The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-08 00:00:00

PRACTICES AT CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. V. SMITH, pursuant to notice, moved "an address
for a commission to inquire into corrupt practices at elec-
tions at Cambridge ;—Graham Wilmore, Esq., Q.C.,
George Boden, Esq., and Thomas Tower, Esq., commis-
sioners:" and, preliminary, presented a petition praying
such a commission from inhabitants of Cambridge.
Sir .1. V. SHELLEY seconded the motion, which was
agreed to ; and
Mr. V. SMITIL went up to demand a conference ; re-
turned, and reported that their lordships had been pleased
to grant a conference.
A number of gentlemen were accordingly appointed by
the house to manage the conference ; and the usual for-
malities were gone through.
IRISH CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES.
Mr. G. MOORE moved, pursuant to notice, " That, in
the opinion of this house, it is the duty of her Majesty's
government forthwith to take into consideration the Irish
consolidated annuities, in order to effect a more equitable
settlement of the claims for which those annuities were
granted, by remitting the amount charged on account of
the Labour Rate Acts, 9 and 10 Vic., c. 107, and 10 and 11
Vic., c. 87, whilst the repayment of the workhouse loans,
the advances for temporary relief, Act 10 Vic., c. 7, the
advances for public works, under the Acts 1 Vic., c. 21,
and 9 Vic., c. 1, and for aid to the distressed district., under
.the Act 13 Vic., c. 14, are fully provided for."
In introducing this subject, he might say in
preferring the claims made by a whole cauntry,
he asked for the indulgence and patient hearing
of the house on the ground that the ma.frr was en.i.ely
one of statement and detail, resting on no broad principles
upon which conclusions could be come to irrespective of the
minute facts. The claim was just or unjust, reasonable or
unreasonable, precisely as the facts he would lay befare the
house might make it one or the other. lie desired, how-
ever, that it would be understood be was coming rawer.'
with no beggar's petition, based ou the distress .1 Ireland,

or the special distress of particular uuions in Ireland ;
but !amide a distinctelaim, based on what he would make
out as a clear case of plain justice. It was a claim which
bad already received the imprimatur of a committee of the
'House of Lords, consisting certainly of some noble lor la
interested in the result, hut else of other peers with unsur-
passed reputations for statesmanship and independence. He
referred to Lord Clarendon, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord
Salisbury, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Normanby, Lord Derby,
Lord Carlisle, Lord Harrowhy, Lord Beaumont, and Lord
Ashburton. The evidence brought before the committee,
and on which the committee reported, was the evidence of
witnesses of the very highest authority, being gen
tiemen who had been directly concerned in the
administration of the financial matters involved; and
among those witnesses the greatest value win to be
attached, although all his testimony had had the contrary
effect he intended, to the evidence of Sir Charles Trevelyan.
(Hear, hear.) More amusing as well as more instructive
evident* had never been read. The laudation of Sir
Charles Trevelyan by Sir Charles Trevelyan was endless,
and throughout there appeared on the part of the witness
the most intense unconsciousness that he could ever have
made a mistake. Certainly nothing that person ever
did had succeeded; no prediction he ever made had
come to pass; disasters had foliowed his every attempt
in every direction, and lie had increased every dis-
aster by every attempt he had made to supply a remedy.
But he had nut the slightest suspicion of the causes of such
a sinister career; everyone was to blame but himself ;
everything but that which he had done had been dune at
the wrong time or in the wrong way ; and he made out
that the Irishman and Divine Providence were in league
together to perplex his plans and to confound his hopes.
(Laughter.) lie (Mr. Moore) was aware of the influence
which Sir Charles Trevelyan still wielded over the govern-
ment ; and when he saw a dogmatist whom no experience
could touch, no practice enlighten—a practical blun-
derer, whose self-complacence failure seemed only to harden,
still in a powerful position, he confessed, to his astonish-
ment, that such a man, looked upon by all parties with un-
limited distrust, should have been retained hy any adminis-
tration. Backed by such evidence, the inquiry of the Lords'
committee was elabarate ; and their recommendations,
finally, were precisely the claims which he was now urging
on the House of Commons. Ho was far from asking that
house to direct its proceedings by the views of any com-
mittee, least of all of a committee not issuing from itself;
but he did ask with confidence that a due weight
should be attached to the opinions of a body con-
stituted of the distinguished men whom he had named.
