The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-25 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 25, 1848.

hereafter be shaken by the inquiries now going on, he '
should be disposed at the proper period to support such
a motion as the present.
Mr. URQUHAHT thought every means ought to be
taken to keep down the expenditure of the country.
The philanthropic objects of the promoters of the pre-
sent system had completely failed. They had laboured
under a mighty delusion, and, recovering from their
insanity, it was their duty to review what they at-
tempted. He returned his thanks, therefore, to the
Hon. Member who had brought forward this subject,
and he appealed to Members on the Liberal side of the
House to give the motion their support.
Capt. PECHELL defended the squadron on the coast
of Africa. Our cruisers there were employed in the
most perilous of duties; and, instead of getting re-
warded, they were attacked and sneered at. He opposed
the motion because it was ill-timed, and because he did
not think the premises were proved.
Mr. HUTT, as chairman of the Committee to which
the House had devolved the whole of this most serious
and important question, wished to remark that they
would scarcely be acting a wise or a prudent part if they
were to pass an opinion upon any one particular portion
of it, as proposed upon this occasion.
Mr. MOWATT, having made up his mind to support
this motion, wished to explain why he had done so, lest
he might be charged with being friendly to the slave
trade. After the clear statement the Hon. Member had
made, and in the absence of all explanation, he saw no
other conclusion at which an unbiassed mind could
arrive, except that the system had entirely failed.—
(Hear.) It appeared that the present system cost at
it sat a million of money and not less than 250 lives a
year. Were we justified, in the face of this evidence,
in continuing such an expenditure and such a sacrifice?
He thought not, and therefore he should support the
motion.

Viscount PALMERSTON did not dispute that this
was a subject deserving most attentive consideration at
all times, and which might very properly be brought
forward when a vote for supply was demanded. But, on
the other hand, considering that the whole of the sub-
ject was referred, not long ago, to the examination of a
Select Committee, he did not think the Hon. Member
had exercised a sound discretion in now bringing the
subject forward. If the Hon. Member thought he had
anything to prove, the Select Committee was open to
him before which to prove it.—(Hear, hear.) But let
him not be understood on this occasion as admitting the
facts which the Hon. Member had affirmed. This was
not the season to enter on their consideration. The
House must remember that those means for the sup-
pression of the slaw trade were the result of ne
slight consideration. They had been framed in con-
sequence of anxious wishes expressed in petitions
by the country, and of anxious consideration of
those petitions on the part of former Parlia-
ments. It was said that they had tried the
system for thirty years, and that it was proved to have
failed But he denied that they bad tried it for thirty
years in any manner likely to be effective. Until the
year 1839 the slave trade was to a great extent free
from molestation; and therefore, up to that time at
least, it was not right to say that the system, in any
degree, had had a fair trial. If it were said, however,
that it failed since 1839, he begged leave to express
doubts as to the accuracy of that conclusion. The Hon.
Member argued that the system had failed because the
prices of slaves were so considerable in America; but
surely this circumstance of great price demonstrated
that the price was net equal to the demand.—(Hear,
hear.) They must also remember that successive Go-
vernments had, by their negotiations, persuaded many
countries to abandon this trade. France and Holland
no longer pursued. it, Spain and Portugal scarcely
pursued it, and, as stated by the Honourable Member,
the trade was almost confined to a colony of Spain
and to the empire of Brazil. In that way they must
have prevented an immense deal of human suffer-
ing.—(Hear, hear.) Now, people ran away with the
idea, and the assertion passed from mouth to mouth,
that the means taken to put down the traffic greatly ag-
gravated its horrOrs: He (Lord Palmerston) denied
this conclusion. Was there anything in the present day
equal to the horrors of the middle passage in former
times?—(Hear.) And upon either principle they might
feel assured that these horrors were exaggerated. The
slave-trader's interest was diametrically opposed to any
such cruelties as those described. The more slaves he
landed safely and in good health the greater his profits;
and therefore it any such cruelties existed as those
described they might merely be attributed to the blind-
ness of avarice, which would operate equally whether
we pursued the existing system of prevention or entirely
abandoned it. However, this was not the proper time to
go fully into this great question. His objection at this
time was that the whole subject had been referred to a
Select Committee that was now sitting, and that there-
fore this motion was premature.—(Cheers )
Mr. DISRAELI objected to the proposal made by the
Noble Lord to refer such questions as were before the
House to any Select Committee. They were matters
for the consideration of the House, and not for a Select
Committee. The Cabinet ought to determine upon
them. Two Select Committees had already been ap-
pointed on that same evening, and if that mode of
dealing with public questions was persevered in, the
whole force of Parliament would presently be absorbed
by Select Committees. He wished some Hon. Member
would move for a return of the number of Select Com-
mittees that had been recently appointed. It would be
one of the most singular documents ever published by
the House. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) had asserted
that the system of prevention had not yet received a fair
trial. But he (Mr. Disraeli) differed with the Noble
Lord, and was prepared to argue the points on the
' broadest grounds. Even, however, admitting that the
system bad been successful in all respects, was it, he
asked, one which it was expedient to persevere in?
