudge would accept, in other districts the medical officers had been appointed at an amount of remuneration five times greater than they ought to have. The proper course was to leave the final fixing of these salaries in the hands of the Commissioners.

defended the principle of the local settlement of the amount of the salaries, and would divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

thought the medical men should be paid according to the worth of their services, and irrespective of considerations as to their private practice. He objected to the boards of guardians originating the amounts of the salaries, because personal interests would be certain to intervene, and in some localities the salaries would be very low, and in others very high, being fixed and regulated by nothing but personal and local prejudices and influences.

was of opinion that it would be desirable to establish, by Act of Parliament, a general scale of these salaries, applicable to the whole country. Would the right hon. Secretary for Ireland say if any plan had been proposed for a scale of remuneration, to be drawn up according to the circumstances of the district, and having regard to the fact whether or not private practice was to he allowed to the medical officer.

thought that there might be a maximum. In the 25th clause, power was given to the Commis- sioners to make regulations, and there was no reason against a settled plan being laid down under that clause.

could point out to the Committee the inequality in salaries arising from the decision of the amounts being in the hands of the boards of guardians, the payments made in different unions ranging from 60l. and 70l. down to very low sums; and he said he could run over fifty cases if it were necessary in which it would appear that caprice, partiality, and evident corruption prevailed among the boards of guardians in regard to the salaries of their own friends.

said, that the question now before the House was whether the initiation of salaries was to come from the hoards of guardians or from the commissioners.

must protest against the doctrine of a Dublin board having the power of taxing the ratepayers. The boards of guardians were the persons who were responsible; the ratepayers were the persons concerned, and he contended that the salaries should be under the control of the boards of guardians. The Dublin board would give salaries of 90l. a year whether the duties performed were worth it or not.

wished the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to remember, during this discussion, that there was another party concerned, and deeply concerned, in the matter before them, besides the Commissioners and the boards of guardians, and that party was—the poor.

said, that in cases where the hoards of guardians had the settlement of the salaries in their hands, the amount of them was either too large or too small. Let the Committee then take the middle course and strike out the word "salaries," and, adding a proviso to the 10th clause, enacting that in cases of salary, which the Hoard of Health considered too little, that the Board of Health should have the power of reconstructing the arrangement, and awarding such a salary as they deemed sufficient. This would give to the board of guardians the power of proposing or initiating the salaries in the first instance, and would prevent the medical officers from being underpaid.

considered the proceedings on this Bill as a most complete interference with the whole of the institution of local government in Ireland.

then moved to strike out the words, "and it shall be lawful for any such board of guardians to appeal against such Order in Council within one month after the date of such order."

said, that if the order was to be made subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, that approval would be given at the time the order was issued; and that before the guardians had seen it, and thus they would be mocked with an appeal against what they knew nothing about, and which had in fact been already decided on appeal.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Irish Poor Laws, said that it had been asserted heretofore that he and other hon. Gentlemen who thought with him wished to abolish the poor-laws entirely. That he altogether denied; but he wished to amend them, as without some amendment in them the country would continue in its present wretched condition. On a former occasion several Members of that House, as also of the other House, agreed to certain resolutions, which they laid before the First Lord of the Treasury; and it was on these resolutions that he intended to base his Bill for the amendment of the poor-laws. The first of these resolutions referred to the abolition of outdoor relief. Whilst he wished to abolish outdoor relief, he was aware that in the present state of destitution in Ireland it could not be abolished without a substitute; and, therefore, he was prepared to introduce a certain modification of that abolition, though it might not be acceptable to Ministers, nor even to all Irish Members. He felt, therefore, that if the clauses which he was prepared to introduce were not worthy of consideration during the recess, he would have no locus standi next Session to bring them forward. The second ground of amendment was the appointment of paid guardians, in which he expected to have the co-operation of all Irish Members. Unlimited taxation—such as was exercised by these officials—was unconstitutional, and was also destructive of the interests of the union to which these paid guardians were appointed. He, therefore, proposed that the power of appointing them should be removed from the Commissioners; and that in case of a dereliction of duty on the part of the local board, a fitting tribunal be appointed to decide in all such cases. The third proposition of amendment related to the extravagant expenditure of the establishments. He might be told that within the last six months expenses of outdoor relief had decreased 40 per cent. He did not deny that; but he denied that the expenses of the establishments had been reduced. In 1848, he found by a report that the rates for poor-law purposes in Ireland amounted to nearly two millions, whilst in 1849 they exceeded that amount. He had also to object to the high valuation of the land for poor-law purposes in Ireland; and, taking all the burdens which land was subject to in Ireland into account—many of which the landholders were exempted from—he had no hesitation in saying that taxation in that country averaged 8s. 4d., in the pound, whilst in England it did not amount to half that sum. Therefore, in his opinion, some other element besides land should be introduced for taxation; and if he should be permitted to introduce his Bill, he thought he would be able to deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner. He had said enough to show that his object was not extravagant or subversive, and he would not then trouble the House further on the subject.

seconded the Motion.

said, he feared that the object of the hon. and gallant Member was to subvert the entire of the Irish poor-law as it at present existed. In the first place, he stated that his object was to abolish outdoor relief, which was (he main principle of the law. Next, he wished to put an end to the compulsory system and the appointment of vice-guardians, which was the second great principle of the law. In short, it would seem as if his object was entirely to subvert the present system. It appeared by the Commissioners' report that a great diminution had latterly taken place in the amount of outdoor relief; but he believed that that was to some extent to be attributed to the niggardly manner in which it was administered, and not altogether to the diminution of distress. Any one who knew anything of the south or west of Ireland must admit that the people were still dying there in great numbers for; the want of outdoor relief. He contended that if outdoor relief were put an end to, it should he only on condition that indoor relief was made ample and sufficient. The Times correspondent had described the state of the Limerick workhouse, which had before been looked upon as the model workhouse of the south of Ireland. The great remedy for Irish distress was reproductive employment, for which there were the most enormous facilities all over the country. Where it had been tried in arterial and in thorough drainage the greatest benefit had accrued, and the land had so much increased in value as amply to return the outlay. But only a paltry sum, 200,000l. had been so expended. Had the 2,000,000l. which the working of the poor-law cost been expended in reproductive works, a very different state of things would be observable in Ireland. He could not refrain from thus expressing his strong opinion that reproductive employment was necessary to make the poor-law work well, and that it would be a much better way of providing for the people than shutting them up in workhouses, at the expense of the moral and industrial character and resources of the country.

said, that one main object with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington was to secure reproductive employment for Ireland. There could be no real doubt that outdoor relief had been most injurious to the morality and to the interests of that country; but still the hon. and gallant Member did not propose to abolish it without providing an efficient substitute. It was most unjust to cast blame on the Irish proprietors, who had contributed largely to the relief of the existing distress. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had for years made himself the exponent of the condition of a country in which, till last year, he had: never set his foot, and of the state of which he really know nothing; making himself the receptacle for all sorts of stories, however improbable or impossible. It was monstrous to hear the hon. Member maintain the unconstitutional system of taxation by the nominees of the Crown, in the shape of poor-law guardians appointed by the Government. The hon. Member was very liberal of his advice to others, and prodigal of their money; but, if his own were required, would be as 10th to part with it as any person could be.