This committee were in the nature of a jury appointed to
take evidence on the subject and pronounce a verdict ; and,
whether they looked at the constitution of the committee
itself, or the character of their proceedings, it appeared to
him that their verdict was entitled to as much con-
sideration as the verdict of any jury that hid ever
been pronounced. It was right, however, that he should
show that they (the Irish people) came before the house not
only with this testimony but with clean hands. The Irish
people had never sought to repudiate any contract which
they had entered into. Advances for public works in
Ireland did not commence in 1845, but long pre-
viously and in ten years the Irish people had
repaid 'four millions which bad been advanced, though
those were years of distress. Ile hoped, therefore, a good
opinion would be entertained of the desire of the Irish com-
munity to discharge their just debts. What distinction
was to be drawn between those loans which they had repaid
with so much promptitude, and those which they now
sought to be relieved from ? One distinction had been
stated by Sir John Burgoyne: that he had always found
the people of Ireland to fulfil any contract they bad volun-
tarily entered into, but that be had always made a distinc-
tion between a voluntary and an involuntary subscription.
But he (Mr. Moore) could not rely on that distinction, be-
cause he could not deny the right of the state to compel the
community to be party to a contract ; but he thought that
the legislature became extraordinarily responsible for such
an extraordinary control over the property of the public,
and that parliament was bound to show that it had exer-
cised its great powers to the advantage of the public, and
to the least possible detriment to property ; and if it
could be shown that parliament had exercised its
powers to the greatest possible disadvantage to the
public and detriment to property, he thought that to charge
the cost of that on the sufferers would be the greatest injus-
tice. He found that this committee had uaanimously
declared that the mode of relief under which the greater
part of these charges had arisen was in its essence uofit to
cope with the emergency, and that it was continued after
warning and full experience of its inadequacy, and that
while on the one hand it generated the seeds of disease and
death it seduced the people from their natural occupations,
and thus deteriorated the value of property and diminished
the future means of subsistence. In 1845 the potato
disease first appeared, and with the widest pre-
science) the great statesman who then held the
helm of affairs made arrangements by which a considerable
quantity of Indian corn was laid up in store to meet, as far
as possible the failure of the potato. The expenditure in
1845.6 did not amount to 45,0001., and the largest amount
of persons employed daily did not reach 8.5,000, whereas in
the subsequent year the expenditure rose to four millions
and a halt, and the number daily employed was more than
700,000. He found that in April, 1846, a letter was written
to the Treasury, stating that they could rot find engineers
and superintendents enough for the multitude of labourers
that would be forced upon them. That was written when
the average number in daily employment was 75,000, and
yet he found that government and parliament were con-
tented to leave the fortunes of a whole people to the opera-
tion of an act precisely similar in nature but with some sm.
difications. The disease is the potato, which had partial
destroyed the crop in 1845, utterly swept it away in 1846,
sod the corn crop was so seriously damaged as materially to'
isseavata the calamity. It had been stated by Mr. Grif-
fith that the loss in potatoes and oats in that year
mounted to 16 millions sterling. To meet this dis-
aster the Labour Rate Act was passed, which enabled
and required the Lord-Lieutenant on representations
being made to him to call together extraordinary
presentment sessions composed of magistrates and rate-
payers, who were, in their turn, empowered and required
without previona surveys, without maps, without estimates,
M pass a sufficient number of public works to support this
distressed population. It was the opinion of the law officers
K the crown that it was impossible to undertake works
wader this act except such as were ordinarily placed under
the management of the grand jury—that was to say, the
making of new and the repairing of old roads. No doubt
government, when they passed the act, did not anticipate
the full extent of the calamity, but Sir Charles Trevelyan
avowed that in November the system of public works bad
broken down. That being so, why was not parliament
mumbled ? It was amembled in November of the following
year to soothe a panic in the City, and last year to report
the progress of the election and ascertain the state of parties.
Surely the lives of a whole people were of more importance.
