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

the greatness of. the emergency. He (Lord J. Russell)
lnite pdmitted this to be the case ; but then *that 'state-
ment was not consistent with the other description which
had been given, that the Irish proprietors were debarred
from taking any part in the matter. He did not agree that
the Government and the Legislature were wrong, because
it was at the time impossible to foresee what would be the
extent of the calamity. In the report of the House of
Lords, his late lamented friend, the Earl of Beseborough,
was praised for his discrimination and sagacity, but the
Labour-rate Act was framed in accordance with his sug-
gestions and recommendations. He did not think that the
Government were wrong in acting upon Lord Bessborough's
opinions,; but the fact was that the calamity was greater
than was contemplated. He quite admitted that, owing
to.the great extent of the calamity, and to the impossibil-
ity of deciding what useful works could be carried into
effect by miserable paupers and women and women and
children—he quite admitted that, owing to these and
many other reasons, the Labour-rate Act failed in one
respect, but- it did not fail in relieving that which was
the principal subject which the Government had to
consider—namely, the famine. In the House of Lords
there was a great deal of discussion as to whether
the works were useful, whether they were well
chosen, and whether the Board of Works carried
them properly into effect ; but the real question was,
how the labour test could best be applied, and the
people prevented from starving. This act, then, having
failed, the Government began to turn over the variouti
measures which could be adopted as substitutes, and they
proposed the act which was carried into effect under Sir
John Burgoyne, and which derived its name from him.
Ho begged the house would consider what was the great
°Wet which the Government had to effect at that time.
When Parliament met at the beginning of the session,
there were about 700,000 men paid for daily labour by the
State. - It was no trifling consideration to determine how
these numbers were to be reduced, and it was really won-
derful that so great a number of persons were turned over
without tumult to another system of relief. He was
ready to admit, on the part of the Cabinet with which he
was then connected, that the evil outran the anticipation
of the Government, but he did not admit that any persons
were deserving of blame for what had occurred. All he
wished to say now was, that he did not wish throw blame
upon anyone, but rather to congratulate the house that
so many lives had been saved in that great calamity, and
that so many of them were now in a condition of comfort,
either by earning wages in their own country or by going
to another. He had risen to make these remarks, only be-
cause his conduct in 1846 was impugned by the honourable
gentleman who spoke last ; but with respect to the motion
immediately before the house, he trusted that the state-
ment made by his right honourable friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would suffice to induce the house not to
proceed to any formal notice at present. This question,
together, with several others, was at present under the
consideration of the Government, and his right honourable
would be ready in less than a fortnight to state ,the views
of the Government upon it. It was impossible, indeed,
that by any resolution any action on the subject could
take place, for the whole of the present arrangement rested
upon actnf Parliament, and by an act of Parliament alone
could any alteration be made. If the statement of his
right honourable friend, when it was made, should not
appear satisfactory to any honourable gentleman con-
nected with Ireland, he could then bring forward a bill to
change the state of the law ; but at present it appeared to
him that what they had to consider was rather what
would:be best for Ireland in future than who was to blame
for what passed in 1846.
Mr. HERBERT explained that he had no intention
whatever of attacking the noble lord for his conduct in
1846.

Colonel DI7NNE expressed his surprise at the absence
of the Secretary for Ireland, and of every Irishman con-
nected with the Government. He did not know whether
they found their duties to their country and to the Govern-
ment so antagonistic that they were unable to be present,
but considering how long a notice had been given of this
motion, he could not but think they should not have been
absent.. (Hear, hear.) As to the lecture which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had read to the hon. member for
Roscommon, , for his attack on Sir Charles Trevelyan, he
(Colonel Dunne) could only say that that gentleman would
not have been attacked, and if he had not stepped out of
the sphere of his duty, and if he had not been rewarded
for the mischief he had done to Ireland ' • and he (Colonel
Dunne) believed that the strictures on him were most fair
and just. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that
the case of Ireland in this instance was not proved, it was
clear that there was no chance of any justice being done
by him, for never had a stronger case been made out.
The ground on which this remission was asked in every
union in Ireland was, that the works which had been exe-
cuted were useless • that they were carried on against the
will of the people of Ireland ; and that the administration
of the plan had been taken out of their hands, and had
been badly performed. There could be no doubt that des-
titution had been stayed and the people saved from starv-
inc, ; but the Irish gentlemen maintained that that had
been done in the most expensive manner, and they were
'low asked to pay for the blunders which had been made.
The Irish gentry were compelled to make presentments
for the execution of works of some sort, and they were
not, responsible for their inutility. It appeared, by the
evidence before the House of Lords, that Sir John Bur-
goyne and most of the other witnesses were of opinion
that the works were utterly useless. Then as to the ad-
ministration, that was taken from the Irish gentry and
handed over to the Board of Works ; and the works un-
dertaken were never finished, while four times as much
money was expended on them as was necessary. There
were no accounts rendered ; no audit of accounts : nor any
means by which the mode of expenditure could be ascer-
tained. On every ground of justice, the Irish gentry ought
not. to be called on to pay for works which they could
make no use of, and in the administration of which they
had no share. There was a great difference between Bur-
goyne's Act and the Labour Rate Act, and under the former
relief was better afforded and the expenditure was fully
accounted for. He regretted that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the Government did not see the justice of
the arguments which had been used, and he could only
hope that they would reconsider the matter and alter their
opinion.