said, it should be recollected that outdoor relief was merely permissive, and was never put into requisition until the workhouses were completely full. He believed that in very few unions was outdoor relief given to ablebodied paupers, who were generally absorbed by the various public works going on in different parts of the country. If vice-guardians were obnoxious, they might be dispensed with if the elected guardians would only do their duty; but he could not consent to take away the power of making such appointments. He knew cases in his own district in which they had been of the greatest advantage. If the expense were objected to, the remedy was in the power of the guardians; but he believed that the poor-law officers, generally, were not over, but under, paid. He believed that any defects in the working of the poor-law would be remedied by the recent change which had been made in the electoral divisions, and that, therefore, no legislative alteration would be necessary. He would not, however, oppose the introduction of the Bill, although he feared its details would be found to be wholly impracticable.

said, as there did not appear to be any indisposition on the part of the House to permit the introduction of this measure, he, on the part of the Government, would not offer any opposition to it. He hoped, however, it would be clearly understood that no sanction whatever was given by the Government to the opinions entertained on this question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who proposed to introduce this Bill. He (Sir G. Grey) was not so fortunate as to have heard the speech of that hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he understood that his main object was to take away altogether the power of giving outdoor relief in Ireland. Now he (Sir G, Grey) must admit that, as at present administered, that power was greatly abused in some eases; still it would be difficult to carry into effect the hon. and gallant Gentleman's object, without sacrificing a large amount of human life—without at all events incurring the risk of such a sacrifice; and he thought that, generally speaking, it would be inexpedient to alter the law in the manner proposed. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that the regulations which had recently been made with regard to the alteration of the divisions of the unions might tend to remove some of the objections which had been made by the proprietors of land in Ireland as to the working of the poor-relief system in that country. He was in hopes that, after they should have had greater experience of that system, those objections would be in a great measure removed. He very much differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud as to the expediency of Government sanctioning again any large measure of employment on public works, with the view of relieving the poor of Ireland. Whilst he was of opinion that the advances which had been made by Parliament for arterial drainage had been very beneficial in their results, he should nevertheless very much lament to see a large number of persons again relieved by such a system. He believed that the effect of such a system would be to increase and perpetuate the pauperism of Ireland. As there did not appear to be any disposition to enter into the details of this question, he would only say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon, that the House had no intention, as far as he (Sir G. Grey) could gather, to cast blame or censure upon the Irish proprietors for having neglected to relieve the poor of Ireland. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had demonstrated by figures how largely the landed proprietors of Ireland had contributed to the relief of the poor of that country. It was impossible to deny that there were some cases in which blame did attach to these proprietors; but he thought it would be exceedingly unjust to make the whole class responsible for the shortcomings of a few individuals of which it was composed. He believed that the Irish poor-law had, on the whole, been attended with the most beneficial results. No doubt, in some particular instance, it had inflicted hardship and inconvenience, but he believed that it had preserved a large amount of human life. He looked upon the Irish poor-law as a valuable and necessary measure, and he should be sorry to see any step taken by the House implying disapprobation of its principle.

said, that one important provision in the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend had been overlooked, and that was the clause for lightening the burthen of the poor-rate on real property. If it were for that provision alone he should be inclined to support the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend. His plan was to lay upon other interests a share in the taxation, and seeing that the whole question of the income tax was to be discussed in the ensuing Session, he (Mr. Stafford) thought a more fitting time than the present could not have been chosen for introducing the Bill. He denied that on that (the Opposition) side of the House, there was any wish suddenly to put a stop to outdoor relief. With respect to the reproductive employment suggested by the hon. Member for Stroud, he wished that the hon. Member would lay a Bill on the table, and the House would be able to see whether or no there was anything tangible in it. As to the expense of working the poor-law, he denied that as a whole the poor-law officers were underpaid. The accounts received of the failure of the potatoes, were no longer of a doubtful character. That failure was assuming a serious aspect; and he hoped the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be immediately directed to it, in order to see what arrangements could be made if it should please Almighty God, in his inscrutable wisdom, to inflict again on Ireland the calamities of past years. Two systems of expenditure had to be decided on now, and the question was whether the House would take a high tone, extend outdoor relief, give relief indiscriminately, and let the resources of real property in Ireland utterly run out; or whether they would make the property of Ireland responsible for its poverty, and give the people there to understand that, whatever happened, nothing more in the shape of assistance was to be expected from England. Would they adopt the advice given by the hon. Member for Stroud, as it issued from his luxurious mansion in Belgravia? His (Mr. Stafford's) wish was that the property of Ireland should maintain its poverty, but that that should be done with great economy and the application of stringent tests; and, unless these plans were adopted, he firmly believed that they would again witness the miserable spectacle of one part of the empire coming and seeking for eleemosynary support from another part. He regretted that the Session should have been so barren of legislation for Ireland, where it was wanted so greatly, and therefore he was of opinion that the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend should be all the more welcome. He considered that the payment of the poor-law officers should be left to those who paid the taxes—more especially at this moment, when the tendency of prices on all things was decidedly downwards.

said, that if hon. Gentlemen could see the condition of the county of Waterford they would not be surprised that Irish Members could not remain silent in that House, and that they could not forbear from proclaiming to the British Parliament and the nations of the world the misery and wretchedness of devoted Ireland. He believed the poor-law, in its present shape and administration, was one of the greatest grievances of which the Irish people complained. It was drawing into the vortex of universal pauperism more than one-half the ratepayers of the country, and sending them into the poorhouses. The farmers had been universally reduced to beggary by the operation of the poor-law, and the effects of free trade. Let the House not be surprised, then, if he reminded them of their misgovernment of the country. Ireland had been their difficulty, and she would be their difficulty again, unless they governed her by a majority of Irish Members. At present the Irish Members were outvoted by the English and Scotch. The representation of the country was, therefore, a mockery. Englishmen would not bear such a representation; why, then, should Irishmen bear it? It was such a species of legislation which had lost them America, and might yet lose them Ireland. So far as he understood the Bill, and he had not yet seen it, ho entirely agreed with it. He believed that outdoor relief in Ireland had been a total failure. The English people complained of a paltry 7d. in the pound income tax, and then they appeared astonished that the Irish people should complain of 2s., 8s., and even 10s. in the pound poor-law taxation. The English complained of the poor-law as oppressive. He denied they had any right to complain of the poor-law. The Irish people were the only people who had a right to complain of the poor-law. The Englishman's property had been acquired and purchased with the burden of the poor-law tax on it. The Irishman had acquired his property without any such tax, and it was, therefore, monstrous to impose it on Irishmen. The poor-law was a new tax on house and; landed property in Ireland. Why should those species of property be only subjected I to the poor-law tax, and all other descriptions of property exempted? It was a monster grievance this poor-law, and the Government should have no peace until they redressed this, and all other of the monster grievances of Ireland. He regretted that there should be, as there were, popularity-hunting men on the Irish boards of guardians, and that there were others on those boards who desired to dip their hands into the pockets of their neighbours. He objected to the principle of sending a couple of naval officers, who knew as much about Ireland as they did of the North Pole, or of Kamtschatka, to tax the people of that country. He, therefore, admired, the wholesome plan propounded in the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, of introducing the English law into Ireland. He hoped the House would next Session take up the subject in a proper spirit. He promised that Her Majesty's Government should have no peace, and no means of governing Ireland in quietness or satisfaction, until they looked the evil straight in the face, and remedied it. While there was health in his body he should, with the blessing of God, continue to press on the Government the necessity of remedying it; and until they did so, life and property would be insecure, and Ireland would be a constant source of weakness to England. At this late period of the Session, he felt he should have neglected his duty had he not told the House and the country that Government bad, this Session, done nothing for Ireland.

