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

ralty touching the promotions referred to in the paper
relating to the Chatham election, and if so, would there
be any objection to produce them ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had made inquiry into this
matter, and found that there were no such minute ; but
there was an original notification in existence from the
Surveyor of the Dockyard, relative to the promotion of
Master Smith.

PILOTAGE CHARGES.
Mr. HUME moved for copies of Schedule List of the
several rates of pilotage charged by the pilots under the
Trinity-house, Deptford Stroud, and the pilots under the
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports ; together with the
existing regulations and orders, by each of these depart-
ments, for the instruction and information of the ship-
owners.

Agreed to.

ACCOUCHEMENT OF HER MAJESTY.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, before they proceeded to
the ordinary business of the day, he was sure the house
would be anxious to congratulate her Majesty upon the
birth of another Prince. Relying upon the feelings of
loyalty and attachment which the house had always
evinced towards the throne it would be unnecs-
sary for him to preface the motion ho was about
to make with any remarks, and therefore without further
comment he would at once move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, congratulating her Majesty
upon the birth of another Prince, and assuring her Ma_
jesty that it always afforded the greatest satisfaction to
the house to see her Majesty's domestic happiness pro-
moted.

Mr. DISRAELI had great pleasure in seconding the
motion. The feellings of loyalty and attachment which
the house felt for the Crown rendered the motion almost
one as a matter of course. These feelings were also
participated in by the country and they arise from a
feeling that with the royal house of these realms were
associated the best interests of the land. (Cheers.)

The motion was then carried amidst loud cheers.
PUBLIC EDUCATION.

Lord J. RUSSELL brought in the Government
Education Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered
to be read a second time to-morrow fortnight.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.

Mr.. V. SMITH moved an address to the Crown for a

commission to inquire into corruptipractices at elections
at Cambridge :—Graham Wilmore, Esq., Q.C., George
Boden, Esq., and Thomas Tower, Esq., Commissioners.
The hon. member details the heads of the evidence of
bribery as it came out before the committee, and ex-
plained that the principal agents employed in the acts
of bribery belonged to the fair sex. (A. laugh.) There
could be no doubt that a reckless system of corruption
prevailed at the last election for Cambridge. The
bribery which took place was not only systemafic but
also extensive, and it would seem that the only value
which the freemen and male electors of Cambridge at-
tached to the franchise, was the amount of money which
their votes would bring them, and nothing like prin-
ciple or party was ever thought of. He therefore felt
bound, as chairman of the committee, to move for
this commission and he hoped the house would expe-
rience no difficulty in agreeing to it. At the same time,
however, he ought to state his opinion that the law of
agency required extensive alterations and amendments,
and he thought it would shortly be the duty of the house
to take that question into its most serious consideration.
The motion was agreed to without discussion.
IRISH CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES.
Mr. MOORE then rose to move, that in the opinion
of this house, it is the duty of her Majesty's Govern-
ment forthwith to take into consideration the Irish Con-
solidated 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 Vie:, 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.,
e. 21, and 9 Vic., c. 1, and for the aid of the distressed
districts, under the Act 13 Vic., c. 14, are fully pro-
vided for. He came before the house to ask them to
consider a question which deeply affected the whole people
of Ireland. This was entirely a matter of facts and details
not of principle, and it would be for the house to decide
whether it was not due to Ireland that these anomalies
should be remitted as an act of justice. He did not ask
for it on any other ground, and he trusted, therefore,
that both sides of the house, and members of all parties,
were ready to give the question a fair and impartial con-
sideration. It had been once investigated by a commit-
tee of the house,. composed of all shades of opinion, and
the unanimous recommendation of that was to abolish
this objectionable tax. The committee -thoroughly
stud;ed the whole subject, they took ..e.y4encit..upon
it collected from all part of Ireland, and given
by persons who were entitled to confidence and respect,
and the unanimous resolution which they arrived at was
that which he had just stated. Nothing was left undone,
nor was any point withheld from the committee which
could have induced the committee to come to a
different conclusion. (Hear, hear.) He should be
sorry to argue that the house ought to be bound
by the decision of any committee ; but this was an ex-
ceptjonal case to the ordinary rule. The country went
with the committee in their recommendation, and since
this tax was grossly unjust, besides being highly ob-
noxious to the feelings of Ireland, it was the duty of
the house to adopt it. Common sense and sound
policy were like in favour of the remission of the tax,
and lie hoped the house would have no hesitation in
passing the motion. Ireland had never refused to dis-
charge her just debts or to repay advances that had been
made to her as grants ; but she had no right to pay this
tax, and it would be an act of policy as well as gene-
rosity to relieve her from it.