. 95
. 143

Majority against the motion....
The house then at 12 o'clock adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-APRIL 7.

( From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of
Commons.)
IRISH CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES.
Motion made, and question put, " 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. 0..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 Districts, under the
Act 13 Vic. c. 14, are fully provided for." The how.)
divided : ayes 95, noes 143.
MINORITY—AYES, 95.

Mr. J. BALL had heard with regret the statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for while he postponed
the exposition of his views, it was clear that he had formed
a pretty strong opinion on the subject. He (Mr. Ball)
having: been engaged in the administration of the relief to
Ireland in 1846 and 1847, ho thought he should be wanting
in his duty if he allowed any blame to be cast on those who
were also engaged in it. There was in Ireland as there
was in England a strong desire to afford the best kind of
relief ; but he was sure that the Labour Rate Act, of all
the means which could have been employed, was the most
disastrous in its immediate operations and its ultimate
effects. The responsibility of that act was not shared by
the representatives for Ireland, for it was passed through
all its stages in that house almost in silence, at the end of
the session of 1846, when-the Irish members had gone over
to Ireland, called thither by the calamity which was im-
pending • and it was only when it reached the House of
Lords that one noble lord raised a warning voice against
it. _ _ .

Archdall, Captain Greene, J. Newtiegate C.
Ball, Edward Greville, Col. Norreys, Sir 1). J.
Ball, John Hamilton, Geo. A. O'Brien, C.
Bateson, 'I homas Hamilton, J. Hans O'Brien, Patrick
Bellew, Capt. Hardinge, Charles S. O'Flaherty, A.
Beresfora, Wffliam Hays., Sir Edmund Peacocke, 0. M. W.
Blair, Colonel Henchy, D. O'Connor Power, N.
Bland, L. Heruert, H. A. Robertson, P. F.
Bowyer, George Higgins, G. 0. 0. Russell, P. W.
Brady, J. Hume, W. Vitzwilliam Scully, Francis
Brennidge, Richard Jones, Capt. Scully, V.
Browne, Valentine Keating, Robert Seymour, W. D.
Bruce, H. A. Kennedy. Ti 'strain Shee, W.
Burke, Sir T. Kirk, William Smyth, R. ,T.
Butt, Isaac Knatchbull, W. F. Spooner, Richard
Cairns, H. M'CalmOnt Knox, W. S . Stafford, A.
Caulfield, Col. Laffari, R. M. Stanley, Lord
Clinton, Lord C. P. Lennox, Lord A. F. Swift, Richard
Cobbold, J. Chevalier Leslie, C. P. Ta)lor, Colonel
Cogan, W. H. Lucas, F. Thompson, Mr. Old.
Coote, Sir Chas. H. Macartney, G. Towneley, C.
Corbally, M. Mackenzie, W. P. Tudway, It. C.
Cotton, W. H. Macgre;or, Jas. Tyler, Sir George
1 evereux, J. T. 31` Mahon, P. Vane, Lord A.
Duffy, C. N addock,tSir H. Vansittart, G. 11.
Dunne, Col. 31alins, R. Verner, Sir W.
Fitzgerald, J. D. Manners, Lord J. Waddington, H. S.