had not understood the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington to say, that the object of his Bill was to abolish outdoor relief, or he (Mr. Crawford) would have felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of the measure. He admitted that outdoor relief ought to be restrained within certain limits, and placed under such regulations with regard to distribution as would obviate as far as possible the evils which now existed. The hon. Member for Waterford city had said, that when the Irish landlords purchased their estates they were not subject to this tax. He (Mr. Crawford) could only say, then, that it was a grievous wrong to the people of Ireland, that the landlords were not responsible for the condition of the people. It was that non-responsibility which had reduced the mass of the inhabitants of Ireland to be a potato-fed people, and had in many places rendered necessary an enormous taxation for their support. That taxation, it was true, had fallen in some measure upon those by whom it ought justly to be borne—the landed proprietors of Ireland; but a great portion of it was paid by the commercial interests in the towns. Much of the evil under which Ireland laboured was referable to the land. The towns were overburdened by the poor population being driven from the country into the towns. This ought not to have been permitted, and would not have occurred under a more judicious system. With respect to poor-law relief, he was of opinion that everybody who had relief, ought, as far as possible, to work for that relief. He considered that in certain eases it was necessary vice-guardians should be appointed, for, although it was a constitutional principle that the elected guardians should manage taxation, yet cases had occurred in Ireland where it was absolutely necessary that paid guardians should be appointed. He was, however, anxious that the practice of appointing paid guardians should not be continued if it was possible to avoid it. The hon. Member for Waterford city had complained of the effects of free trade; but how, he (Mr. Crawford) would ask, could the people of Ireland, or even of England, have been sustained during the last few years, but for the course taken by the lamented statesman recently deceased, in removing the taxes upon food, and so preventing thousands from being starved? He admitted that it was necessary the poor-law should be revised, for in some cases it was wholly inefficient. Understanding, however, that the Bill would not absolutely forbid outdoor relief, he should support the Motion for its introduction.

, in reply, said he had before stated that he did not think it possible to relinquish outdoor relief altogether; but he wished that it should be given in a different manner from that now adopted. With regard to the question of free trade, so far as Ireland was concerned, it was entirely a one-sided free trade, for the Irish people were not allowed to cultivate tobacco or sugar, although they were told they enjoyed the advantage of free trade, because there was a free trade in corn.

said, it was not his intention to enter into any general or detailed statement of the acting of the poor-law in Ireland, or of all the evils and manifest injuries it had brought upon Ireland, for they had been so fully shown and ably commented upon by his gallant and hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington that it would be needless for him to detain the House by their repetition; therefore he should merely confine himself to a few facts respecting the working of that law in his immediate locality; and he was convinced that he could assert without fear of contradiction, that there was no part of Ireland where it was more admirably carried out than in the city of Cork, and he attributed this chiefly to the fixed determination of that excellent, zealous and enlightened body the poor-law guardians, not to allow outdoor relief to be forced on them. In vain, however, had that most destructive body the Irish Poor Law Commissioners endeavoured to compel its adoption in Cork: it had always been effectually opposed and resisted; and when the workhouse became filled, the guardians immediately provided and fitted up other premises for the poor, and there never had been a solitary instance of a person requiring relief or assistance having been refused admission. To prove the advantage of this system of not entertaining outdoor relief, he would merely mention one instance, and draw a comparison between Cork and a comparatively small town about twenty or twenty-five miles distance from it, Kanturk. By the census taken in 1841, the population of Cork city amounted to 156,657 persons; in June, 1849, there were 6,979 paupers receiving indoor relief; outdoor relief, none; making a total of 6,979. Now, at Kanturk the population was, at the same period, 85,561; in June, paupers receiving indoor relief, 2,257; outdoor relief, 25,619; total, 27,900 paupers, very nearly one-third of the population. Thus, with a population less by 71,096, the poor of Kanturk exceeded those of Cork city by 10,981 persons. Now, did not this sufficiently demonstrate the ruin and impolicy of giving outdoor relief? If persisted in, it must in the end pauperise all the ratepayers in Ireland, opening as it did the door to the greatest fraud and imposition, encouraging the idle and indolent, and actually holding out a premium to them to leave their em- ployment to be supported in a life of laziness and inactivity. The numbers in and applying for admission to the Cork union for some time varied from six to seven thousand, which was a much larger number than the union was calculated to hold, but other accommodation had always been procured; and when the Commissioners failed in forcing outdoor relief, they then proposed the division of the union into north and south. He could not be aware if any new arrangement was contemplated for this most oppressive and unjust law; but, considering as he did the system of outdoor relief to be a ruinous and destructive measure for Ireland, and that by exertion it can be done without—witness the practice in the city of Cork, and in eight of the eleven unions in that county—he should oppose it by every exertion in his power; and having endeavoured to lay before the House some particulars respecting his immediate locality, he should no longer trespass upon its indulgence.

Can the hon. and gallant Officer prove what he has said about the Commission endeavouring to force outdoor relief upon the guardians in Cork?

I was so assured by many poor-law guardians when I was in Cork.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to relieving the tenant-farmers from the operation of the income tax. He wished some abler Member, and one more competent to enter into the details of the question, had brought forward this Motion. The tenants were suffering from free trade, and they were less able than almost any other class to bear the losses to which they were exposed by the operation of the new system of commercial policy. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would relieve him from the necessity of bringing forward this Motion, from his own sense of what was due to the tenant-farmers and justice, by acceding at once to his proposition, and thus relieve him and his hon. Friends who attended in that House from a tiresome speech, and an unsatisfactory speech on the part of himself, because of the weak efforts he was only able to make in favour of the Motion. But as he despaired of this proceeding, he should submit his Motion to the House. Ho had been asked why he selected this particular period? He did so because he found that it would give relief to Scotland and England equally. He knew he should he met, and fairly met, by a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the period of three years would expire in April, 1851. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure him—he did not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman to an impossibility—that during the recess he would look into the whole matter and give it his serious consideration, and that if lie found sufficient reason be would be disposed to give relief to that class of persons for whom he humbly, deeply, and earnestly entreated sympathy—to the tenant-farmers of the country—if the right hon. Gentleman would do that, and hold out a hope of the probability of the removal of this tax, lie would not trespass on the time of the House or of the right hon. Gentleman. But as ho was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not disposed to give him such an assurance instanter, he must take the liberty to lay before the House the grounds on which he conceived ho was justified in resting his Motion, to which he trusted his hon. Friends in that House would give their support, and thus bring the light hon. Gentleman to a sense of duty, which, however, he would rather see emanate from the right hon. Gentleman from a sense on his part of what was right, and what ought to be granted to those for whom he now ventured to plead. He did not wish to speak ill of any man who had ever sat on the Treasury bench. Though it was his duty to differ from a deceased statesman—the late Sir Robert Peel, to whom ho gave the utmost credit for the exercise of every duty in private life, and with whose family he deeply sympathised in their bereavement—still, as a public servant, and remembering what had passed in that House during the period the right hon. Baronet held, he might say, the most important situation in the country—recollecting what had taken place, and what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, which led to those great disappointments felt by all in the House and everybody in the country—except the free-traders, certainly by the great and important agricultural body—landlord, tenant, and, not least important, the labouring class, he was bound to call the attention of the House to facts, He well recollected when the late right hon. Baronet in February, 1842, brought in his first Corn Law Amendment Bill, the price of wheat was 56s. 11d.; it was now 36s. 4d. At that time the right hon. Baronet calculated the remunerating price of wheat to be from 54s. to 58s. per quarter. The right hon. Baronet considered his Bill to be an amendment of the existing corn laws—which many on his (Col. Sibthorp's) side of the House thought was anything but an amendment—but, in reality, a violation of those rights and engagements admitted by every statesman, Mr. Huskisson and others; he recollected the words which the right hon. Baronet used to introduce his measure, and he would read them to the House. The right hon. Baronet commenced by saying—