New, with regard to these works, Sir John Burgoyne, in
his evidence, stated, that in many ways they were attended
with injurious effects, and that they were discontinued
when roads were half made, and excavations for
drains were incomplete. The Treasury determined not
to adopt useful works, lent they should 'confer some benefit
on individuals. He contended, with tfie greatest respect,
that parliament had no right to deal with the property of
others after this fashion. But, in addition to this, he con-

tended that the Irish people, in consequence of these works,
had sustained a greater loss than the amount to be now
recovered under the act. On the 16th January, 1847, the
chairman of the Board of Works reported that the want of
food was driving everybody to the works. and that the
public works offered • direct premium to labourers to quit
their ordinary useful occupations, and that they in tact
'afforded subsistence to the agricultural labourer only, on
condition that be left his ordinary work. Then Major
Markham said, it was universally reported to them that
there was very little tillage going on, and that the small
cultivators were unable to cultivate their holdings, inas-
much as they were obliged to attend to the public works.
In April, May and June, in which the operations of tillage
were conducted, the number of labourers at the works ave-
raged 440,000, which was one-fourth of the whole of the
agricultural labourers of Ireland ; and it was found that the
diminution in the harvest of that year was exactly
in the same proportion. The land had lain
waste. Parliament, however, at last passed the
act commonly and honourably known as the
Burgoyne Act. The labour test of the doctrinaires was ex-
ploded, charity was permitted to do its own work in its
good old form, food was gratuitously distributed to those
who were in want of it, and by that means upwards of two
millions and a half of human beings were kept alive at scoot
for five months of 1,700,0001„ er at less than a penny a day
each. All the witnesses concurred in speaking of this as a
favourable change, a change to less than one penny a day.
B utproi passel with the Burgoyne Act another act was passed
which for the first time gave tnem an efficient poor-law in
Ireland. He thought that that poor law would have a great
effect on the future prospects of Ireland, but he considered
that parliament was responsible for not having given them it
before. He did not state these facts in any spirit of bitterness
or reproach, but in a full reliance upon the justice and fair-
ness which had of late characterised the proceedings of the
house. If the legislature had only acted with regard to Ire-
land ever since the Union in the way in which it seemed
now disposed to do—if it had only taken pains to regulate
the relations between landlord and tenant, and to control
by means of a sound poor law the pauperism of the coun-
try, though to was not prepared to say that the failure of
the potato would not have been a very severe loss, yet it
would hare been one against which Ireland would have
been able to make a stout and successful struggle. (Hear,
hear.) The sum contributed in 1848 was 1,619,0001., in
1849 1,674,0001., in 1850 1,500.0001., and in 1851
I,3oo,oool.—making above six millions raised for the
support of the poor at • time when property had sunk
to • lower depth than ever property had sunk before. From
Sir Charles Trevelyan's explanation of the mode in which
it was proposed that these advances should be repaid, it ap-
peared that 4s. in the pound was the maximum rate.
1 When the rates for the ordinary expenses of
poor law relief reached that amount, nothing
1 was to be repaid, but when the ordinary rates were less than
45.. the difference was to be applied to the discharge of the
loans. It was hardly conceivable that a plan could be de-
vised more destructive to all forethought and frugality. The
union which by any extravagance could keep up its rates to
four shillings had to repay nothing ; but if a union could
bring its expenditure down to three shillings, it would have
it raised to four shillings again, to pay off • consolidated
annuity. (Hear, hear.) In canclusion, he trusted that the
house would assent to his proposition. (Cheers.)
