sult, of course, being great distress, which, | in the amount of the wages he paid, than however, had happily passed away. When from 7s. to Ss. While the farmers, whom the price of corn was rising, the farmers could expend more money in the employment of labour. Nothing could more plainly prove this than the state of the union workhouses at the respective periods referred to; and on this account he had moved for some returns on that head, to which the Government had with apparent readiness assented, but which (though a long period had elapsed) had not yet appeared, nor could he conceive any reason for the delay. But he knew that the returns in question would have demonstrated the truth of the arguments he was enforcing. He could give one or two instances, however, without troubling the House by going into a greater detail. In January, 1846, in the union workhouse of Newbury (Berks) there were ninety-six persons less than at the corresponding period of the preceding year, out of a number of only 320. So, in the union workhouse of Reigate (a union of which a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench was chairman) there were eighty paupers less in January, 1846, than in January, 1845, out of no larger a number than 260. The right hon. Baronet had talked of an imaginary line drawn from Inverness to Southampton, as marking out the division between the productive and comparatively unproductive portions of the country, and had assigned the eastern portion to the wheat growing farmers, who were described of little consequence in a national point of view. Now he belonged to this eastern half of the kingdom so intersected by this imaginary line, and so did those whom he represented, and with whom he was connected; and though they, the wheat growing farmers, might-albeit that they raised many millions of wheat every year-be deemed an unimportant class of the community by political economists, they had some merits to which the people of the other (the westerly) portion of the country could not lay claim. These wheat growing farmers gave their labourers 10s. or 12s. a week; while those of Wilts, Dorsetshire, and Devonshire, gave only 7s. or 8s.

The right hon. the Secretary at War had read a letter from an exceedingly experienced and scientific Wiltshire farmer, who declared that the price of wheat had never to his knowledge affected the rate of wages, and that, though he had sold wheat as low as 40s., and as high as 788., he had never made more difference

he derided as too dependent upon their wheat crops, at all events had the satisfaction of reflecting that they were not influenced in their dealings with their labourers by the principle thus acted upon by the Secretary at War's farming friend. The wheat growing farmers, when they had the money, never grudged their labourers a fair rate of wages; and when wheat reached a remunerating price were far from desiring to reduce and were rather ready to increase their employment of labour, well aware that such investment of capital must be ultimately advantageous. He felt as deeply as any Gentleman on the Treasury benches, that the greatest security for the prosperity of the agriculturists was to be sought for in the general welfare of the community. But he would not consent, that for the welfare merely of the manufacturers, the interests of the producer of food should be sacrificed. He sincerely hoped that the anticipations he had formed as to the effects of these measures would not be realized. But he was so convinced that they were wrong, and that they were fraught with the most imminent peril to the best interests of the Empire, that he could not but give them the most determined opposition. He never could-for party, or for any other purposes — give them that sort of semi-support which some Members had (he was sorry to say) given. He could not be content with the easy excuse, that "the country must be governed"-and that some species of assent to these measures was therefore necessary on the part of agricultural or Conservative Members. He called to mind a declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a recent occasion-" that to support a measure of which he did not approve, would be as unworthy of him as a Gentleman, as discreditable to him as a Minister." He cordially concurred in the sentiment. It was one in accordance with which he felt bound to act, and such was the course he should on this occasion pursue in giving to this measure his most strenuous opposition.

MR. BANKES concurred entirely in the sentiments of his hon. Friend who had just concluded his observations. But he rose more particularly to express the sincere and warm gratification which he felt in listening to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member who preceded himthe hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Verner), who had delivered a

speech in reference to the present state of Ireland which he must assume to be in accordance with the truth, inasmuch as the noble Earl the Secretary for Ireland, though sitting in his place, had not offered any contradiction to that speech. They had hitherto, in the discussion on this question, been without the advantage of the presence of one so capable as the noble Earl of giving information, and it might appear that they had been alarmed to an unnecessary degree in consequence of the absence of that noble Earl, and from the circumstance that there had been addressed to the feelings of the House arguments which would not have been offered if one with the information which the noble Earl possessed had been present to refute them. They were now told by the hon. and gallant Member who had so lately visited that country, of which he was so great an ornament, that the distress, though severe in some parts, was far from being general,

properly been referred to on various occasions. But they had always been told by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government that the analogy between these two periods was not nearly so close as was supposed, and that though there were local failures in 1822, there was nothing to be compared to the scarcity of the present year. They had now reached nearly the middle of the month of May, and he held in his hand a statement which had reference to precisely the same period in 1822. It was an account of the state of Ireland on the 10th of May, 1822, delivered in the House of Peers by Earl Darnley. The noble Earl stated on that occasion that he held in his hand a letter from a gentleman in the county of Clare, in which the writer stated

"That the distress here is beyond all descrip tion, and there is nothing but starvation in every corner of the county. What is to be thought of the conduct of the Ministers who told them that in

one part of the United Kingdom superabundance was the only complaint, while in another the people were starving."