"Sir, I rise in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to submit to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the modification and amendment of those laws which regulate the import of foreign corn."

The right hon. Baronet went on to say—

"I am aware of the difficulties which encompass the subject I am about to bring under the consideration of the House. With regard to a matter in respect to which such adverse opinions prevail, it is difficult to discuss it without making statements or admissions which will be seized on by those who entertain opposite opinions; but I feel that the best course I can pursue is to submit to the House the considerations which influenced the judgment and decision of Her Majesty's Government, and to leave them to be decided on by the reason, moderation, and judgment of Parliament." "The only object which I shall aim at in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House will be to state, as clearly and intelligibly as I can, the considerations which have induced Her Majesty's Government in reference to the nature of the measure I am about to propose. One other object I shall aim at—namely, to discuss this question, affecting such mighty interests, in a temper and spirit conformable with its great importance, bearing in mind how easy it is on each side to raise exaggerated apprehensions, and find inflammatory topics by which the feelings of the people may be excited. Her Majesty's Government have deemed it their duty to consider the corn laws with a view to their modification and amendment. They undertake the consideration of this question at a period when there is commercial distress, and when there exist great suffering and privations connected with that distress. But I feel it my duty, in the first place, to declare, that after having given to this subject the fullest consideration in my power, I cannot recommend the proposal which I have to make by exciting a hope that it will tend materially and immediately to the mitigation of that commercial distress. While I admit the existence of commercial distress—while I deplore the sufferings which it has occasioned, and sympathise with those who have un fortunately been exposed to privations, yet I feel bound to declare that I cannot attribute the dis- tress—to the extent in which it was by some supposed to be imputable—to the operation of the corn laws. I do not view with those feelings of despondency with which some are inclined to regard them, the commercial prospects of this country" "But looking at the general state of the commerce of this country, I neither see grounds for that despondency, with which some are in the habit of viewing it, nor can I see any ground for imputing to the operation of the corn laws, as some do, any material share in the evils at present existing. I think we are too apt to assume that there must be a constant and rapid increase in the amount of our exports to other countries; and we are too apt to despond when we find any occasional check in the amount of our exports. We decline to compare the extent of our commerce in the last year with a period of time more distant than the preceding-year. We insist on comparing it with the year immediately preceding, and if there appears a decline, we are too apt to apprehend that the sources of our prosperity are dried up. At all periods of our commercial history there have been these alternations of prosperity and depression. The latest period to which the returns respecting our trade are fully made up will include the year 1840; and comparing the state of trade in 1840 with its condition in preceding years, during the operation of the corn laws, I see no ground for the inference sometimes drawn, that the corn laws are the cause of our misfortunes, and that the repeal or alteration of them will supply an immediate remedy."

"I refer to this for the purpose of confirming my impression, that to look for any rapid or great change in the condition of the working population of this country from any extensive change of the corn laws, would subject you to great disappointment. My firm belief is—-I am now speaking with reference to those who wish for an absolute repeal of these laws—that if the House of Commons should be induced to pledge itself to a total repeal, which we on this side of the House deprecate so much, without relieving permanently the manufactures of the country, you will only super-add the severest agricultural distress. Any such disturbance of agriculture as must follow from a total repeal of the corn laws would, in my opinion, lead to unfavourable results, not only with respect to the agriculturists themselves, but also to all those numerous classes who are identified with them in interest."

The right hon. Baronet went on to say—

"Nothing can be more difficult than to attempt to determine the amount of protection required for the home producer."

"With reference to the probable remunerating price, I should say that for the protection of the agricultural interest, as far as I can possibly form a judgment, if the price of wheat in this country, allowing for its natural oscillations, could be limited to some such amount as between 54s. and 58s., I do not believe that it is for the interest of the agriculturist that it should be higher."

The average was now much under 40s. Further on the right hon. Baronet said—

"My belief, and the belief of my colleagues, is, that it is important for this country—that it is of the highest importance to the welfare of all classes in this country, that you should take care that the main sources of your supply of corn should he derived from domestic agriculture; while we also feel that any additional price which you may pay in effecting that object is an additional price which cannot be vindicated as a bonus or premium to agriculture, hut only on the ground of its being advantageous to the country at large."—Hansard (3rd Series), Vol. lx., pp. 201, 206, 212, 213,225,232.