Mr. FRENCH, in seconding the motion, stated his opi-
ni sn that the report of the Lords Committee was both
just and moderate. He felt bound to express his surprise
that his hon. friend the member for Mayo should have had
to bring forward the subject at all ; and he did not think
the Irish members bad been at all fairly treated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had listened with regret to a portion of the speech in

which the subject was treated as though it was a question
between Ireland on one hand and Sir Charles Tweelyan
on the other. Sir Charles was au eminently Lonest, able,
and indefatigable men ; and yet the hon. geutlernan had
described him in terms which ho had never heard applied
by any member of pitrli meet to one of teat most valuable
class of the civil service, who had no means of defending
themselves when ettaceed in that house, whose useful ad-
vice and successful propositions invariably redounded to the
credit and honour of the ministers, and whose advice and
propositions therefore' iu all caeca ought to he charged to
' the responeibility of the ministers, and if they had not suc-
ceeded, they ought not to be made the bans of a gross per-
son a attack. Sir Charles had been denounced as a dog.
flutist, a thcori-t, a practical blunderer, one who spared
nothing, mid who scrupled at nothing. Few emen in
that house would hue made such an attack ;
and he doubted whether the hon. geutlellllll himself
would be hereafter inclinee to repeat it. (fleer, hear.)
Whatever Sir C. Trevelyan might have done, or advised
iu this matter, it was not to be laid to his door, but to
that of the government. If the measure had beim unseuud
in principle, or unsuccessful in practice, it WAS the govern-
ment ot the day that must bear the blame. (Hear, hear.)
Ile never remembemd a fieenciel proposition made to the
House of Cowmen, being supported almost exclusively by
a report from a committee of tee House of Lords. Ile en-
tirely demurred from the description given of that report by
the hon. member fur Mayo, who said it was a high and
commanding authority. He del not admit the iloeerine
that a report of the Muse of Lards uu tie:trice was to be
regarded not only a- deserving attention, hut as a high and
commanding authority. (Hear, hoar.) It ought rather to
be received with sonic jeel iusy by that body, which WAS
entrusted with the duty of ruing the people, and saddling
burdens upou them. But Mr. French went very greatly
beyond the recommendations of that committee, mid spe-
cified various puree's of the consolidated annuities,
Meolving a very liege sum of money, the remission of
which he thought was 'a debt due to Ireland, although rho
committee of the House of Lords hal declined to make
any such recommend thin. The hon. gentleman thought
the committee of the House of Lords did net eo fir enough.
He seemed to think that what Ireland had expended. in
former years for the relief of its own poor constituted a
valid claim against the exchequer of this country, became
an opinion hail been previously expressed that tee cost of
the relief of the poor would not exceed a certain amount,
one because that amount had been exceeded. (Hear, hear.)
He (tlie Chanccllur) declined to notice those arguments,
because they were nut within the scope of the motion be-
fore them. Mr. eleore had rested his mutiett on the
strictest grounds of justice, not as a bo, o, or as an equit-
able consideration ; and lie feuded himself upon charges
against government and parliament, who, he suid, had been
guilty of great misdeeds in respect to Ireland, the con-
sequences of which Ireland ought not to bear. The
hon. gentleman had not made good these statements.
Ile charged the government with having intruded them-
selves into the position and usurped the functions of the
landed proprietors in Ireland. (" hear, hear," from Mr.
Moore.) lie said that the relict chosen was con:learned by
Ireland—of tour is, that meant at the time, if it meant any-
thiog—(laughter)—that the parties who administered it
had seduced the labourers, caused deaths and starvation
wheel would not otherwise have taken place, and dimi-
nished the amount of human subsistence in the country ;
and all that he said, was wound up by prescutiug to Ire-
land a long bill, which she was to pay in consideration of
the immense wrongs that we had inflicted upon her. It
might have been said that when parliament enacted the
pour law, that was something like au assumption of the
functions of the landed proprietore appreheuded few
people were now of @pillion that parliament had erred in
passing that law, lie believed that it was the general
opinion that the country at large, and Ireland owed a
debt of gratitude to the noble lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) for having passed that measure. (Hear, hear.)
If parliament put itself into the place of the landed pro-
prietors, it was under the pressure of a very strong neces-
sity, and because the landowners would not discharge those
functions themselves. But he did not admit that parlia-
ment had done this, or that this law was forced upon
Ireland. What were the provisions of the law? The
public works bed to be presented by an extraordinary ses-
sion of magistrates, and by them sent up to the lord-lieu-
tenant. That was not setting aside the landowners of
Ireland. The lord-lieutenant could not even stir in the
matter, except upon a representation that there was dis-
tress existing in the district; and even then he could only
act upon a presentment made by a session consisting of the
landed proprietors. (hear, hear.) Cases had been quoted
by the hon. gentlemen where presentments had been, so to
speak, extorted from the local parties, and the works exe-
cuted against their wish. The figures distinctly showed
that those cases, if they did occur, were exceptions,
and did ant represent the general role What were the
facts ? That by the extraordinary presentment sessions is
Ireland under the Lamer Rate Act of 1346, presentments
had been made amounting in all to 6,617,000 t. Present-
ments were made by the landowners fir public works to
this extent. The extent executed was 4,463,0001. accord.
ing to one account ; according to another something more.