Mr. FRENCH seconded the motion. He contended
that the report of the Lords' committee on the subject
at issue was perfectly just, and he was prepared to prove
that it was perfectly moderate in its recommendations.
He regretted the necessity for the present motion, and
he felt bound to say that the representatives of Ireland
had not been fairly treated in regard to the matter at
issue by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, before
he made any remark on the subject matter of this motion,
ho must express the very sincere regret with which ho had
listened to that portion of the speech of the hon. member
for Mayo, in which the hon. member treated this as a ques-
tion between Ireland and Sir Charles Trevelyan. Everything
done, of which the lion, member complained, he laid on the
shoulders of Sir Charles Trovelyan, and described that pub-
lic servant, whom ho (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
did not hesitate to characterise as an eminently able, up-
right, honest, and indefatigable man, in terms which he
had never heard applied by any member of Parliament to
one of that most valuable class of civil servants of the coun-
try who were the advisers of the Executive Government,
who had no means of defending themselves in that house
or otherwise when attacked—(hear, hear)—whose useful
advice and successful propositions invariably redounded to
the credit and honour of „the Ministers of the day, whose
advice and propositions ought to be laid to the charge and
the responsibility of the Ministers, and ought not to be
made the basis of a gross personal attack. (Hear, hear.)
It was with surprise and regret that, for the first time
during some experience, he had listened to such terms as '
those in which the hon. member described Sir C. Trevelynn
as " a dogmatist, a theorist, a practical blunderer, who
spared nothing, and who scrupled at nothing." He was
satisfied there were few men in that house who would have
made such an attack, and he doubted very much whether
the hon. gentleman himself would hereafter repeat it.
(Hear.) Whatever Sir C. Trevelyan had advised or done in
this matter, it ought not to be laid to his door ; it was to be
laid to the door of the Government who adopted the mea-
sures which he advised ; and if the measures were not sound
in principle, or had been found unsuccessful in practice, it
was the Government only on whom the blame ought to be laid.
He might personally remark of the peculiarity of this dis-
cussion. He did not recollect the case of a financial pro-
position of great importance made to the Commons House
of Parliament, and supported almost exclusively on the
basis of the report of a committee of the House of Lords.
He did not mean to say that when justice and good sense
were involved in the proceedings of a committee of the
House of Lords, they ought not be attended to ; bUt he
entirely demurred to the description which the honourable
member for Mayo gave of the report of that committee,
when ho designated it as a high and commanding autho-.
rity. He did not admit the doctrine that the report of a
committee of the House of Lords upon a question of
finance was to be urged in the House of Commons, not
merely as a matter reasonable and deserving attention, but
as a high and commanding authority. (Hear.) He was
much more diSposed to think that the report of a commit-
tee of that chamber of the Legislature which was not the
taxing chamber, ought to be received with some jealousy
by the body to whom was entrusted thetfirdunecntsiotons
beocastf
tax-
ing the people and deciding upon the b
the standardto consider
I.
pwhoant
etvheermje r
iatts
itthme
gs
ha me
style%
rtehfeeyrenocueghtot
of reason and justice. (Hear, hear.) He was bound to
say that, when he described the motion as supported en.
tirely by a report of a committee of the House of Lords, he
misstated the.case, for the lion: gentleman who had just
sat down went beyond the Committee of the House of
Lords, and was of opinion that these Consolidated Annui-
ties, involVing large sums of money due from Ireland to
this country, ought to be remitted, although the committee
of the House, of Lords declined to make any such recom-
mendation. In the view of the hon. gentleman the com-
mittee enough,
r,lB t
taein
and the t
rued Viill:lth ]ion, gentleman
gentleman
go
report. of o
urge in their
gentleman argued that because it was
(Tnetal hon.lto .
OdSitnianlryatyccelatrhsewooxuplednadmituourentfotio• taheceretlif of the poor in or-
ainwas exceeded, that constituted a sculamirna nagainst
sum
te
British Exchequer. He demurred to that doctrine ; but,
he declined to notice it further, not because the ho-
nourable gentleman was not entitledt to use it, but
because
thneo t
hcoonemee,
bitefodreid nththef scope of the
would forgive him if he passed by that
P
wanid erertoiroen
otliethehialuonse
gentleman's speech. The hon. gentleman who made the
motion did not ask for the remission of the money as a
boon, or as a matter of equitable consideration, but on
grounds of strict justice ; he founded it on charges which
he made against the Government and Parliament of this
this country, which he said were guilty of great misdeeds,
the consequence of which misdeeds Ireland ought not to
bear; For reasons which he should state by and by, he