Such was the state of Ireland as described by Lord Darnley. A few days after this statement was made, the condition of the poor in Ireland was more calamitous than ever; and the hon. Member for Midhurst said in the House of Commons, in the middle of June, that—

"In the county of Clare there were now 99,639

persons subsisting on charity from hour to hour.

In Cork, there were 132,000 individuals who must perish with hunger if they did not receive relief."

and that the measures which had been unfortunately adopted by Government, had greatly increased the evil, by creating alarm, and inducing persons who had potatoes to dispose of to keep them out of the market, in the hope of obtaining at some future time a better price. And now, when the real nature of the scarcity was ascertained-when they heard from those capable of giving correct information, that the evil was far below the alarm-that those who had hoarded stores were now bringing them forth, and that prices were falling, the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland offered not one word in contradic- He was far from saying that, because there tion to the statement. It was now their was great misery and distress in 1822, they happiness to be relieved during the remain- ought to be insensible to anything like the der of that factious debate from that which distress of the present year. But he must had pressed most severely upon their feel- say it was gratifying to see how the calaings during the previous portions of it-mity of 1822 was met by the great and the assertion which had been so frequently hazarded against them-that, by the delay which they had interposed to the progress of the present measure, they were starving the people of Ireland. And though they had assented, and readily assented, to the proposition made from the other side to give at once that relief, if relief could have been given by the measure proposed, they had been met by sarcasm. But now all difficulty of that nature was at an end, and they must trust in Providence that the fear of famine no longer existed. During the course of these discussions reference had been made to the year the events of which corresponded most nearly to the crisis alluded to. The year 1822 had very

generous efforts of the people of this country-300,000l. was raised by voluntary subscription, and transmitted to Ireland. The Speech of His Majesty from the Throne on the 6th of August of that year, would show that the distress had been pretty general in Ireland, for it could not be supposed that Ministers had made His Majesty say anything inconsistent with the truth. His Majesty, in proroguing Parliament, said--

"The distress which has for some months prevailed in considerable portions of Ireland, arising principally from the failure of that crop upon which the great body of the population depends for subsistence, has deeply affected me. The measures which you have adopted, seconded as they have been by the spontaneous efforts of my people, have

the calling together of Parliament. They
had been told by Irish Members through-
out the whole of that debate that employ-
ment had been granted to the people too
late-that the funds which had been so li-
berally set apart for the employment of the
Irish people had not yet been received by
them, and that, consequently, the distress,
such as it was, continued to exist.
the Minister had adopted that course which
did occur to him, and had summoned Par-
liament at an earlier period, employment
would have been secured to the people be-
fore the pressure of want came upon them.
He was not there to deny that there had
been want. [The Earl of LINCOLN:
Hear.]

But if

Such was the history of the distress in 1822. He thought he had proved that the distress of that period was not what the right hon. Gentleman would have led them to suppose. And how was that distress The noble Lord had found his met? The Minister of that day did not voice. That was what he wanted. As a think it necessary, in order to relieve that Member of that House he had a right to distress, to alter the whole commercial and require the noble Lord to tell him what was financial policy of the kingdom; nor did he the real state of Ireland. He was far from run counter to the opinions of those who venturing to hope that the noble Lord would had always followed him. It was not by be able to say that the whole of Ireland was pursuing such a course that the Minister of in that state of prosperity in which that that day provided for the difficulty, and led part of it was which the hon. and gallant to the result referred to in His Majesty's Member for Armagh had referred to; but Speech from the Throne. He maintained the noble Lord had not contradicted the that the distress of 1822 was considerably statement of the hon. and gallant Member, greater than that of the present year; and and the inference was that he acquiesced he felt sure, if the Ministers of the present in it. In the debate the other night the day had appealed in the same way that the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford Ministers of 1822 had done to the generous propounded an extraordinary remedy for feelings and liberality of the people, they the distress of his country. The hon. Bawould have been perhaps even more success-ronet said that the farmers in Ireland ful, and would have obtained a still greater sum for the relief of the distress in Ireland. There was another course which the right hon. Baronet might have pursued, and which had occurred to him, and which they had never heard explained why he had not adopted, viz., of meeting Parliament in November. If they had done so, they might then have passed those measures for the employment of the people of Ireland, which was all that they required, for he believed they had no desire to live on the generosity of others, if they could procure employment. He had never heard it explained why that course which did occur to the right hon. Baronet was not pursued. He had never heard any reason why that course was abandoned. The right hon. Baronet had told them that he had submitted two proposals to his Cabinet, and that the Cabinet disagreed with him on both. But the Cabinet afterwards rallied round him; and how came it that neither of these two courses was adopted by the reconstructed Cabinet? One of these proposals was the opening of the ports, and the other