It appeared that works to the extent of two millions were
preseated by the parties locally interested which were never
sanctioned at all. The complaint was, not that too few of
those works had been executed, but that they were exe-
cuted either in defiance of, or without the will, of the
landed proprietors, and that three proprietors, upon whom
uitimately a portion of the burden must fall, were neglected
seed set aside. Ou the contrary, the structure of the act
showed that there was the utmost anxiety that landowners
should be entrusted with us much of this duty, and have u
much discretion as possible; and measures were taken to
prevent its being said that they had been set aside, and
charges forced upon them in despite ed their own deliberate
judgment. lie might refer in proof to the discussions
which took place in that house when the act was passed.
It was very easy
.to be wise after the event. But the famine
came on with giant strides, and their machinery broke
down; when parliament met again, they immediately pro-
ceeded to amend it; but great mischief had been done, no
doubt, in the interval. Teat being so, how could they (the
Irish proprietors) exempt themselves from their fair share of
the responsibility, because it pleased Providence that the
extent and range of the calamity exeeded all anticipation
and all human strength. On the score of justice, therefore,
there was no ground for the claim. If it had been proved
that Parliament had been deliberately wrong—that Ireland
had by the moutn of her representatives protested against
the act, there might be some reason for the claim set up ;
but the hon. gentleman had not addressed himself to that
point at all ; nor did he show that the management of the
remedy which had been pasted fur the relief of Ireland had
been taken nut of the hands of the Irish landed proprietors.
The hon. gentleman said, that in answer to the depu-
tation which waited on him on this subject, Int
had stated in reply, that he would deal with this
subject irrespective of the budget. Not only did
he not say that but he said the very reverse. Having
been but a short time in office, and being pressed for re-
mission of taxation on all sides, he must indeed have been
out of his senses if he told the deputation that he would
give an immediate answer on a subject which involved a
sum of 5,000,0001. He had said, on the contrary, that in
the view of the goverumetet this question of the consoli-
dated annuities ought to be dealt with in conjunction with
the general financial arrangements of the country. He
could not, therefore, announce the intention of the govern-
ment on this subject, except; in connexion with the
budget. lie would on the 18th state the views
of the government on the whole of the finances
of the country, and ho trusted, therefore, that
neither of the hon. gentlemen who had brought this ques-
tion forward would think it disrespectful if he declined at
the present moment tram entering further into it. (Hear,
hear.) His public duty bound him to be silent for that
short time. At preheat he had no more to say than that
in his opinion the hon. gentlemen had not made good their
case, which they stated it was their intention to prove,
namely, a case of wrong and oppression committed on the
people of Ireland at the period of the famine, en the
strength of which they asked fur a remission of a sum of
money to the extent of between 2,000,e001. and 3,000,0001.,
not as a matter of equitable consideration, but on the ground
of strict right. (Hear, hear.) He would therefore oppose
theemotion.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT thought that the right hon. gen-
tleman was justified in selecting his own time ter making
his statemeut on this subject. He (Mr. Herbert) would re-
serve any remarks he had to make till the right hon. gen-
tleman made Ins financial statement ; but at the same time
he quite concurred in most of what had been said by his
hon. friend the member of Mayo.
Lord .1. RUSSELL said he had hoped the time had ar-
rived, now that seven years bad elapsed since the occurrence
of the famine in Ireland, when they could look dispassion-
ately at all the circumstances connected with that calamity ;
and would have acknowledged the difficulties to which the
government, the Board of Works, the Irish landlords, the
Lord-Lieutenant, and Sir C. Trevelyan were then exposed.