Fitzgerald, sir .1. Maxwell, lion. J. P. Whalley,;(l.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Meagher, Thomas Whiteside, James
Forester, Colonel 31lles, W.
Fox, R. M. Mitchell, W. TELLUJ.
Fraser, Sir W. A. Murrough, J. P. Moore, G. H.
George, John Napier, Joseph French, Fitzstephen
MAJORITY—NOES, 143.
A'Court, C. Evans, William Oakes, J. H. P.
Aglionby, H. Ewart, William Oliveira, Benjamin
Alcock, Thomas Feilden, 31. Osborne, Ralph
Anderson, Sir James Ferguson, Colonel Otway, Arthur John
Baines, M. T. Ferguson, Joseph Paget, Lord Alfred
Baring, T. Fitzroy, Hon. H. Palmerston, Viscount
Barnes, T. Fitzwilliam, G. W. Patten, J,
Bass, M. T. Forster, M. Peel, F.
Beaumont, W. B. Forster, Charles Pellatt, A
Bell, J. Freestun, Colonel Peto, S.
Berkeley, Hon. C. F. Gladstone, William Thillimore, R. J.
Berkeley, C. L . Glyn, George Carr Phinn, Thomas
Bethell, Richard Goodman, Sir G. Pilkiugton, James
Biddulph, It. M. Graham, Sir James Price, W. P.
Bonham-Carter, J. Gregson. Samuel Ricardo, 0.
Bouverie, E. Grey Sir G. Rice, E.
Boyle, Col. Hadfield, George Rich, H.
Brand, H. Hall, Sir Benjamin Robartes, T. J. A.
Brocklehurit, John lianmer, Sir J. Rushout, Captain
Biotherton, Joseph Haste, Archibald Rus ell, F. C.
Brown, W. Tieneage, G. H. V. Sawle, C. B. G.
Butler, Charles Herbert, Sidney Scholefleld, W.
Bynt, G. li. Charles Hervey, Lord Alfred Shelburne, Earl Of
Cardwell, lion. E. 111ndley, Charles t helley, Sir J. T.
Cavendish, C. C. Hogg, Sir James W. Smith, John B.
Chambers, Thomas Hutt, William Smith, Rt. Hrs, R.
C curter's, F. Jackson, William Stapleton, John
Christy, samuel Jermyn, Earl Stephenson, Robert
Clay, Sir W. Jocelyn, Viscount Strut', Rt. Hon. E.
Clinton, Lord R. Kinnaird, A. F. Thompson, George
Cockburn. Sir Alex. Laing, S. Thornely, T.
Cowan, Charles Langston, J. H. Tufbell, H.
Cowper, W. F. Langton, H. G. Villiers. Rt. Un. C. P.
Craufurd, E. H. J.. Lawley, F. C. Vivian, J. H.
Crook, J, Lockhart, A. E. Warrthr, E.
Crossl. y, Frank Loveden, P. Whitbread, S.
Crowder, It. Lowe, R. I Wickham, H. W.
Denison, J. E. 31`Gregor, John Wilkinson, W. A.
D rumlanrig, 'Viscount Mangles, R. D. Willi.uns, W.
Duke, Sir James Marshall, William Wilson, J.
Duncan, George llf asterrnan, J. Winnington, Sir T. E
buncombe, Hu. 0. Matheson, A. Wise, J. A.
Hondas, F. Maul% Colonel Wood, Sir C.
Dunlop, A. 3liall, Edward Wortley, J. S.
Egerton W. Milligan, Robert Wyvill, Marmaduke
Egerton, Edward Molesworth, Sir W.
Ellice. E. Moncreiff, James
Elliot, J. E. Monsen, W.
Emlyn, Viscount Morris, D.

Captain LAFFAN supported Mr. Moore's motion, but
dissanted from some of his arguments.
Mr. V. SCULLY declared that in consequence of the
labour-rate legislation Ireland had been a loser to the
amount of 16,0500,000/. in potatoes and 40,000,0001. in other
produce, and he made indignant complaint that, under
such circumstances, repayment should be demanded.