should give up corn-growing, and turn their land into pasture, as that was the most profitable mode of cultivation for the landlords. Perhaps that might be best for the landlords, but their question was what would be best for the people. The hon. Member for Waterford was, no doubt, well read in the history of the Empire, and was aware that that was a subject which at different periods had been most anxiously considered in this country. For nearly 100 years the Statute-book contained proofs of the anxiety which had been felt by the rulers of this country with regard to that very alteration which the hon. Member seemed to think would be productive of so much benefit to Ireland. A wise, an indisputably wise, king, the first of the Tudors, Henry VII., had directed his attention to this point, and in the Statute-book of the fourth year of his reign he found a statute against putting of land out of tillage, which set forth that great evils had arisen in consequence of laying out in pasture land which had been used in tillage, for where in some towns 200 persons had been occupied by their lawful

what was the true state of that country. The state of the country was not, in his opinion, combined with the question of the Corn Laws; but he wanted to know whether the Government still continued to assert the proposition that the present Bill would afford any immediate or future relief to Ireland. If the Government had made any former efforts to serve Ireland, they had not succeeded in their attempts. He had only to express, in conclusion, an earnest hope that the House would receive some authentic information on such an important subject.

labour in cultivating the soil, there were now kept but two or three herdsmen. Such would be the result of the change which the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford recommended; the land which, under tillage, gave employment to 200 persons, would, in future, only employ two herdsmen, one per cent of the former population. If this were a landlord's question, the hon. Member might be right in advocating such a change; but if it was a question affecting the people, then he would advise the hon. Member to keep his lands in tillage, for by that means would he be able to find employment for the population. The The EARL of LINCOLN: Mr. Speaker, I population might, no doubt, be maintained certainly should have been glad to be spared by other means; but such a result was not the duty of rising to address the House on to be desired, and was that which the wise this occasion; not that I have any difficulty king to whom he alluded foresaw, and in responding to the call that has been made against which he attempted to provide. It upon me by my hon. Friend the Member for would appear, however, that his endeavours Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), but because of to restrain the converting of tillage into the fact that I have been labouring under pasture had not been entirely successful, some indisposition for two or three days, for the enactment was renewed in the reign and I am afraid I shall not be able to exof Edward VI., and again repeatedly in the press myself in a manner so satisfactory to reign of Elizabeth, until it became neces- the House as I could wish. At the same sary to pass the Poor Law of Elizabeth, time, Sir, I feel that it is not possible for and the people were fed by bounty and not me to remain silent, after the sarcastic by their own free labour. Such was the tone in which my hon. Friend took notice result of the change from tillage to pas- of the circumstance that I had not risen ture, as proposed by the hon. Baronet the earlier to reply to the statements of the Member for Waterford. He would recom- hon. and gallant Member for Armagh mend, therefore, the hon. Baronet to recon- (Colonel Verner). I hope, however, that sider the question, and he had no doubt the House will excuse me, if, for the reason that he would perceive that it was not so I have assigned, I avoid entering into the much a landlord's as a labourer's question. whole subject of the Corn Laws on the If it should ever be necessary to enforce present occasion, and confine myself simthe Poor Law of Elizabeth in Ireland, it ply to replying to the speeches of my might be in consequence of a state of hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, things similar to that which had existed in and the hon. and gallant Member for England-viz., want of employment for the Armagh, which speeches were, I think, labourers. Before they proceeded to any almost exclusively occupied with a de further stage with the Corn Bill, he trusted nial of the existence of want among the the House would receive from a Minister of population of Ireland. Now, with reference the Crown an account of the real condition to the call made upon me by my hon. Friend of Ireland, now in the middle of the month who spoke last, I must say I should have of May, and thereby relieve the just anxiety thought that on general grounds, if not for which they felt on this subject. He thought the reason I have given, it was not neceshe heard the hon. Member for Salford (Mr.sary for the Secretary for Ireland, on the Brotherton) indulge in merriment. He did not know whether there was anything of a laughable character in the expression of the natural anxiety he felt to ascertain the real state of the people of Ireland. The hon. Member would of course have an opportunity, if he wished it, to explain how he felt on this subject; but for his (Mr. Bankes's) part, he expressed the feeling with the utmost sincerity. He did wish to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland,