But he was sorry to say that was not the case. With regard
to the document of the House of Lords, he was of opinion
that its statements were well-founded, and that it gave, so
far as it went, an accurate picture of the circumstances.
(Hear, hear.) What he considered to be the fault of that
report was the total omission of the main subject which
they had to consider, namely, that there was a great
famine and a great calamity, and that it was the bounden
duty of every person of influence to endeavour to miti-
gate it, and that it could be mitigated only by endea-
vouring to save the lives of the people, who were starving
in consequence of that misfortune. It noticed, but only
incidentally, that lives had been saved by the application
of the remedies which were proposed. lie would admit
that errors might have been committed by the government
and others, ;but the question was, whether although they
committed those errors, they had not achieved the main
end—the saving of the lives of a great number of persons.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded
this motion said that the government of this country im-
posed an unjust burden on the Irish proprietors witnout
their consent. But the hon. gentleman who had just
spoken put the question much more fairly when he said
that the proprietors in Ireland, when they came to
consider and vote the relief work!, could not exercise
a fair and just discretion on these matters, in consequence
of the clamour of the people. He admitted that was a fair
description of the case, but then it was not consistent with
the statements of the hon. mover and seconder of the mo-
tion, that these proprietors were debared by the govern-
ment from taking any part in the matter. Either one er the
other statement—both could not be true, lie believed that
the statement of the hon. gentleman was the true one : but
it did not fellow from that, the government were wrong in
' proposing a measure of this kind, because it was im-
possible to forme the extent of the calamity, or that
the landed proprietors could not exercise a wile and
temperate discretion on the subject. Ills late noble friend
the Earl of Bessborough. whine knueledge of Ireland sad
whose sagacity had been admitted, was the person on
whose representations the main provisions of the
Labour leek Act were le uu :see. His advice

•r

; hen naked —he attended all the meetiugs
Il
g,„_
been held b the government, when they were
roi; th, liniabary tS uf relict to be adapted, and his
CAL. /0 •,s mostly listened to and followed. lie did not
jabb nut the government were mistaken in listening to
log &oboe oiah's advice, or that Lord Beeaborough
ei. menet. ti in his suggestions. The feet was that tee
to rge•,y wes tar greater than could be foreseen, and too
ter.:e ter :my measures to control. lie admitted that
"gig ti the e strut of the calamity—owing to the eircum-
gene that the proprietors of Ireland could not come to •
j..paseetiote decision on the works of relief to be
owgted, end that they could not be properly carried out
pi VA MUM tea' potpies and children who were to execute
ft,me.the Labour Mee Art bad not answered the expecte-
to„,o,gegh wee.- formed of it—(hear, hear)—but it should
that the main object in view was the saving
of the i c
of tic people. (Hear, hear.) Finding that
ths leued they turned their attenti ato other measures
yij prod the art which was known u Sir J. ltureeynes
,to.. eat Sir C. Trevelyaa had to carry it out. Now, there
go, a. less than 700,000 persons employed under the Belief
g,t, ad it was • matter of no trifling consideration to have
t wince that number. Yet the House of Lords committee
that though the system was changed in March,
nay paean w. re receiving relief up to June. Fur his pan
~,,,egpea el surprise that in so short o time they had
Nes able to tam number of 700,000 and turn them
°.,r to another system of relief. (Hear, hear ) He felt
tei.eil comfort when be received the to suranee of Col. Jones
use: be thought his could carry the o;•eration into effect
• oit do:int:Aug the peace of the country. But he did
• icy that he would reduce these 700,000 persons in one
In June upwards of 3,000,000 persons had Lees re.
e,.i.ac ration.. Thai, facts showed the immense extent of
tad wall which they bad to deal. (Hear, hear.)
hirer' might bar, been committed—that the evil land out.
eau their geLe,petions he alinatted, end they woula have
Min•ii.l oiler mcasurcs it they could have foreseen the
oi,o.,teje of ih- uthenity which they had to deal with.