ould not en .., 4 any stateme he views of the
Government
.es question. ould not refer to the
• dgment , Government with regard to it, but to the
arguments raised by the hon. gentleman, that the remis-
sion of 2,000,0001. or 3,000,000/. expended under the Relief
Act of 1846, ought to be made on grounds of strict justice,
and because the exaction of it would be a wrong inflicted
on Ireland. There, again, he did not think the two hon.
gentlemen had made good their case. The statement
seemed to be that the Parliament and Government of this
country had intruded into the position and usurped tho
functions of the landed proprietors or Ireland. (Hear,
hear, from Mr. Moore.) He believed these were some of
words used—" that the mode of relief chosen was con-
demned by the people of Ireland"—of course, that meant
condemned at the time, because if not at the time it meant
nothing—" that the parties who administered relief seduced
labourers, caused deaths and starvation, which would not
otherwise have taken place, and diminished the amount of
means of subsistence in the country." The whole was
summed up with a long bill which Ireland had paid in re-
compense for the great wrongs done to her. It might be
said that when the British Parliament enacted the poor-
law, they committed something like li, usurpation of the
functions of the landed proprietors. But if they had not
assumed those functions, they must have remained in.
abeyance. Parliament passed the poor-law against the
epinion of Irish proprietors, and he supposed it would not
be pretended now to Fay that Parliament erred in doing
so. (Hear, hear.) He knew, whatever might be the opi-
nion of the mover of this proposition, that- the public at
large, and the people of Ireland owed a deep debt of grati-
tude to the noble lord for having passed that poor-law.
(Cheers.) It was now made a great charge against the
Government that its officials were placed in the position of-
the landed proprietors. He wanted to show that, in pass-
ing the poor-law, the Government and its officials were put
in the place of the landed proprietohr under the pressure '
of very strong necessity—absolute necessity—for the wel-
fare of the people of Ireland ; and therefore it was not
a conclusive argument against the proceedings of Parlia-
ment., if he showed that in the instance they were now dis-
cussing the Government assumed the functions of the
landed proprietors either better to discharge those func-
tions for the benefit of the people. He did not admit that
Parliament did so. He did not admit that the law was
forced upon Ireland. What were the provisions of the
law? It began by stating that the Lord-Lieutenants should
direct extraordinary presentment sessions for the baronies,
that such sessions should be held by the justices, and they
should record presentments of such public works as they
approved. They were required to send up a list of pre-
sentments of public works, such as they approved, to the
Lord-Lieutenant, who forwarded them to the Treasury,
and no public work was undertaken except it was first
approved by the extraordinary sessions, by the Lord-Lieu-
tenant, and by the Treasury. Would any one tell him
that the structure of that act betrayed any disposition on '
the part of Parliament to set aside or neglect the landed
proprietors of Ireland ? The Lord-Lieutenant was not
authorised to act except upon presentments made by the
sessions, consisting of the landed proprietors of Ireland—
he had no power of acting independently of them. The
hon. gentleman quoted some cases, in which he seemed to
allege presentments had been extorted from the local
parties by influence, and the works executed somewhat
against their wishes. The figures would distinctly show
that such cases were the exception and not the general
rule ; because what were the facts ? By extraordi-
nary presentment sessions in Ireland, under the Labour
Act of 1846, presentments were made , amounting in
all to 6,617,000/. Let . the house remark the import
of that. Presentments were made by the landedproprietors
for public works to the extent of 6,647,0001. What was
the extent of the works executed? The extent executed
was 4,460,000/. ; therefore it appeared two millions wero
presented by parties locally interested in Ireland which
were never sanctioned at all. Did they mean to complain
of the selection made in the works, which the local parties
had already approved, or did they mean to complain that
too few of these works had been executed ? At any rate,
if it was charged that these works were executed either in
defiance of the will or without the will of the landed pro-
prietors of Ireland, and that the landed proprietors on