first occasion since his appointment that he happened to hear the statements which have been made by the hon. Gentlemen, to have risen to deny them; for I cannot suppose that the hon. Gentlemen could consider that the other Members of Her Majesty's Government are ignorant of the real state of things in Ireland, or that they do not, from time to time, receive accounts from the Government in that country of the real condition of the people; and I did

opportunity of seeing with his own eyes the state of the people of Ireland. I do not know it for a fact, but I believe that my hon. Friend visited his estates in Ireland at Easter for the purpose of seeing for himself what really was the state of the country; and I think that he could, if he chose, contradict the statements respecting the distress in Ireland on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire relies. As I have said, I do not know for a fact that the object of his visit was such as I have mentioned; it may be surmise; and I may be mistaken; but this I do know, that twenty-four hours after my hon. Friend's arrival in Ireland he wrote to me at Dublin a letter so pressing and so urgent, that I can say that in all the applications with respect to the existing distress that I have received from all parts of the country, there had been none so pressing or so urgent as that which I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire. He stated that which he, as a good landlord, was no doubt glad to do, and which I should have been ready to give credit to him for doing if he had not mentioned it, namely, that he was ready to find the means of supplying all the wants of his own tenantry; that not one of them should come on the public

think that it was well known (as is the fact) that I was equally with my Colleagues responsible for the statements which have been made in this House respecting the distress in Ireland, by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department. I claim my full share of responsibility for those statements, for it has been my duty since I went to Ireland to correspond every day, from Dublin, with one or other of my right hon. Friends, and to state to them the severe pressure that exists, and the severe pressure that must be expected to exist for some time to come. That has been my duty, and I say, therefore, when my hon. Friend expresses his doubts of the real existence of distress in Ireland, that I can remove all doubts on the subject from his mind, if those doubts are sincerely entertained, and that the statements of the distress of the people of Ireland which have been made in this House by Her Majesty's Government have not been exaggerated. I do not say that no statements of distress which have been made on the other side of the water have been overcharged. Some of the statements made there may have been exaggerated. Alarm in some cases, and in others, I am afraid I must say, interested motives, may have induced per-purse; but he accompanied that declaration sons to put forth statements too highly coloured; but all those representations have been carefully investigated by the Government of Ireland; and in my conscience I believe that no statement made by the Government in this House has partaken of exaggeration. Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire tauntingly remarked, that my right hon. Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government was sitting next but one to the Irish Secretary, from whom he must have learned the truth as to the state of Ireland; and my hon. Friend called on my right hon. Friend to rise and deny, if he could, the statements which had just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire is at this moment sitting within four of my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. A. Stafford O'Brien), and I call on my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire to rise and contradiet my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire as to the statement he has made of there being no unusual distress in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire has lately had an

by this statement also, that many of the peasantry around him were in a state of the utmost distress; and that with them it was an affair, not of weeks, nor even of days, but of hours: and he told me further, that if after that warning on his part I hesitated to supply means of obtaining food to the peasantry of that district, where there was no resident landlord, the responsibility must rest on me, and that it would be my fault if famine, and consequently disturbance, should take place. Sir, I will not relate to the House what I felt it my duty to do on receiving that letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire has already done more than ample justice in speaking in this House, some evenings ago, of the course I took; but I am very confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire will assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire of this, at least, that in the counties of Limerick and Clare the distress of the people, so far from having been exaggerated by Her Majesty's Government, is at present most alarming. After all, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire does not appear to be quite