(11,0, hear.) Bat hating committed errors, he did not
thee that tlic p. r• its who were engaged in carrying out
guyouths t Were dunning ut blame for the art
The persons employed by the Board of Works
wof, mote of thi in new to the work, and several were no
deebt acne tnr tit, potation in which they were placed.
ot4 1...„ could ..! new was that it was not • question on
watch it was tittle; to throw blame on any of the parties
„ee,ened, end it was at least • source of satisfaction that
ss mety lives lied been saved during that year of calamity,
sail th it a me then that so many of the people of Irelani,
either by the riv.ipt of wages in their own country, or by
c:oe to other lauds, had been enabled to maintain them-
ggeeh With respect to the immediate motion before the
horse. he trusted that the statement of his right hon. friend
tee Chine-110r of the Each, quer would be sufficient to in-
dite the hoit.e not-to prveceil to any final motet:on at the
?west moment. It was • matter that had been under the
c.r.ederation of the government, and his right hon. friend
te .e.s than • fortnight would state the vices of the
poenotent, arid it was impossible, even if the
✓o.lotioa was agreed to, that any action could
rake place upon it. The whole of the present
room rested on acts of parliament, and by acts of paella-
peat only could it be altered. If, when his right hou.
fr, ed nude ho statement, it did not appear to members
eusatcted with Ireland that the course proposed we. the
lime, sue, they could bring in an, bills they might think
to mike • change in the saw. What he could not concur
a was the statement that because the government took the
shoh respoesibthty on themselves, and that the proceed-
leo were sot carried on by the gentlemen of Ireland, and
teat the sets in gentian were not done by them, that there-
in? the whole debt should be swept sway. When his right
Iva /rived meted the views of the government, then would
he the proper time to discus the question ; and he hoped
that is tenure it would be discussed without reference to
the past, awl with • view to what is best for Ireland for the
lame.
Br. li. A I I Eltßh IFT,in explanation, said that he had not 1
mesa: to Nuke an attack on any one.
Calomel DUNNE expressed hi. surprise at the absence of
the Secretary for Ireland, and of every Irishman connected
with the government. He regreued that the Chancellor of
the Seek, quer and the government did not see the justice
el
the arguments which had been used, and he could only
lope that they would reconsider the matter and alter their
spas&
Mr. J. BALL had beard with regret the statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fur while he postponed
the exposition of his views, it was clear that he had formed
a pretty strong opinion on the eubject. 11. (Mr. Ball)
bones been engaged in the administration of the relief to
Ire sad in 1/316 sod 11147, he thought be should be wanting
is his duty if he allowed any blame to be cast on these who
were also engaged is it. There was in Ireland as
there was in England • strong desire to afford
the best kind of relief ; but he was sure that the Labour
Rate Act, of ad the means which could have been em-
ployed, was the most disastrous in its immediate operations
sag its ultimate effects. _

Csptsan LAFFAN should support the motion of the
hoe. member tar Mayo, but he could not but espress his
resat that tbe how gentleman had used a great national
qsatioe as a vehicle for a personal discussion.
Mr. V. SCULLY supported the resolution. He consi-
dered that this discussion would be of great advantage,
whether they weal to a division or net, but he should for
his own part like to have some distinct understanding from
the government that they would consoler the matter fully.
Mr. GEORGE said that the real question then was,
sot as the noble lord had rut it—whether moral blame
stt•intel to the government at whose instance the
Mat Act was passed, and he (Mr. George) entirely
'equated them of soy but the purest and inset benevolent
sotives—but whether the entire burden was to be borne
by the proprietors, who had no power to check or regulate
the espeoditure. As to what was now required, he
not not think the terms of the resolution of the House of
Lords altogether met the justice of the use, and he hoped
when the subject was gone into it would also be considered
whether • portion of the advance made for building the
workhouses in Ireland should not also be borne by the
country at large, as well as a proportion of the relief ad-
vances under Ws Labour Rote Act lie should vote for the
notion. _ _ _

Mr. WHALLEY, who was interrupted by repeated calls
for the division, as an English member, held that the people
of this country, who voluntarily contributed so liberally for
the immediate reli, f of their starving fellow-subjects in ire
laud in 1847, were quite prepared to charge thenoelves with
so much of the expenditure under the act in question &shad
reference to the miring of life. As far as the proprietors of
the land were emu:cruel, he believed that expenditure had
beta worse than toeless.