Those were the statements in 1842 which they heard from the right hon. Baronet. The protection which he wished to give was not protection to any particular class. His belief, and the belief of his colleagues was, that it was important to this country, and to all classes, that care should be taken that the main source of our supply of corn should be derived from domestic agriculture, and that any additional price which was paid in effecting that object would be counterbalanced by the general gain in other respects. The words of the right hon. Baronet were, that it was essentially necessary to give protection to domestic agriculture; and from the official quotations which could be referred to, it would be seen that the increasing imports from foreign countries continued to depress, and would ultimately annihilate, the productions of this country. In June, 1842, the right hon. Baronet brought in a Bill which granted to Her Majesty an income tax on the property of the country for three years. The tax was to cease in April, 1845; it was renewed from time to time, and it would expire on the 5th of April, 1851. He wished some hon. Member, between 1842 and 1851, had introduced a Bill to effect the removal or the cessation of the tax on those important branches of our national industry. If they looked at the agriculture of the country from 1842 to 1850, they would find a constant depression arising from the importation, not only of grain, but of cattle and everything connected with agricultural produce. It deprived the farmers of this country of the chance of a fair remunerative price for their produce. These importations had thrown out of employment a class of persons whom the late right hon. Baronet, of whom he had been speaking, was very much disposed to maintain; and they had tended to increase crime, which hunger compelled that class of men to commit. He might show the amount of corn, cattle, butter, cheese, and other agricultural produce that had been imported into the country'; but he did not think it necessary to read to the House at that time the heap of documents which he had at his side, in order to do this if required. It would be enough to show them that there were strong grounds for asking for this boon, small though it was, for the cultivators of the soil, who in the present state of their affairs knew not where they were, far less where they would be some years hence. On looking at the immense importations that had taken place into this country, he found that in 1847, 1848, and 1849, being three years, they amounted to 18,574,249 quarters of wheat, barley, and oats. In the period of eight years, from 1842 to 1849, the importations amounted to 206,422,739 quarters: this was exclusive of 1850. From these facts, he conceived that there were good grounds for bringing forward his Motion. He would be told by the hon. Members for the West Riding or for Manchester, that there was no distress in the country; but it was only four nights ago that the hon. Member had grounded his objection to the large provision made for the family of the Duke of Cambridge on the distress of the country. He believed, however, that there was no Member of that House who would say that there was not great distress in the agricultural parts of the country; but, should there be, he would ask him why were the farmers unable to produce and to have those necessaries of life which they complained they had not? He might also be told that the Motion for removing the tax applied to a comparatively small number of persons; but what right could there be for calling on any number of men, more or less, to pay that for which they had received no adequate return, and which they had not the means that others had to pay. He did not call upon his right hon. Friend to abolish all taxation. He knew that a large sum was necessary to support the establishments of the country; but what he asked was, for a more equitable adjustment of that taxation. He asked the Government to look at home—not to consider the interest of the foreigner so much, and of the British farmer so little; and, whilst all proper attention was paid to trade and commerce, to have some little regard to the tillers of the soil. He made this appeal, not on behalf of the wealthy and influential—not on behalf of the aristocracy or gentry—but on behalf of that distressed and suffering class, the tenant-farmers of England, lie did not ask for anything novel or extraordinary; he asked the Government, if they did not at once accede to his Motion, to promise that they would take the subject into their serious consideration, so that this suffering body might entertain a reasonable expectation that something would be done for them during the next Session of Parliament. If, however, the Government did not accede to these suggestions, he told them plainly and frankly that he would bring forward the question in the next Session of Parliament. He would again and again renew his application to the House, and endeavour to force upon the Government and the House the necessity of acting justly towards a large and respectable and most useful class of their fellow subjects.

thought the hon. and gallant Member seemed himself to feel that whatever Motion he might think proper to bring forward upon this subject should be made next year. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) need hardly remind the House, that to relieve any class of the community from income tax would be inconsistent with the whole principle upon which that tax was levied. It had always been held that no one class ought to be taxed unless all were taxed—that all persons having incomes at and beyond a certain amount ought to be made to contribute, in proportion, to the necessities of the State, and that all persons not having such an amount of income ought to be entirely exempted. Therefore it would, in his opinion, be unjust and a breach of faith to exempt any one class. If the profits of farmers were not taxed, the manufacturers would at once, and with fairness, claim an equal exemption. Other classes would also complain that they were unduly burdened, and the result would be that the tax must be altogether abandoned or maintained as it at present stood. However, as the hon. and gallant Member intimated his intention of bringing the subject forward next Session, which would be the proper time for mooting any question connected with the mode of levying this tax upon tenant-farmers—and there were many such questions—it would probably be more consonant with the wishes of the House that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should refrain from saying more upon the subject now; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not think it necessary to give the House the trouble of dividing.

was very glad his hon. and gallant Friend had brought the subject under the consideration of the House, and hoped it would attract the serious attention of the Government during the recess. He believed there was no class of men in any country suffering more deeply than the tenant-farmers of England at the present moment. There was scarcely a tenant-farmer in England who had not for the last two or three years been paying the income tax, not out of his profits, for he made none, but along with his losses. He much regretted to find that the Government did not sympathise with the sufferings of that class—had they done so, and even promised that they would take the whole question into their consideration—had they shown they were willing to meet their case with some degree of liberality, it would be a consolation; but there was neither sympathy nor the promise of relief. He now came to the conclusion that any relief to the agricultural interest must be the result of the exertions of that class—that fair play would not be conceded, but must be wrung from the Government—that agitation must be rekindled and kept up, and the pressure from without brought to bear upon the reluctance of the Government and of Parliament. The tenant-farmers would not, could not, rest satisfied under the present state of things, and they would not be satisfied until they either received that degree of protection which would enable them to pay the taxes, or were relieved from those national burdens, so that they might be able to compete with the foreigner on something like equal terms.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the income tax as fair and equable in its pressure on the farming class; but he ought to be aware that there was, as regarded its imposition on that class, a most remarkable anomaly, namely, that the farmer must pay whether he made profits or not. When their case, however, was brought before the House, it was always met by the sternest refusal to consider the anomalous position in which they are placed. They had invested their capital to a large extent on the security of laws which they did not suppose would be abrogated; but yet the House of Commons refused to pay the slightest attention to their distress. The right hon. Gentle- man attempted to include all within one formal category. He laid down the rule broadly that the income tax ought universally to apply. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did not say universally, but to all classes.] Just so. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that all classes ought to be equally taxed? But the farmers were not allowed to plead no profits, and to be exempted from the income tax, if they proved they made no profits, which constituted the application of this tax unjust and exceptional in their case, because all traders were exempt if they proved they made no profits. The right hon. Baronet had not ventured to assert that all classes were equally prosperous, or rather equally depressed—that all had the same ability to endure taxation? Would he deny—could any man deny—the notorious fact that the agricultural class, and especially the tenant-farmers, were in a most depressed condition? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on a previous occasion, himself admitted this fact; and yet he now would continue to tax them more heavily than the most prosperous portions of the community. Did the House consider the fact that upon the faith of an Act of Parliament the tenant-farmers of England had invested their capital in the soil? They had done so upon the security of the laws of England; those laws were abolished, and yet it was, forsooth, a matter of surprise that the tenant-farmers should seek to be relieved and lightened of that load of taxation which was imposed during the existence and in the faith of the continuance of those laws. He was much grieved at the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a few nights ago, on the subject of the malt tax. The noble Lord expressed a hope, it was true, that the distress would be only transitory, but he did not seem to have the slightest conception how long it would last, or to what extent it would proceed; but to whatever length it would extend—whatever might be the suffering it would occasion—whatever might be the ruin it would produce, upon one thing the noble Lord seemed determined, and that was to introduce no remedial measure. The Government had declared in favour of this direct taxation, and thus declared, that taxation ought to give no advantage to any one but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that not only the proceeds ought to be applied ex- clusively to the public expenditure, but that neither by the imposition nor by the indirect operation of taxation, ought it to benefit any class of the community, but that to them all it should be solely and exclusively a burden—in fact, that taxation should represent nothing but encumbrance to every class of British subjects. The Government seemed to forget that in thus claiming the exclusive benefit of the form as well as the proceeds of the taxes for the State, they would teach all classes to consider the taxation and the Government itself an encumbrance. He confessed his dissatisfaction at the meagre declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the consideration of this question next Session. To an interest suffering deep distress, such a statement would be rather insulting than consoling, especially when coupled with the assurance of the Premier, that, however deep that distress might be, the Government would bring forward no remedy. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he produced the budget, there was a surplus of 2,220,000l. from 1849. There was 1,500,000l. expected this year, which would be, together, a surplus of about 3,700,000l.; yet whilst the agriculturists were in such distress, instead of helping them, Government had only taken the duty off bricks; and this, as everybody knew, would relieve the towns rather than the rural districts; in fact, the Government had sternly refused out of this surplus to afford any relief, worthy the name, to the interest they knew was suffering. He had felt it to be his duty to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln.