Taken in that light, he maintained it would not sustain
examination, much less the positive declaration of the
Noble Lord.—(Hear.) What could be urged in de-
fence of the expenditure of 1,000,0001. a year in addition
to the 80,000,0001. that had been wasted during the last
thirty years ? The Noble Lord had said nothing what-
ever to shake his faith in the statements of his (Mr.
Disraeli's) lion. Friend. The Noble Lord had asserted
that the traders to the coast of Africa were prohibited
from carrying water casks lest they should-be turned to
the purposes of slavers. His (Mr. Disraeli's) Hon.
Friend asserted that the consequence of that regulation
was to prevent the slaves from having more than one
drink of water in two days during the transit through
the cruising grounds of the African coast. So that he
was entitled to say the sufferings of the slaves were not
decreased by the regulations now in force, and that, on
the contrary, those sufferings,had been very greatly in-
creased by the course pursued in consequence of the
legislative interference. Under these circumstances,
he thought it could hardly be contended that the system
was one which should be upheld in a time of financial
embarrassment like the present. Hon. Members would
incur a great responsibility if they did not attend to the
representation of the Hon. Member for Inverness, and
support the motion which he had introduced to their
notice.
Lord PALMERSTON explained that the right of
search given up in 1845 was not that which had been
obtained in 1839. The latter referred to the Spanish
flag, and was still retained by this country.
Sir T. D. ACLANI) objected to any change in so ins-
portant a portion of our policy as our maritime police for
the suppression of the slave trade without due and care-
ful consideration. He did not think that after a single
night's debate, we should hastily overturn a system
which we had perseveringly followed for upwards of 30
vears.—(Hear, hear.) As to the arguments which had
been adduced against the maintenance of the African
squadron on the score of health, he found a sufficient
answer to them in the returns of casualties, from which
it appeared that the loss of life on the African station
was as low as might be expected in the most healthy
station in the world. Neither could it successfully be
contended that it bad failed in its mission. From Go-
vernor Macdonald's report it appeared that the slave
trade had been effectually checked along a great extent
of coast, and that legitimate commerce was gradually but
surely taking its place. Having these views, he felt
bound-to divide with the Government against the motion
of the Hon. Member for Inverness.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to address a few observa-
tions to the House, not upon the general question as to
the efficacy of our system for putting down slavery and
the slave trade, but upon the particular question as it
stood at that moment. He would venture to submit to
the House that, for more than twenty years, under dif-
ferent Administrations, they had carried on the present
system; and, in carrying it on, had spent eighty millions
for the suppression of slavery. Suppose, then, that a
primti facie case could be made out against the system,
could anything be more reasonable than that the House
should wait for the report of the Committee of Inquiry
they had appointed, and not hastily decide the question
on a night devoted to the army estimates, and when
many Members must have thought that no such question
would come on ?—(Hear, hear.) The House had ap-
pointed a select Committee on the motion of the Hen.