Mr. I. BUTT, regarding the question as one of justice
and not of finance, could not consent to make it depend-
cut upon the budget, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
Eschtekeer.
Sir C. WOOD observed that the grounds which had
been taken by differeut hon. gentlemen daring the evening
End been eo various that he agreed with the hon. member
who had just letdown that it would be perfectly impossible
to come to any decision that night open any ions of them.
Be was glad to observe that the boa. gentleman had
avoided any of that personality which had characterised •
meat mat of the debate. During the first half of the even.
log the dissuasion had turned for the most part upon the
'hooter of Sir Charles Trevelyan, • gentleman than whom
ao one could have exerted himself more, or worked
barder in order to relieve the distreu which had prevailed
in Ireland. (Hear, bear.) But it was not right to attempt
to fix opon him that responsibility which properly be-
*fled to the government who had introduced the mea-
same. (Rear, bear.) From that responsibility he (Sir
C. Wood) was not disposed to shriek. After the announce-
sent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not see
sash advantage in pressing the motion,. hut if it were
pulsed he hoped it would be negatived. Under these dr-
emastances he thought it would be unwise for the house to
sleepy longer time in discussing the motion. (Hear, hear.)
S. NAPIER contended that there was a well-grounded
claim for 'tenth., what the motion 'eked, which was
finely amen equitable settlement. He imputed nothing
to the government or to Sir Charles Trevelyan—whose
waded was perfectly satisfactory to himself. The real
eseetioa was this: Sir C. Wood had just admitted that the
set had been a total failure ; experience having shown
them that what was intended for • boon for Ireland had
tamed out quite the reverse, the question was whether
there were not ground' for asking the government to take
the natter into their consideration, with • view to ea equit-
able settlement. The Chancellor of toe Reargue: said
the presentments were entirely in the heads of the parties
loftily interested ; but from the account given by one of
the winsome* before the Lords* committee, it appeared that
the Minas's was dine in • very hurried manner, wider the
moue of starvation, as It were • and whoa the works'
sore ordered, the grand juries bad no mitred whatever.
&nog what had been the result of the act, there was a
unsay claim ea the consideratioa of the goverausent ; and ,
&the hon. gentleman went to • division be should vote
with him. (Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. MOORE, ea reply, said he had made no charge
Maoist the penoisal character of Sir Charles Trevellyan,
..ot had merely spoken of his public conduct, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer meowed too much if he sap.
Pod that members of parliament were to be excluded from
nesaming the coadoet of public servants. Though Sir
tholes Trendy., was not in that Mw, ko appeanA to be
everywhere elm, and he would seem to be an adept in " the
wile art of self-defence," as far as that meant assailing
ethos. (Lesphter.) The hoe. gentleman justified the use
bed made of the report of the Lords' committee, and
'Lamented the names of its memben. Every speaker on
tre other aisle had admitted that the act had failed, but
't•ttetth the government was warned b their own servants
a N smasher that Cie s stem had eons etely broken doers,
they esatinued to em millions o men in this way for
se mouths alter. ( ear.) The Chancellor of the Ez-
ell' quer had, on • former oecaaioe, promised to give an an-
te,' On this qucs pia ',More the budget was brought for-
" sod . hut now he declined to do so. Voles. the right
• • gentleman would agree, to take the matter into eon-
'Aeration, with a view to an equitable adjutant, he
model press his motion.
lb. home thea divided,
For the motion 95
Against
Majority against the motion —4B
I:. house than At Id o'clock adjourned.

Tim this OF TUE EFFECTS or lIER MAJESTY'S
hrialta.—Yeast eddy was the day appoint. d for the con-
of the sale of the properties and fittings her
ttbmtp's Theatre, bat inimediatelyafter the sale had cow.
merd a eer.ort present made an offer of the amount
UiLC4 for the whole is on. lot, via , 11,0001., lees the
meant realised by the two days' sale which have already
""piste. Mt. &Loth on behalf of the mortgagte in
Pt•weetion, immediately accepted the ofi'r, sad the proceed-
%minced.