would support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, though it might be regretted that the subject was not brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dismissed the, question so summarily, as the position of the farmers at the present moment was perfectly new; and he hoped that, both with regard to himself and family, and to his landlord, the farmer's position would be fully entered upon. There never was a period at which the agricultural interest was more depressed; and, in fact, their case was at the present moment altogether new and extraordinary; there never was a time at which the farmers, landlords, and their dependants, were so depressed by hasty and inconsiderate legislation.

said, there were two circumstances which ought to be taken into account in the consideration of such a proposition as the present: the first was, that the income tax was imposed when the rents of land were much more easily paid, and the profits of cultivation much greater than at present; and the second, that whereas the farmer was paying the tax out of a profit, he was now obliged to pay it with a loss upon his farm. Now, he thought the injustice of this was manifest, and that the least the Government could do was to pass a short Act in which the farmers would have the power of appeal to the Property Tax Commissioners in the same way as the trading classes; and that if they could show that they farmed at an absolute loss instead of a gain, and that, as was the case, their capital was absorbed in the cultivation of the land, they ought to be exempted from the tax. At all events, the power of appeal ought to be granted. If his hon. and gallant Friend would feel it to be his duty to divide the House, he certainly would vote with him.

felt it to be his duty to divide the House upon his Motion. He could not account for the absence of some hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party he had the honour to be connected with; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given so little hope of any remedial measure being introduced, he would take the sense of the House on the Motion.

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is to be commended in bringing forward his Motion. I think it is the duty of every hon. Gentleman who supports the opinions we do, to take the sense of the House upon every convenient opportunity, and to endeavour to obtain ample and complete justice for this much suffering and depressed class. As to what has been remarked that it would be impossible to repeal the Income Tax Act during the present Session, I think there is no force in it, for there would be no difficulty in introducing a Bill during the present Session—a Bill which, if introduced by the Government, they would easily carry, with the aid of the Opposition, accomplishing the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view. I am glad that the subject has been introduced, although, I regret, that it has not been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, when it would have been discussed more amply, and in a fuller House. I will give my vote with the greatest satisfaction in favour of the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is in perfect harmony with the principles which I have always supported; and it is my firm conviction that Parliament ought not to lose a moment in endeavouring to remedy the most unfortunate and depressed condition of the agricultural interest.

said, that, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, one might suppose that the farmers were suffering most dire injustice from the present state of the law. [Cheers from the Protectionist benches.] He was not surprised at those cheers; for it seemed to be understood on the other side of the House that the farmer's condition had always been considered that of a beast of burden, and that he had never met with much sympathy in that House. Now, he recollected the passing of the income tax, and how it came to be levied as it was upon the farmer. It was notorious that it was almost absolutely necessary that it should be so levied, The necessity arose from the fact, that it would have been almost impossible to ascertain precisely to what the profits of farmers really amounted, simply because they had not adopted the accurate methods of book-keeping which prevailed in most branches of trade. It might, he believed, be shown that where sufficient capital was employed, the present mode of levying the income tax imposed on the farmer a smaller amount than he would have to pay if the ordinary mode of assessment were applied. If, indeed, it were proposed that farmers should pay no income tax whatever, while all other classes who employed capital in various ways should continue to bear the burden, he must say that that appeared to him one of the most extraordinary, and, he would add, one of the most impudent, propositions that could possibly be submitted to the Legislature. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be aware that they were approaching the end of the Session. During the recess it would be necessary for them to keep together the band of their followers in the country; and, perhaps, as the protection cry was nearly worn out, this might serve for a cry until next Session, and, in the meantime, probably that system of delusion which had been so long practised upon the farmers would be continued. Next year they would have to consider whether the income tax should be continued at all or not. When it was first proposed in 1842, no man was more opposed to it than he was; hut so convinced was he now of the necessity of maintaining whatsoever direct taxation was now levied, so far as the amount was concerned, and of the propriety of relieving the grout mass of the population from taxes which fell on the articles of which they were the chief consumers, that, obnoxious as the income tax was, he would he very sorry if the present or any other Government proposed that it should he repealed. He was quite sure that, in saying this, he spoke the sentiments of the great body of the people; although there might he many persons who felt the tax to be such a grievance that they would at all hazards support a proposition for its repeal. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite picture to themselves the amount of annoyance to which traders were subjected under this tax, and compare it with the absolute absence of annoyance in the case of farmers. He believed that the inhabitants of the towns would gladly exchange their own position for that of the farmers with regard to this impost.

would support the Motion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had altogether mistaken, or affected to mistake, the grounds upon which the present Motion was made, and had given no answers to the plain statement of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln as to the grounds upon which this test was imposed upon the tenant-farmers. There was this difference between that period and the present, that then they made large profits, now they sustained severe losses. When that tax was imposed, their produce was protected against the foreigner—now, the tax was maintained whilst the farmer was obliged to endure its burden, and to submit to foreign competition. At the time the income tax was imposed, the farmers were making large profits, and it was therefore an advantage to them to have the tax assessed on half their rents instead of on the gross profits. At that time the corn law existed; but now that it was repealed, the condition of the farmers was changed, and they were paying the tax not on a profit but on a loss. He could assure the hon. Member for Manchester that there was no fear of the cessation of the cry of "protection," to which he had alluded; it would be kept up with increased vigour; and had not the hon. Gentleman well known that such had been the case, he would not have spoken in the way he had done.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to incorporate the general practitioners of surgery, medicine, and midwifery, said, it would not be necessary for him to detain the House more than a few moments, as he was happy to state that he had obtained the assent of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to the introduction of his Bill. The general practitioners of this country—a most useful set of men—were placed in an anomalous position, in consequence of their being obliged to undergo an examination, and to take out a diploma from the College of Surgeons and the Company of the Apothecaries' Hall, without being enabled to participate in any benefits derivable from those institutions. The object of the Bill was to incorporate general practitioners into a corporation, with powers to examine in medicine, surgery, and midwifery those who were anxious to pursue the general practice of the medical profession. He thought the House would agree with him that this useful class of men, whose services were so generally required by the majority of the population of this country, should have a higher status, and occupy a more defined position, in society than they now held. He would simply lay the Bill on the table, but would take no further steps in regard to it until next Session.

seconded the Motion.