Member for. Gateshead ; that Committee was at present
sitting, and when its labours came to a conclu.
sion the House would have in the evidence full
materials for a decision, and if such evidence went to
confirm the statement of the Hon. Member for Inverness
it would be competent to them to accede to the course
which he proposed. But it might be advisable to take
other steps to modify the system, without abandoning it
altogether. Part of a system might be founded on a mis-
taken policy, and yet to abandon at once our whole
scheme of: maritime police was a thing not to be done
without full and searching- inquiry. (Hear, hear.)
He thought there could be no doubt, even in the minds of
those who contended for the non-success of our measures
on the coast, that a large portion of Africa had been
relieved from the slave trade, and that legitimate com-
merce had been extensively established in its place.
Surely then, even if the policy were objected to,
it would not be humane at once to withdraw our squadron
from those parts, and to expose them anew to all the
horrors of the slave trade.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore the
question before the House was not simply a question of
whether the present system of slave-trade prevention
should be kept up. There would be found mixed up
with it various considerations, various questions of policy
on which it would be necessary to deliberate, and many of
which it might not be found convenient to abandon.
The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, presuming
that the case had been made out, referred to the ques-
tion as merely one of economy; but he (Lord John
Russell) would ask the House whether a system which
had been so long established, and for such a purpose,
should be suddenly abandoned on more grounds of eco-
nomy.—(Hear.) It was a question of humanity, and
would not be hastily decided by the House, even to save
a million a year. What he wished the House to con-
sider was, that the question should not be decided sum-
marily on the statement of the Hon. Member, on a day
devoted to other business. The Hon. Member for Mon-
trose had said that with fair play free labour could suc-
cessfully compete with slave labour. He (Lord John
Russell) inclined to that opinion, but from one cause,or
other free labour had not as yet had a 'fair trial, Ltd

that in his opinion formed another reason for careful
deliberation. They might find that a great portion of
the present system was wrong, and if in addition they
found that free labour produce could successfully com-
pete with the produce of slave labovr, they might pro-
ceed with confidence in their alterations without having
at the same time to reproach themselves with abandon-
ing for the sake of economy the higher interests of hu-
manity which they had previously been successful in up-
holding.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that the present was not the occa-
sion to enter into a discusion on the merits of the treaty
of 1845, or as to whether the arrangements then entered
into with France were more efficacious than the previous
right of search. His object in rising was merely to
explain how far that treaty interfered with our pre-
vious right of search. We had then the right of
search with regard to Spain, Portugal, and Brazil;
we retained it still, and with every country except
France, which country had no interest in the prose-
cution of the slave trade. He could only say with
respect to the policy of the treaty of 1845, that when
the subject was discussed with a completee knowledge
of all the facts, the policy:of Government received the
unanimous approbation of the House. The Noble
Lord opposite (Palmerston) had questioned that policy;
but so convinced was he that the House did not concur
in his views, that be contented himself with a perfectly
safe and harmless motion for papers, and even in that
he found only 53 Members to support him.—(Hear, hear.)
As to the right of search enjoyed by this country, in
1845, we had not the right reciprocally over the east
coast of Africa, and only over certain portions of the
west, together with Cuba, Brazil, and Madagascar. His
belief was that our right of search did not extend be-
yond the tenth degree of south latitude, and did not
extend to several parts of the western coast of Africa,
where the slave trade was carried on, and to no part of
the eastern coast, Under the treaty of 1845, France
and England were to grant warrants reciprocally, each
to authorise the right of search to the cruisers of the
other Powers, but England was not permitted to ask
fbr warrants for more than double the number of ships
employed by France in this service. So that it would
be in the power of France, if at any time she should
entertain any jealousy as to the amount of our naval
force engaged on the coast of Africa, to decrease it by
limiting the number of vessels employed by herself. But
the right of visit existed as it did before. France did
not carry on the slave trade—it had never been sus-
pected that she did, but it was apprehended that ships of
other nations engaged in that trade might assume the
French flag, and the right of search was effectual as to
these. But the right of visit was still possessed in all
cases, and that right was fully admitted by France.—
(Hear.) It occurred to the Government in 1845 that if
they could obtain the cordial concurrence of France in
the endeavour to put down the slave trade, the moral
influence of the two Powers acting together would be
more effectual in furthering that object than if we re-
tained the right of search and insisted on the treaty of
1839.—(Hear.) The House must not, however, suppose
that the right of search had been in any way affected
by the treaty of 1845, as far as it related to the vessels
of those nations which carried on the slave trade. His
impression was now the same as it had been in 1845, that
the treaty then entered into with France was an advan-
tage rather than an injury, so far as the suppression of
the •slave trade was concerned. He should vote against the
motion of the Hon. Member for Inverness. He meant not
by that to say that it might not be a proper one
as an amendment under other circumstances. However
inconvenient a course it might be in some cases to call
in the aid of a Select Committee on matters which pro-
perly fell within the province of the Government, be was
not sure whether this was not a case in which the House
was specially called on to undertake an inquiry, for he
could not forget that the suppression of the slave trade
was a policy imposed on the Government by the public, of
which the House of Commons was the representative.