whom the burden must ultimately fall were set aside, ho
said, on the contrary, the structure of the act showed the
utmost anxiety on the part of Parliament that the landed
proprietors should have as much discretion as possible, and
that the utmost precautions were taken to prevent their
having reason to say that they were set aside, and these
charges forced upon them in spite of their own different
opinion. (Hear.) He believed he might with confidence
refer to the discussion in the Houses of Parliament when
the act passed. It was very easy to be wise now after the
fact. The famine came on with giant strides, and spread
over the land with a rapidity and raged with an intensity
which no man could foresee, and the machinery broke
down. (Hear, hear.) When Parliament met again they
recomnised the failure of the machinery, and set about
applying remedial measures. No doubt, great mischief
had been done, but everybody had been deceived, and
everybody had miscalculated. The charge made at the
time against the Government was that the act was ham-
pered with too many restrictions, and that the number of
presentments made would be less than it ought to be. If
that was the language of the Irish representatives at that
time, they had no right to say now that the Government of
the day had acted in opposition to their suggestions. For
the various reasons which he had stated, he demurred to
the proposition made by the hon. member, that any remis-
sion was due to Ireland on the score of justice. Even if
Parliament had been deliberately wrong, he still thought
that the hon. gentleman ought to have shown that the
Irish representatives had pointed out the right course. But
.to that point the hon. gentleman had not even addressed
himself. He would now refer to the imputation which
the honourable gentleman had made against him (the'
Chancellor of the Exchequer). The honourable gentleman
said that if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made a
promise to give an immediate reply, he ought to keep it.
So far he agreed with the hon. gentleman, but when he.
was told that at the time when he met the deputation in
Downing-street ho promised to give an answer totally irre-
spective of the budget, he could not say that he agreed
with him at all, for he stated exactly the reverse. As he
could refer to a written record.,:ef whit passed,, he—ii--oult--- - --
tell the right hon. gentlen* what liOdid. say. Lord Mon-
teagle stated to him that there had been a convei•sation in
the House of Lords on the night immediately preceding the
interview, which would seem to Show that the question
had been postponed for reasons of departmental conveni-
ence, and then he went on to say that the Government had
no right to tax the poorest part of the Queen's dominions—
namely, Ireland—with reference to any question of surplus
or deficiency in the annual income of the State. In reply,
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated that the Earl
of Aberdeen, in the speech to which Lord Monteagle hal
referred, merely said that the question was not to depend
on the surplus or deficiency of the year. This statement he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made at the time, and
this statement ho now repeated. The hon. member, in
stating that the answer which ho had proMised to give, was
to be quite irrespective of a surplus, represented him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) to bo out of his senses. When
every question connected with fiscal administration was
raised, and pressed against from every quarter, the hon.
gentleman would have a right to be more severe upon him
Chad he had been, if lie really believed that ho had given
an immediate answer to a question which was most
complex in its character, and which involved five millions
of money. The fact was, that he had not only stated
that he could not give an immediate answer, but he had
detailed the reasons why he could give one. He stated
that the question of the consolidated annuities was con-
nected with the financial condition of the country, and
that it was not the intention of the Government to
take any steps in the matter without reviewing the
whole of the financial prospects of the State. To that
declaration he still adhered. It was not the intention of
the Government to consider the question of the consoli-
dated annuities, except in conjunction with the other great
financial questions of the clay. This was the 7th of April,
and on the 18th it would ho his duty, on the part of the
Government to lay before the house the whole of the views
which her Majesty's ministers entertained on the financial
