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

the greatness of the erllo.72:Crley. He (Lord J. Russell)
quite admitted this to be the case ; but then that state-
nient was not consistent wit': the other description which
had been given, that the Irish proprietors were debarred
from teking any part in the matter. He did not agree that
the Government :led the Legielatnre were wrong, because
it W 2.3 Ut t.L,etime impossible to foresee what wet-0d be the
extent of the calamity. Ia the report of the House of
Lords, his late lamented friend, the Earl of Bessborough,
was praised for his discrimination and sagacity, but the
Labour-rate Act was framed in accordance with l:is :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 he applied, and the
people prevented from starving. This act, then, having
tailed, the Government began to turn over the various
measures which could be adopted as substitutes, and they
proposed the act whieli was carried into effect under Sir
John Burgoyne, and which derived its name from him.
Ile begged the house would consider what was the great
object- vshich the G-overnment had to meet it that time.
When Parliament met at the beginning cf the session,
there were about 703,0 a) men paid for daily labour by the
State. It was no trifiieg consideration to determine how
these nambers 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. Ho was
ready to admit, on the part of the Cabinet with which he
wan 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 any one, 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 anether. Ho had risen to make these restearka only Ise-
cause his conduct in 1816 was impugned by the honouraLle
gentleman who spoke last ; but with respect to the motion
imatediately before the house, he trusted that the state-
Mont made by his right honourable friend the Chancellor
cf 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 act of Parliament, and by an act of Parliament alone
could any alteration be made. If the statement cf 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 ha to consider was rather what
would be best for. Ireland in fat ere than who was to blame
for what passed in 1816.
Mr. HERBERT explained that he had no intention
whatever of attacking the noble lord for his conduct in
1346..
Colonel DUNNE expressed his surprise at the absence
of the Secretary for Ireland, and of every Iriehman 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, ho 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-
ing ; but the Irish gentlemen maintained that that had
been done in the most expensive manner, and they were
now 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
naoney 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.

Mfr. J. BALL had'heard with regret the statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for while he postponed,
the 3:Tosition of lti3 views, it was clear that he had formed
a pretty strong opini6n on the subject. Ho (Mr. Ball)
having been engaged in the administration of the relief to
Ireland in 181 E and lan, he thought he should be wanting
in his duty if he allowed any blame to be cast on those who
were also oligapcd. in it. There was in Ireland as there
was in England a strong desire to afferst 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 cperations 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 1346, when the Irish inember3 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.

Captain LA.FFAN supported Mr. Moore's motion, but
dissent-Al from soma of his arguments.
Mr. V. SCULLY declared that in consequence of tho
labour-rate legislation Ireland had been a loser to the
amount of 16,000,000!. in potatoes and 49,000,0001,. 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-
subjects in Ireland in 1847, were quite prepared to charge
thernselve3 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 ceneezned, he believed
that expenditure had been worse than useless.

Mr. 1. BUTT, regarding the question as one of justice
and not of finance, could not consent to make it dependent
-upon the budget, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
I'mA:saner. So far as the expenditure had benefitted their
property, the Lie!). proprietors were bound to repay it—
hat they had had no control over the matter—the works
had been limited to such a; were usually made under pre-
sentments—as roads and bridges—upon which it was im-
possible to employ 7'30,C00 people usefully, and the result
was that the proprietors were in no way beneatted. The
Irish landlords offered to employ the people on productive
works by which they would. have been benefitted, and it
was refaced by the Legislature. Then, it was asked, let
them be employed in making railways for Ireland, and
that, too, was refused. The only question was whether it
was right and just to thro.v 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 nil le 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 103 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 lOs. 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,
ho 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-
land. (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. Tho 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 1&16 was
one to relieve that distress by the introduction of Indian
corn ; the second net being one establishing public works
by presentments, half the cost, being defrayed by a grant
from the Government. At the end of the session those
acts were the object of an almost unanimous culogium—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
the relief had been claimed 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 said about
the non-concurrence and the protests of the Irish members;
but what was the fact? Mr. Domieick Brown, a ro-
perder, said that if anything could show th--L 10-alp -
liament was waneee.ssary, it was Iran hiCh bearn
made by the noble lord, and. thener inwwhich it heed
been received by the house. (Hear, hear.) In the Horse
of Lords, Lord Ilonteagle had certainly objected to th: measure,
ut the onlyother Irish peer, LordWicklow, had
spoken in the highest terms of it. (Hear, hear.) The men-
Sur:; Ind undoubtedly failed. It had not answered the ex-
pectation either of the Government or of the house ; but
s
A had failed under eiretunstaneas which would have over-.
whebned the beet devised measure to which the wit or in.