He could not forget that in 1839 the House unani-
mously addressed the Crown to enter into freshlreaties,
and to invoke the aid of other powers in concert with
ourselves to put down the traffic in slaves—(Hear,
hear) —and surely it would not bo wise, without full
inquiry as to the efficacy of the system which had been
established under the treaties entered into in conse-
quence of that address, now to address the Crown to
negotiate for the abrogation of those treaties.--(Hear.)
Seeing that an inquiry was going on, in which the
opinions of those engaged in the suppression of the
slave trade would be elicited, and all the facts connected
with the subject brought out. he should decline stating
any opinion he might have formed, founded on the in-
formation which had reached him, and would postpone
his judgment until the report of the Committee should
be produced, and the whole evidence should be before
the House. Setting aside, therefore, the important
consideration, as to whether our policy in respect to the
sugar duties had given an encouragement to the cultiva-
tion of slave-labour sugar, and without reference to the
circumstances under which the treaty with France was
concluded, he thought that to fetter the hands of Go-
vernment by a resolution adopted, not only without in-
quiry, but in the face of inquiry—(Hear, hear)—would
be, not to increase the influence of the executive Go-
vernment with France, nor add to the authority of the
House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BOUVERIE said the whole question was, whe-
ther the policy was right or wrong. The motion might
have been inopportunely introduced, but being before
the House, he must vote for it. He could not consent
to vote the public money for purposes unconnected with
the government of the country.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the original motion
For Mr. Baillie's amendment BO
Majority —l36
DESTRUCTION OF TENANTS' HOUSES BY
IRISH LANDLORDS.

The question for going into Committee of Supply
having been again put,

SCROPE rose to move an humble address to
her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct
an indictment to be preferred by her Majesty's law
officers, against the parties concerned in the illegal
destruction of several houses, and the forcible ejectment
of their inmates, which took place within the union of
Galway, on or about New Year's-day last, and which
appears to have occasioned the deaths of several of the
unfortunate beings so ill-treated, by the evidence taken
on oath before Major M'Kie, poor-law inspector of that
union, by order of the commissioners; which evidence
is printed at length in p. 467 of the fifth series of papers
relating to the relief of distress and state of the Unions
in Ireland; thereby to show, by a practical example to
the people of Ireland, that the law affords its protection
to the lives and property of the poor as well as of the
rich, and that it can and will be enforced by the Go-
vernment when broken against the one no less than
against the other.—(The Hon. Gentleman on rising was
received by general cries of " Oh," but on producing the
blue book, and essaying to quote evidence therefrom,
was met by such a storm of disapprobation that he de-
clared his reluctance to proceed in the face of so much
impatience and discontent, and gave notice that he would
reproduce his motion on the next supply night, which
announcement gave rise to a general cheer.)
Mr. E. B. ROCHE expressed a hope that the Hon.
Member would not allow the impatience of the House
to prevent him from persisting in his motion, which was
really a most important one,—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there was
no doubt as to the law upon the subject. The landlord,
upon giving notice to quit, or upon the tenancy expiring
had a right to enter peaceably; but if he did so forcibly
he was liable to be indicted for a forcible entry; and if
that force amounted to a riot, he might be indicted for a
riot. It the entry was made before the notice to quit
expired, the tenant had a remedy at civil law; but it
was not at all usual to make what amounted to a private
wrong the subject of a public indictment by the Govern-
ment.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that this question was
really too important to allow it to be burked, and he
joined the Hon. Member for Cork in hoping the Hon.