position of the country. He trusted, therefore, that the
hon. gentleman would not consider it disrespectful to him
if ho declined to enter upon any further discussion of the
question at present. It would then appear whether the
Government were justified in the views which they took
with respect to the general finances of the country. If
the hon. gentleman did not agree with those views, it was
open to him to move a vote of censure upon the Govern-
ment. He had no more at present to say than that, in his
opinion, the hon, gentleman who had made this motion
had not made out the case which he stated it was his inten-
tion to prove, namely, a ease of wrong and oppression on
the part of Parliament and of the Government against Ire-
land at the period of the famine, and on the ground of
which wrong and injustice ho had claimed the remission of
two or three millions, not as a matter of equitable con-
sideration, but upon the basis of strict restitution. To
these observations, therefore, he had only to add that he
should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion.
Mr. H. HERBERT agreed with the right hon. gentleman
in all that he had stated with respect to the Irish Poor-
law,
to which he looked for the regeneration of Ireland.
What was complained of was, that while members of that
house and the public press wero lecturing on the necessity
of self-exertion, Parliament, by its legislation, had made it
impossible. With respect to the Irish landlords, no one
could doubt that they had been guilty of many sins, both
of omission and commission, but at the same time he believed
that when the famine came they were prepared to do {.heir
duty. The right hon. gentleman was perfectly correct an
stating that the Government could not initiate any particu-
lar work at the presentment sessimis ; but could lul b.; so
ignorant of the state of the country as to believe that l.he
owners of land, in the midst of a starving population, wore
really free agents ? (Hear, hear.) They were placed in a
position, which, he thought, any man of common sense
must perceive rendered them—if they were alive to the
common feelings of humanity—almost involuntary actors
in the performance of the duty which had boon imposed
upon them. It was felt that a pressure must exist on
those who had to carry out the act, and this was one of
the causes of its failure. The presentment sessions were
on more than one occasion scenes of confusion, intimida-
tion' and riot, which was the natural result of giving the
people to understand that the magistrates had nothing to
do but to carry out the intentions of the Legislature, and
give them work. Even if the landlords had been insen-
sible to the intimidation which was exercised, there were
few who were willing to evade the responsibility which
the condition of their fellow-countrymen imposed upon
them,_ and Sir C. Trevelyan himself gave a
list of landlords,
including Lord Lurgan and others, who lost their lives in
consequence of the efforts which they made to relieve des-
titution.
Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped, that after the lapse of
seven years, something like a dispassionate consideration
would have been manifested for the difficulties which be-
set the executive and every one else in the great and dis-
tressing trial to which the people of Ireland were sub-
jected. He was very sorry to find that this was not the
prevalent feeling. He thought that a great portion of the
statements in the document which had been so much re-
ferred to, the report made by a committee of the House of
Lords, wore well founded, and gwe an accurate picture of
the case. What he thought the fault of the report was,
the total omission of the subject which the committee had
to consider, namely, the famine; and that it was the duty
of every ono to mitigate that calamity in the only way
they could, by trying to save human life. The report, how-
ever, seemed but now and then to notice that fact inciden-
tally, though it was the great subject of their inquiry.
Errors, no doubt, might have been committed by the Go-
vernment and others, but the question was, whether they
did not, in a great degree, arrive at the end proposed,
and save the lives of a great number of persons. It was
represented for the purposes of this motion that there as
an undertaking by the Government of this couetrry..teof for
in-
duce the Legislature to determine on a system
Irish en
landed
the Irish people without the consent of t
proprietors. The hon. gentleman who
fair
rd
dhjluessetivdtoisovnn
on
ntatthetel
that the landed proprietors had not. a
subject, and could not exercise an
Awry,
sitahl
ejutidruewntas,
was, by
he added that they were carried