then rose, in pursuance to notice, to call the attention of the House to the causes of the late riots and proclamation of martial law in Cephalonia, and proceedings thereupon; and into the grievances of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands. He should not occupy more time than was actually necessary to state his views on the subject. Various causes had prevented him from introducing the subject at an earlier period of the Session, and he was now forced to bring it forward at a period when the House was almost dissolved and dissipated by heat. The House had become in reality a Select Committee. Having visited these islands in 1839, and having since that period taken great interest in their welfare, he felt very strongly how much they had been neglected. He wel recollected the proclamation in which His Britannic Majesty declared to the inhabitants, through the Chief Commissioner, his deep interest in the welfare of his subjects, and intimated that such measures would be adopted as would promote the prosperity of commerce and agriculture, and extend the blessings of freedom. In 1814, the inhabitants were told that they should enjoy the blessings of their own free constitution until a better one could be adopted. Notwithstanding these promises, they were assured in the official papers which had been laid on the table during the present Session, that the inhabitants were semi-barbarous; that declaration being made by the Lord High Commissioner as an excuse for the very severe measures which he had adopted. He did not know that he had ever risen to address the House with more regret than on the present occasion. He had to complain of the measures of one with whom he had long been associated in that House, and whom he had there always regarded as the friend of civil and religious liberty. There was something in the possession of power which seemed entirely to change men. They often heard of public men going from one side to the other, in order to put on the livery of office; but the extraordinary change which took place in those who were entrusted with power was really an enigma which he could not explain. He could most sincerely declare, that when the present Lord High Commissioner was appointed, he considered the appointment one of the best that the Government had made; but he was sorry to confess that in every respect he had been disappointed; and he deeply regretted to find that a man who had been the idol of a large, public-spirited, and liberal constituency, and whose public and private conduct had promoted the cause of civil and religious liberty, should have undergone such an extraordinary change within a few months after his arrival in these islands. He did not intend to read at any length the official documents. He should introduce one or two extracts from native newspapers to show what was the opinion entertained in such quarters with respect to these proceedings. He had first to complain of the abolition of constitutional, and of the establishment of martial, law, without any necessity whatever. Secondly, he had to urge the duty of taking measures to fulfil the expectations of the inhabitants. The hopes of the Ionians had been disappointed through improper appointments, through the misconduct of the Colonial Office, and through neglect; and he believed that, could they have anticipated that such would be the result of thirty-two years' superintendence by the British Government, there was not a man amongst them who would not have preferred the Government of the Turk or the Russian to that of the English. Although that was a severe reflection, it was still a just one, as was evident from the testimony of the Lord High Commissioner himself. For seven or eight years he (Mr. Hume) battled against the acts of Sir Thomas Maitland; but those acts were light in comparison with what had been done recently. What were the circumstances of the case? In September, 1848, there was a disturbance, which led to an amnesty being proclaimed by Sir. H. Ward, who promised his assistance towards creating peace and maintaining contentment. From a despatch which he held in his hand it appeared that in August, 1849, one of the chiefs of the island of Cephalonia was burned in his house along with four of his servants. It was not quite clear whether or not this chief was shot, but his house was burnt, and he himself consumed in the flames. The evils complained of should have been put down; but by whom had they been committed? By robbers, as Sir Henry Ward himself stated in his despatch. He stated that upon the morning of the 30th of August, 1849, having received intelligence of an outbreak in Cephalonia, instead of directing the police immediately to take measures to arrest the parties implicated, he determined by eleven o'clock to proclaim martial law at once, lie did so without using the other powers he possessed, and without further information as to the extent to which the disturbances existed. That appeared distinctly in the second page of the despatch. It then proceeded to inform the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office that in consequence of certain reports then circulated, the Lord High Commissioner had done all he could to ascertain how far the disposition to outbreak had extended, and he had soon seen reason to apprehend great danger. Now he (Mr. Hume) asked what reason there could have been for apprehending any danger? The greatest number of the disaffected did not exceed 200 or 300 at any time, and the officers reported that those men were armed with knives. Captain King and Colonel Trolloppe stated that very few of them had guns, and they must have been very bad ones, for after the exposure of the British troops for three hours, there was only one man wounded, a sergeant, who was shot in the jaw. There appeared in Sir Henry Ward's account of the matter a great deal of contradiction, and certainly much candour, for he had exposed his own cause, and showed clearly how completely he had been mistaken. There might have been some panic or alarm, but he had all the time a large and sufficient force at his command. What was now complained of by him (Mr. Hume) was, that without having ascertained whether the movement was general or local, Sir Henry Ward had proclaimed martial law, and informed the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he had done so under the powers granted to him by the Ionian laws. No such powers had been granted to him. They all knew what martial law meant, and what its effects were. The proclamation of martial law operated as a suspension of the constitution, and abolished all constitutional law while it continued in force. It appeared to him to have been most monstrous to have suspended the constitution in those islands upon such trivial grounds as Sir Henry Ward had done; and he unhesitatingly pronounced his opinion that there existed no sufficient grounds for doing so—for substituting the mere will of the Lord High Commissioner for the constitution of the country. It was an outrage upon the people, and totally unjustifiable. He was not prepared to say that the troops had not conducted themselves with great propriety; but the persons who gave orders for the arrests and executions were responsible. It appeared by Sir Henry Ward's own statements that there was no necessity whatever for the course he had taken, and that he was altogether under a misapprehension in supposing that the police and military forces could not have easily arrested the robbers and settled the peace of the country if they were allowed to do so. After the Lord High Commissioner became aware there were only a few robbers to be arrested, he continued martial law, and suspended the constitutional laws from the 30th of August until the 24th of October following. Admiral Parker was sent for, and arrived in the Ionian Islands with his line-of-battle ships, and yet while they surrounded the islands martial law was continued. In fact, it appeared to him that Sir Henry Ward had placed himself in such a position as would justify inquiry as to whether he should be continued in power, and be again enabled to exercise such arbitrary authority. It appeared throughout the despatches that there was a great dread of secret societies in those islands; but, be this as it might, he lamented that the understanding of Sir Henry Ward had been so biassed that he had been led to act with unusual precipitancy. In his letter of the 1st of September, Sir Henry Ward stated that Colonel Trolloppe had 900 men under his command. Would not such a force have been sufficient to check the tumult? He trusted the House would agree with his Motion for an inquiry into the subject. It appeared he had an effective military force, together with Admiral Parker's fleet, and no real apprehensions of danger could therefore exist. There was no excuse whatever for placing the islands under martial law—it was a grievous offence, and an inquiry into it should take place. He, therefore, hoped the House would agree to the Motion he had to propose. He brought it forward for the consideration of the House, because he wanted to see peace established, and the principles of the British constitution carried out by the representatives of this country. As to the letters referred to in the despatch, they were worthless as evidence in favour of the Lord High Commissioner—the writers of them of course obeyed every nod of his, and they wrote anything he suggested. However, he had been compelled to prorogue the assembly since then, which was rather indicative of the opinions entertained on the subject. The atrocities, the executions, floggings, and burning of houses, which took place during the continuance of martial law, was enough to mortify any man. It appeared there were sixty-five individuals tried by court-martial. Forty-four were sentenced to death, twenty-one were executed, seven were imprisoned, eleven were subjected to corporal punishment, and the remainder were acquitted. All the trials were under martial law, for at the time there was no other law according to which they could take place. There were altogether no less than ninety-six instances of flogging; and he might say to those uninformed of the fact, that that form of punishment had never been practised in the Ionian Islands; it was considered brutal and abhorrent to the feelings and opinions of the Ionians. The only persons ever subjected to it there were seamen in the British service, and no punishment more humiliating could be inflicted. Many lives had been lost, and yet the Government had instituted no inquiry. Was it to be said that whatever the Lord High Commissioner thought proper to do in these islands—to hang, shoot, and flog as he pleased—there should be no inquiry into his conduct? He (Mr. Hume) was really ashamed to say that the communications of the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the subject, showed the most perfect indifference. Martial law had been proclaimed in the islands for twenty-one days, before any intimation of the fact was made to the noble Earl; five letters were subsequently written; and his Lordship's answer was not received by Sir Henry Ward until the month of October. It seemed that the course pursued had, he (Mr. Hume) was sorry to say, been approved of; and he therefore asked, on behalf of the British public and the Ionian people, whether any inquiry had taken place into the occurrences, or whether any was to take place? He wished the Government would answer that question. He had stated sufficient to lay the ground for an inquiry, and he thought it ought not to be refused. He wanted a commission to be appointed to proceed to the Ionian Islands to investigate the whole matter, and report the evidence respecting it. Such an inquiry was demanded, and it was a privilege which the Ionian people should not be denied. He should not enter for one moment into the details contained in the voluminous accounts of those matters which had already reached this country. They were indebted to the Daily News for the publication of a great many of them, and they were well deserving of the serious attention of Parliament. They had had an inquiry into the state of Ceylon under similar circumstances, which occurred there—a commission was also demanded to examine witnesses in Ceylon; but, after waiting with patience for a long time, he regretted to say no commission was issued, and the Committee had not as yet prepared their report. His opinion was, that the best, and indeed the only, means for the proper investigation of the complaints of the Ionians against Sir Henry Ward, was by appointing two or three men fit and qualified to be sent out to those islands to take the evidence on the spot, and ascertain the real facts. The people of these islands were not barbarians, as they were described to be—they were eminent for civilisation, to his own knowledge, thirty years ago. He believed a commission was the only means whereby an inquiry could be effectively carried out to the satisfaction of the House or the public. He, therefore, prayed that an inquiry might be made into the causes of the late riots and proclamation of martial law in Cephalonia, and into the grievances of the inhabitants of the Ionian islands generally. He had presented petitions to the House from persons who complained of their houses having been entered, and their goods seized, under the authority of the police. Surely it was a matter of importance that such grave matters as these should be inquired into. The power of exercising that dread ful scourge, martial law—he wished heartily they could get rid of it—was a remnant of barbarity in the British constitution, and a reflection on the country. It ought to be got rid of; and when abused, especially as it had been in the Ionian Islands, the parties aggrieved were en titled to a strict and searching inquiry.