Member for Stroud would not wait for another Commit-
tee of Supply, but at once proceed with his motion. The
barbarity committed in the Union of Galway, to which
his motion referred, was worse than anything that had
occurred in any civilised country.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY had ascer-
tained that the act was a most monstrous and cruel one;
and the sooner the Government made it their practice
to institute proceedings in such cases the better.
Mr. REYNOLDS asked whether Irish slavery and
murder of the Irish people were not more fitting for the
consideration of that house than the mitigation of Afri-
can slavery, upon which subject they had been engaged
for the last five hours.—(Hear, head.) Mr. Blake, the
landlord involved in these ejectments, had admitted that
he was guilty of an illegal act in turning these people
out in the bleak month of December, by which some of
their lives had been sacrificed ; he therefore asked the
Government whether that gentleman was to be per-
mitted to remain in the comission of the peace for the
county of Galway ?—(Hear, hear.) He firmly but
respectfully cautioned the House against passing over
offences such as Mr. Blake had committed, for if the
people of Ireland were left to think that they were to
have no redress under such atrocious circumstances, he
feared the total loss of their confidence, which was
every day diminishing, and likely to become " small by
degrees and beautifully less."—(Laughter.) He called
upon the Government to institute an inquiry into this
case, and if they had not the power to prosecute Mr.
Blake criminally for the murderous offences with which
he was charged, at least to deprive him of the commis-
sion of the peace.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir It PEEL said the declaration of the Attorney-
General, that Government had no power to interfere,
rendered it the more incumbent on that House to exer-
cise whatever moral power they possessed to put an end
to such practices as were described in the motion of the
Hon. Member for Stroud. The Right Hon. Baronet
then referred to the report of MajorM‘Kie. from which
he said it appeared that a more grievous injustice had
been committed than they were likely to fi
.find in any
other country.—(Hear, hear.) Major in reply
to the commission, stated that it replied this forcible
ejectment had been illegal; that notice had not been
served; that it had been under circumstances of great
cruelty; that the occupiers had been turned out
of their houses at nightfall; that they and their help-
less children had been left exposed to a cold bleak
shore on a stormy winter night; that some of the
children were sick ; that their prayers for mercy were
in vain, and that many of them had since died ; that he
had visited the ruins of their huts, and found many of
those unfortunate people still living amongst the ruins,
but many of them so weak that they could scarcely
stand. He was sure that the mere recital of these facts,
accompanied with the expression of sympathy and in-
dignation on the part of that House, would not be with-
out its influence—(Loud cheers);— and he thought that
the House owed an obligation to the Hon. Member for
Stroud, in not having permitted this ponderous volume
(alluding. to the blue book) to rest in oblivion, and that
he had done Tight in drawing the attention of the House
to it.—(Hear, hear,)
Mr. RUMS wished to ask whether or llot there was

a Government in Ireland ; and, if so, why such a
doeument as that just read by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth should have been
allowed to have remained useless for so long a time ?
Where were the public officers of Ireland ? If there
were any it would be much better to remove them, and
leave the Irish to govern themselves.—(Hear, hear.) Ho
was not surprised that repeal should be demanded, when
such atrocious proceedings as those disclosed in the blue
book before the House were allowed to pass with impu-
nity. Much had been said to-night of the horrors and
miseries of the middle passage, but these were as nothing
compared with the miseries described in this report.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) put the Government on
their trial, and asked them why they had nut taken
cognisance of these transactions, and if the law was
insufficient to have proposed a statute to prevent the
recurrence of such a state of things? He considered the
Government or its officers were much to blame, and it
behoved them to lose no time in seeking powers to pre-
chide the possibility of such atrocities being repeated.
Sir G. GREY said that if the Hon. Member would read
the papers now before him, he would find that it was
through the instrumentality of the Government that
these transactions had been disclosed and made known.