Mr: GEORGE supported the motion, denying that Ire-
land sought to repudiate any just debt, but alleging that
she was entitled to equitable consideration.
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 relief of their starving fellow-
sulijects in Ireland in 1847, were quite prepared to charge
themselves with so much of the expenditure under the act
in question as had reference to the saving of life. As far
as the proprietors of the land were concerned, he believed
that expenditure had been worse than useless.
Mr. I. BUTT, regarding the question aq one'of justice
and not of finance, could not consent to make it dependent
upon the budget, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. So far as the expenditure had benefitted their
property, the Irish proprietors were bound to repay it-
-but they had had no control over the matter—the works
had been limited to such aq were usually made under pre-
sentments—as roads and bridges—upon which it was im-
possible, to omploy 700,000 people usefully, and the result
was that the proprietors were in no way benefitted. The
Irish landlords offered to employ the people on productive
works by which they would have been benefitted, and it
was refused by the Legislature. Then, it was asked, let
them be employed in making railways for Ireland, and
that, too, wa..4 refused. The only question was whether it
was right. and- just to throw the whole of the burden upon
the people, of a portion of Ireland ? Suppose the like mis-
fortune had happened to the county of Devon, would hon.
gentleman be able to resist the claim ? Nothing, then,
could be more fatal to the honour and interests of the em-
pire than to deal with one part of it on one principle and
with another on a different one. In 106 of the unions of
Ireland there were 20 in which the local taxation actually
exceeded the annual value, and in more than half the local
taxation was upwards of 108. in the pound. (Hear, hear.)
If. the justice of the claim had been boldly resisted by the
right hon. gentleman, and had been denied by a majority
of the house, though he might not have been convinced,
he would have bowed to their decision ; but he could not
bow to a decision which, while admitting that the demand
was a fair one, put it aside on the ground that it would in-
terfere with the financial arrangements of the Government.
No decision; then, that could be come to that night was
likely to be final and conclusive. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD observed that the grounds which had
been taken by different hon. gentlemen during the evening
had been so various that he agreed with the hon. member
who had just sat down that it would be perfectly impossible
to come to any decision that night upon any one of them.
He was glad to observe that the hon. gentleman had
avoided any of that personality which had characterised a
great part of the debate. During the first half of the even-
ing the discussion had turned for the most part upon the
character of Sir Charles Trevelyan, a gentleman than whom
no one could have exerted himself more, or worked harder
in order to relieve the distress which had prevailed in Ire-
Raid. ,(Hear, hear.) But it was not right to attempt to
fix upon him that responsibility which properly belonged
to the Government who had introduced the measures.
(Hear,' hear.) From that responsibility he (Sir Charles
Wood) was not disposed to shrink. The conduct of the
Government had been impugned by many hon. gentlemen
that night ; but "they had not treated them quite fairly.
They had judged the Government as if they had acted
then by the knowledge which they now possessed, and had
passed upon them an ex post facto condemnation. (Hear,
hear.) The distress of Ireland first commenced in the au-
tumn of 1845 • and the first act of the session of 1846 was
one to relieve 'that distress by the introduction of Indian
Born ; the second act being one establishing public works
by presentments, half the cost being defrayed by a grant
from the Government. At the end of the session these
acts were the object of an almost unanimous eulogium—in
which even the Irish members concurred. The only ob-
jections to them were, first, that the Government ought
not to continue to act as merchants of Indian corn, because
the trade had been fully established ; and, secondly, that 1
the relief had been claimel by districts which were not
distressed but which demanded their share. Shortly after
the Government acceded to office intelligence was received
of a second failure of the potato crop; and as relief by
public works had proved so successful
it was naturally re-
Sorted to a second time. A good deal had been • I about
the non-concurrence and the protests of the salt
Irish members;
but what was the fact hlr. Dominick Brown,
could show thata loala re-
pealer, said that, if anything
lininent was unnecessary, it was the speech which hade bpeaern.
made by the noble lord, and the manner, in which it had " YOU'RE NEITHER A MAN NOR A BROTHER."—The
been received by the house. (Hear, hear.) In the House present American Government, as it advocates slavery,
of Lords, Lord Monteagle had certainly objected to the may be denominated "an Uncle Tom's Cabinet," and if
measure, bat the only other Irish peer, Lord Wicklow, had it should want a good whipper-in, we are sure General
spoken in the highest terms of it. (Hear, hear.) The mea- Pierce will forget for the moment he is President, and be
sure had undoubtedly failed. It had not answered the ex- too happy to lend his hand to it. He is just the man
pectations either of the Government or of the house ; but for a country that boasts of " flogging all creation,"
it had failed under circumstances which would have over- which boast, as far as the black portion of it is co -
whelmed the best devised measure to which the wit or in- cerned, is certainly only too true.—Punch. n

TELLEitAI.
Hayter, W. G.
Bfulrave, Earl

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

(INCORPORATED 1846.)
New Branch Offices, Metropolitan District.

89, St. James's-street, opposite St. James's Palace.
30, Fleet-street, opposite St. Dunstan's Church.
The laying down of the wires to connect the above
new branch stations with all the principal towns in the
kingdom having been completed, they will be opened in
the course of a few days for the reception of the messages
of the public. Further particulars will be duly announced.
Principal London Stations already Open.
Central Station, Lothbury, Bank of England.
Branch Stations, General Post-office, St. Martin's-le-
Grand.
No. 448, West Strand, corner of Adelaide-street, open
day and night.
Great George-street, Westminster.
No. 7, Knightsbridge-terrace, opposite Albert-gate.
Great Northern Railway Station, King's-cross.
London and North-Western Railway Station, Euston-
square.
Eastern Counties Railway Station, Shoreditch.
London and South-Western Railway Station, Waterloo-
road.
London and Brighton Railway Station, London-bridge.
Great Western Railway Station, Paddington.
By order;
J. S. FOURDRINIER, Secretary.
Central Station, April 7.

