The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-02 00:00:00

own labour, an by nothing else. The duty of Govern-
ment was not to feed the people, or to provide work
for them, but tleir duty was to remove all obstructions
out of the was of the people that might hinder them
from obtaining work, and that might prevent them from
earning food. And who was it that was attacking
the political economists ? Why, the disciples of Mr.
Pitt. It was mid that Mr. Pitt was a disciple of that
great man Adrm Smith, who ought never to be men-
tioned without respect. This was all a mistake,
for the fact wee, that the only bad part of Adam
Smith's work, his " Chapter on Finance," was
written after he came to London, and knew
Mr. Pitt; and me of the worst things Mr. Pitt did
was to preven, the utility to the world, which
would have been derived from the talents of a great
philosopher, by leaking him a commissioner of Customs.
The cry in Ireland was, " Send us no more public works,
give us 20,000,00)1. for Irish railways," in order that a
railway in the meth might take the people away from the
cultivation of tie fields in the middle. Raise the
price of shares in railways, and we (the shareholders)
shall imme.liteely drop a great number of our
shares.—(Laugiter.) The best plan in the world
is to send pillions after millions to Ireland
for public works" they had tried it—" for private works"
they were goire to try them. It was his duty to state,
for it was he real and his decided opinion,
to
, thaptro..
it
was no part o the duty of any Government
vide food for he people under their care. It was the
perversion of be fact to suppose that that was the case,
and the conseqteuce would be that they would make the
Irish landlordsand the Irish peasantry look to the Go-
vernment next year ; the consequence would be that
they would lo,k back to the year 1847 with feelings
of envy and reget that their position at that time was
not equal to swat it was in that scarce year. He
had read a mot able pamphlet by Mr. Holmes, with
whom he did nc upon every point agree, for Mr. Holmes
WAS a repealer, ut he was an honest repealer, and he told
them that no gents of money would ever stop their
cry for repeal. Ile (Lord Brougham) hoped and trusted
that they wouldsot p"oceed one other step in the wrong
direction. Whs the right direction was it was for their
Lotdships and th Government to say ; but let them not
be forced into th wrong direction by the threats of the
discontented, or coaxed by appeals to their huma-
nity ; for thee must take care that they did
not lay the fondatioa for new demands by re-
leasing Irish peprietora and the Irish people from
the duties of theustation by a mistaken relief from pre-
sent difficulties. le was sorry that his remarks on the
army of ten thoasad employed under the Labour•rate
Act had given offence in certain quarters.—
(Hear.) It was upposed that his strictures referred
to certain of the superior officers. He assured the
House that it as not so; he knew that many
of them were ma of great humanity and abililty,
and he could oily express his regret that he
had been supposed o depreciate the value of their
services. What was to be done with this cruel case of
the people of Liverpool 1 The case would soon be the
same with the people of G2asgow, of Greenock, of
Bristol, and of Manchester. Something must be
done in accordance with that principle of
political economy b which he had referred—
that principle whist every man admitted when
put to him calmly but which they were all
too apt to overlook in tb midst of party clamour, or in
the presence of sufferini and distress.
The Marquis of WEa'MEATH said that his Noble
and Learned Friend haimade a long statement, which,
if unanswered, would bmg a very considerable degree
of odium on the presmed author of these calami-
ties, namely the Irish proprietors. But who was
to blame for the pretest state of Ireland ? who
but the English Governrent, which had sanctioned the
course of legislation whit had been pursued towards Ire-
land. There existed the wettest difficulty in enforcing the
law in Ireland. He would give their Lordships
several instances of wht had occurred upon his own
estates. In one case se let a fine piece of land
on lease to a tenant, the ease contained a provision that
the ground should notbe sub-let, it was, however,
let out in " conacre '. he brought his action
against the tenant ad obtained a verdict, but
subsequently the verdit was set aside on appeal
to the Court of Common Pleas, the judges considering
that letting in conacre ws not sub-letting. He had this
morning received
he stated h
receiveda lettrtt
ho had
from his
gaogtenttwienutlyrewlarnictls,
in which
against the person, fo arrears of rent, but he
pone iSsonag elnhsot
ocoffuelrdednota gsthianlliny pg
e risna t
ht oe s eprovuen,
d
ohae ha
r.
iir de
hbadfostheeonf
tthoe any person we
oldm s etrhvee
wrei mt s .
obtained were gone to thepublic works, or to Scotland,
and perhaps some of themto Liverpool, with his money
in their pockets, and takirrthe soup of that town for
nothing. On the estate itself the windows of the
houses were filled with stew, and they had altogether
the appearance of a besiegd city. This agent had en-
deavoured to tempt tern to pay their rents,
by bribing them with a pomise of remitting in some
cases one-half of the aments due, and in others one-
third, if they would only pre the remainder; but all the
temptations were of no avail. This was owing
to the laws of this counry, which encouraged the
people in their fraud, aid held out to them
an inducement to knavis ness by allowing them to
go free of the punishment which they justly merited.
There was a piece of land it Westmeath which the law
called his, but he did nt derive any advantage
from it, and were the Government to come
forward and say " You must pay for the support of the
poor on that land?" lie felt deep regret at the
statements put forward in tht petition; but such a state
of things did not warrait the repeated insinua-
tions—for they were direct charges—which were
made towards Irish landownas. No one—no Irishman
—felt more grateful thou ha did for the relief which
this country had girn to the poor of Ireland ;
but he apprehended the the Irish landlords were not to
blame, and, therefore, he considered such statements
ought not to go forte without contradiction. He,
for one, did not want money from England.
" Give the benefit of my estate, and I will do with-
out it." He regreted if he had speken with
warmth, but he coulde?t help it, as these sentiments
had been " boiling in his breast" for years, and as he
wished to show that th. class to which he belonged were
not to blame.

Lord BROUGHAMexplained that he had studiously
avoided making any narges or insinuations derogatory
to the Irish landownes. He admitted that the Irish
landlord had not the same power over his land as the
English landlord.
Their Lordships thenadjourned.