He begged further to say that the question he had
answered the other day had no relation to this case of
Mr. Blake, but referred generally to the parties who had
illegally destroyed the houses of these poor people. The
opinion he had then expressed had been confirmed by
that of the Hon. and Learned Member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin (Mr. Napier), viz., that the papers con-
tained no statement of facts upon which any criminal
prosecution could be instituted; but at the same time he
had stated his views as to the character of those facts,
and had not attempted to conceal those opinions.—
(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend near him (Sir
William Somerville) was in communication with the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon the subject, and any
measure which the Government could take would be
adopted by his Noble Friend. He must remark that there
was a Member of this House who was connected with
this case; he alluded to Mr. St. George, and on this
matter he (Sir G. Grey) hail himself communicated
with Mr. Hatchett, the Solicitor-General for Ireland
who held that though there was an apparent illegality,
still there had been no real illegality in the proceedings
of that gentleman, for the middlemen having been served
with notice, the law did not require service of notice on
the tenants in occupation. He stated this to show that
the subject had not escaped the attention of the Go-
vernment, who had every desire to afford protection to
parties who had been thus treated. Let it not therefore
be supposed that there had been a case for prosecution,
and that the Government had shrunk from instituting
it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD thought that the conduct of the
Government in Ireland was free from blame, and that
these monstrous evils, and infamous and cruel transac-
tions, originated in the refusal of Hon. Members con-
nected with Ireland to enter into an inquiry to reduce
the area of taxation under the poor-law. Such a reduc-
tion would have compelled landlords like Mr. Blake to
support their own tenantry, instead of turning them out
of their holdings and sending them for support on their
neighbours. It was monstrous, after all that had been
said about agrarian disturbances and incendiary feelings
in Ireland, to find that the greatest oppressors of the
poor were those who lived amongst them, and who ought
to be their protectors.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR conceived that the opposition to
the motion of the Hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P.
Scrope) arose from a general hostility to hear this
question at all.—(No, no.) That hostility had been
manifested, and then up got the Attorney-General who,
he must say, in a most heartless manner, coolly told the
House there was no law to meet this case.—(Oh, oh.)
It was a matter of fact, that when Irish questions were
brought before the House, they were met with cold in-
difference.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") He repeated
that they were met with cold indifference even though
the people of Ireland were known to be in a state of
starvation. If there was no law to punish those
offenders, why had not a measure for that purpose been
brought forward by the Government on this information,
which had already been so long in their possession. If
such acts were committed in England the landlords would
not tolerate them for one moment. It was time to
legislate for Ireland. He would not talk of moral force
or moral impressions, but he told the Gavernment that
the Irish people looked upon them as an exterminating,
crucifying; and destroying Government—that the land-
lords received every advantage and assistance, but that
the lives of the population were regarded as the lives of
so many slaves. He told the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government that, looking at what was passing in
other countries, this was not a time to trifle with the
people of Ireland. Talk of Poland—that laud was redolent
with the blood of illustrious martyrs, while the soil of
Ireland stank with the dead carcases of a starved popu-
lation.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh.")
Sir 11. VERNEY denied the assertion that the House
was indifferent to the condition of Ireland; on the con-
trary, he maintained that the great body of the Members
of that House were anxious to promote the welfare,
prosperity, comfort, and advance in civilization of the
whole Irish nation. Let not the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) hold out anything like a
threat to the English Members, for this country had
nothing to fear from the tempest which had swept over
other portions of the globe.
Mr. OSBORNE remarked that, after the extract read
by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tatnworth,
he was not surprised at the warmth of indignation which
the Hon. Member for Nottingham had manifested, but
at the same time he thought the Hon. Member had done
a great injustice to the lion. and Learned Attorney-
General; for nobody acquainted with that Hon. and
Learned Gentleman could ever accuse him of being
actuated by heartless or unkind motives.—(Hear, hear.)