seconded the Motion. He said, in all sincerity he would gladly have given a silent vote, and much more gladly no vote at all on this sad question, and that for many reasons. But, placed as he was, he should consider he was guilty of an act of baseness if, in the face of the transactions which had taken place in the Ionian Islands, and which he believed were still going on there, he should shrink from supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. It was within his (Lord Nugent's) knowledge that portions of the evidence, and not unimportant portions, affecting this sad question, had been suppressed and kept back by the Government. He contended that this question had been most grossly misrepresented in the despatches; and the people in those islands, many of whom were his own countrymen, dealt with unfairly, cruelly, and illegally. If injustice had been done to that people, he wished that that injustice, so far as it could be reparable, should be repaired; and he sincerely asked that justice should be done oven to the character of the per son representing this country in the Ionian Islands. If that person could come out blameless from the inquiry, no man would more sincerely rejoice at that result than he (Lord Nugent). No one rejoiced more than he at that Gentleman's appointment, because he (Lord Nugent) believed that he was a person who would fill the office of Lord High Commissioner with discretion, humanity, and justice; but from all that had come to his (Lord Nugent's) know lodge—from things which he knew had improperly, as he thought, been kept back and suppressed by the Government—ho did think there was an à priori case of so much want of firmness and want of discretion, and—what that often led to—so much injustice, cruelty, and violence in that Gentleman's proceedings, that he (Lord Nugent) must support any inquiry which would throw light on those proceedings. He begged to call the attention of the House to a passage in one of Sir Henry Ward's despatches, dated September 7, 1849. In that despatch he used these words:—

"I am perfectly aware that I run the risk of being denounced as a persecutor and a tyrant for taking these steps, but I have no choice; I have to deal with semi-barbarians, as recent events have proved, and I must treat them as such."

Now he (Lord Nugent) wished to divide this inquiry into three parts. He would first inquire into the grounds on which the Lord High Commissioner felt himself justified in believing that there was an extensive and organised conspiracy in the Ionian Islands. He (Lord Nugent) would take the despatch dated the 6th of October, 1849, by Sir Henry Ward, to Earl Grey, in which he found the following passage:—

"1. I received, on the 30th September, a visit from a person, who, after insisting upon seeing me in private, acquainted me with many mysterious precautions; that he was an officer of high standing in two secret societies established at Corfu, and having extensive relations with Italy and Athens. 2, Having expressed some doubts as to the accuracy of his statement, and some curiosity as to Ids object in making it, he offered to satisfy me as to the first by bringing me his diploma as lieutenant general in the Universal Brotherhood (La Fratellanza Universelle), if I would give him 30l. to take it out of the hands of a friend, who had advanced the money in the first instance, retaining the papers as a security; and with regard to the second, he admitted that he was wretchedly poor, that he saw no prospect, at present of succeeding in any of their schemes, and hoped that the Government would treat him liberally if Ids information proved to be valuable. 3, I thought that it would be wrong to lose so good an opportunity of learning many things which it was desirable to know, but difficult to get at. I gave my informant, therefore, the 30l., and the promise of subsequent recompense, and he in return brought me, two hours afterwards, his diploma and the oath of his society, only stipulating that they should be returned to him, and be found upon his person in proper form by the police, should the Government think it necessary to order any arrests, in which case he must be dealt with in precisely the same manner as the parties whom he accused. He also gave me the names of several Italian refugees, who, by a gross abuse of the hospitality accorded to them, had joined the society immediately after their arrival in Corfu; and of two Corfiots, Signori Calogerà and Dr. Quartano; and one Cephaloniot, Dr. Valiano, whom he stated to be with himself at the head of the whole fraternity, and in whose houses he conceived that papers of importance would be found, although after the breaking out of the Cephalonian insurrection, of which the society was apprised a week before it happened, and the unfavourable turn taken by events in that island, many documents had been made away with, and much pains taken to conceal those that remained,"

He (Lord Nugent) would ask what possible security could there be for the truth of the story told by that pseudo lieutenant-general? But he would go further, and say that a discreet Government would have shrank from employing such means for obtaining such evidence. In the extract he had quoted, the House would observe there was an hiatus filled up with black stars. What did the House imagine was the reason for that hiatus? Probably they would imagine the blank was occasioned by a desire to omit the name of the informer, or the names of certain persons denounced, whom it would be wrong to bring before the public. No such thing. He knew what the passage was which had been omitted. He had seen it, and would state it. It was as follows:—

"I found him so frank a traitor, and so utterly regardless of the obligation of an oath, that I thought it would be wrong to lose so good an opportunity of learning so many things that it was necessary to know."

It was upon the information of this person—he would not call him a miscreant—he would only make use of the appellation employed by Sir Henry Ward himself—it was upon the information of this frank traitor, who was altogether regardless of an oath, that Sir Henry Ward proceeded to make domicile visits to the houses of several respectable citizens, in search of treasonable correspondence.