gennuity of man could have given birth. (Hear.) That
failure had arisen from the impossibility of procuring the
co-operation of the present session and the relief com-
mittees with the Board of Works. The local agencies had
in fact completly broken down, and the whole businesshad
been inevitably thrown upon the officere of the Govern-
ment. What would have been done in England.• by boards
of guardians, churchwardens, overseers, magistrates, and
relieving officers, was obliged to be performed by military
and naval officers—any one whom the Government could
find to superintend the works. When, however, Parliament
again met, they passed Sir John Burgoyne's act which had
ben the object of general panegyric. He did not think,
then, that there was much to blame in the conduct of the
Government. They had acted upon what all previous ex-
perience had shown to be a successful plan ; it had failed,
and then they proposed another measure which had met
with general approbation. Reference had been made to
the inutility.of the works, and to their having been unfin-
ished. Now, the truth was, that the great object of the
Government was to afford relief and to save life. That the
remedy had been inadequate to the disease could not be
denied ; but that he had been instrumental even in the
humblest way in passing a measure which had done so
much good, was a matter for which he could never feel too
thankful. Now it was quite true that the works were
many of them useless, but then it was imperatively neces-
sary that they should be brought almost to the doors of the
poor peasantry. For instance, in improving a river, the
proper course would have been to begin at the mouth, but
then how could they have assisted the people in the in-
terior of the country ? The hon. member for Wexford
said that it would be unfair to throw the whole burden
upon the people of Ireland ; but the fact was that
the grants• were. 4,400,0001., while the loans were only
3,700,0001. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had at-
tempted to draw a parallel between the case of Ireland and
a distressed county in England ; but no English county
would ever have dreamed of applyingc, to the Treasury.
(Hear, hear.) So, again, with respect to the question of
interest, it should be borne in mind that the extension of
the time had been granted at the request of the inhabi-
tants themselves. (Hear, hear.) The repayment was
spread over forty years, and the interest was only 3 per
cent. Was not that a boon ? But it was in the option of
each union to fix the period within which the repayment
should take place, so that they had no right to complain,
Other loans, in like manner, had been spread over a grant
number of years, but the interest had been 5 per cent. In
the last case it had been reduced to 3, while the perio'j for
repayment was left to be fixed by the unions themselves.
He had never complained of the want of puntualitTi in the
repayments ; lie thought they had been made very faith-
fully, and great credit was due to the parties on that ac-
count. After the announcement of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer he did not see much advantage in pressing the
motion ; but if it were pressed he hoped it would be nega-
tived. Under these circumstances he though tit would be
unwise . for the house to occupy longer time in discussing
the motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER contended that there was a well-grounded
claim for granting what the motion asked, which was
merely a more equitable settlement. He imputed nothing
to the government or to Sir Charles Trevelyan—whose
conduct • was perfectly satisfactory to himself. The real
question was this : Sir C. Wood had just admitted that the
act had been a total failure ; exparience having shown
them that what was intended for a boon for Ireland had
turned out quite the reverse, tb.e question was whether
there were' not grounds for askirg the Government to take
the matter into their consideration, with a view to an
equitable settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said the presentments were, entirely in the hands of the
parties locally interested 1 but from the account given by
one of the witnesses before the Lords' committee, it ap-
peared that the business was done in a very hurried man-
ner, under the pressure of starvation, as it were ; and
when the works were ordered, the grand juries had no con-
trol whatever. Seeing what had been the result of the
act, there was a strong claim on the consideration of the
Government ; and U. the hon. gentleman went to a divi-
sion he should vot'j with him. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. 21100 RE, in reply said, he had made no charge
against the personal character of Sir Charles Trevelyan,
but had merely spoken of his public conduct, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed too much if he sup-
posed that Inembers of Parliament were to be excluded
from canvF.ssing the conduct of public servants. Though
Sir Char) es Trevelyan was not in that house, he appeared
to be everywhere else, and he would seem to be adept in
" the noble art of self-defence," as far as that meant as-
sailing others. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman justified
the use he had made of the report of the Lords' committee,
and enumerated the names of its members. Every speaker
on the other side had admitted that the act had failed, but
though the Government was warned by their own servants
in November that the system had completely broken down,
they continued to employ millions of men in this way for
six months after. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had, on a former occasion, promised to give an answer
on this question before the budget was brought forward ;
but now he declined to do so. Unless the right hon. gen-
tleman would agree to take the matter into consideration,
with a view to an equitable adjustment, he should press
his motion.
The house then divided—
For the motion..
Against