Until the extract was read, he (Mr. Osborne) was nut
aware of the grave charges which this blue book con-
tained, and he now repeated the question which he
believed had already been put to the Government,—
viz., whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had com-
municated with Mr. Blake regarding his position in the
commission of the peace? It was true that Mr. Blake
denied that he had been present, though his son had
been so, but he admitted that the proceedings were
illegal and had been taken without his sanction, and he
had promised to send an affidavit to the fact on the
following day; " but," added Major M'Kie in his
report, " I have never heard from him since." In
this state of things he (Mr. Osborne) conteeded that the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland should inquire into the
matter, and if Mr. Blake was found to have been cogni-
sant of these infamous, cruel, and illegal proceedings,
he ought immediately to be dismissed from the commis-
sion of the peace, and, if the law permitted it, to be
criminally prosecuted for this transaction. (Hear,
hear.) Unless the Government took up this question
with a 'strong hand arid with a searching inquiry, it
would be impossible to answer for the peace of the
country.
Colonel DUNNE thought it was essential not merely
to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Blake, but into that
of the relieving officer of the district, for not having
supplied those unfortunate people who had been turned
out of their habitations without fond.
Mr. MONSELL remarked that they had not perished
for want of food, but from exposure on a cold winter
night; and he was of opinion that if the Government
proceeded with vigour, they might establish against the
perpetrators of this act the crime of manslaugter. Ile
entreated the Government to proceed with energy, in
order to show the people of Ireland that they were as
mindful of the lives of the poor as they were careful of
the lives of the rich.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that as the question had
again been raised as to whether it was possible for the
Government to proceed criminally against these parties,
he must state that these papers had only reached him
the day before the debate on the quarter-acre clause,
and that their contents making a deep impression upon
his mind, he had immediately communicated with Ire-
land on the subject, and he had no doubt the Lord-Lieu-
tenant had lost no time, but that the whole circum-
stances were at the present moment under his most
serious and attentive consideration.—(Hear.)
Mr. NAPIER said he had heard of this case with
thorough indignation. If the stipendiary magistrates of
the districts would take informations and proceed in the
regular way, no doubt a prosecution might be instituted
for manslaughter. It would be a disgrace to the British
law if it did not reach a case of this description.
Mr. SCROPE said his object had been answered,
since the House had given its attention to the case. It
had been declared on legal authority that the law did not
reach outrages of this kind. Let them then lay aside
the feint of there being equal laws for the rich and the
poor.—(Hear.) If the law did apply, let it be enforced
by the Government; if not, let the Legislature imme-
diately pass a law tor the purpose.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord LINCOLN said the House was indebted to the
Hon. Member for having brought this matter forward.
He was surprised that, the occurrence having taken
place on New Year's Eve, no information should have
reached the Irish Government till February, considering
the perfect centralisation of that Government. To check
such offences in future, it was desirable that the officers
of the Government should send speedy information of
like cases in future. He hoped the Government would
take this up in some form, and would endeavour to show
to the Irish people that their rights would be protected,
as well as those of the rich.
Mr. HUME asked whether the police had reported to
Colonel M'Gregor, and if so, why he had not reported
the case to the Government?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was not aware that any
report had been made by the police. The first informa-
tion Government had received was on the 29th of
January.

The motion for going into Committee of Supply Wail
then agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—ORDNANCE
ESTIMATES.
Colonel ANSON said it was now his duty to take a
vote for some portion of the money contemplated for the
service of the ordnance department of the ensuing year.
He did not wish, at that late hour, to raise any discussion
upon these estimates, and he thought the best course
would be for him to place in the hands of the Chairman
the votes which he proposed to take. It was only pro-
posed to take a portion of the money on each of the
voter, which he thought a snore correct way than taking
the whole in one sum. He first proposed to take a sum
of 400,0001. (the gross estimate was 716,2541.) to defray
the expenses of " the pay, allowances, and contingencies
of the ordnance military corps."
Mr. OSBORNE said it was his intention to take
some exception to these estimates, and wished to know
whether he should be able to do so afterwards.
Colonel ANSON said he should have been very glad
to have entered into this question at length ; bat, in
consequence of the lateness of the hour, and as the esti-
mates had been submitted to a Committee, he did not
think it necessary to go into the details ; but ample
opportunity would be afforded the Hon. Member to raise
any objections he thought proper, when the matter came
before the House on a futuro opportunity.
Mr. MACKENZIE asked the Hon. and Gallant Gen-