duty paid in England was £1,124,435, with a population of 16,000,000; in Scotland it was £74,116, with a population of 3,000,000; whilst Ireland paid only £53,618, with a population of 8,000,000. These facts offer the strongest possible proof of the poverty of Ireland. On looking over the reports of the poor-law inspectors, I find them teeming with statements of the wretchedness which prevails in the distressed districts of Ireland. The general character of the reports is, that starvation is, literally speaking, gradually driving the population into their graves. The people cannot quit their hovels for want of clothing, whilst others cannot be discharged from the workhouses owing to the same cause. Men are seen wearing women's apparel, not being able to procure proper clothing; whilst, in other instances, men, women, and children are all huddled together under bundles of rags, unable to rise for lack of covering; workhouses and prisons are crowded beyond their capacity to contain, the mortality being very great in them. Persons of honest character commit thefts in order to be sent to prison, and some ask as a favour to be transported. I know of nothing like this in the history of modern times. The only parallel I can find to it is in the work of the great German author (Mosheim), who, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, speaking of the inroads of the barbarians into the Roman empire in the fifth century, says that in Gaul the calamities of the times drove many to such madness that they wholly excluded God from the government of the world, and denied His providence over humau affairs. It would almost appear that this state of things is now to be seen in Ireland. The prisons are crowded, the chapels deserted, society is disorganised and ruined; labour is useless, for capital is not to be had for its employment. The reports of the inspectors say that this catastrophe has only been hastened, and not originated, by the failure of the potato crop during the last four years, and that all men possessed of any intelligence must have foreseen what would ultimately happen. This being the case, in what manner are the Irish people to subsist in future? There is the land, and there is labour enough to bring it into cultivation. But such is the state in which the land is placed, that capital cannot be employed upon it. You have tied up the raw material in such a manner-you have created such a monopoly of land by your laws and your mode of dealing with it, as to render it alike a curse to the people and to the owners of it. Why, let me ask, should land be tied up any more than any other raw material? If the supply of cotton wool were limited to the hands of the Browns and the Barings, what would be the condition of the Lancashire manufactories? What the manufactories would be under such a monopoly the land in the county of Mayo actually is under the system which prevails with respect to it in Ireland. But land carries with it territorial influence, which the Legislature will not interfere with lest it should be disturbed. Land is sacred, and must not be touched. . . . The Irish proprietors have also another difficulty to contend with, and that is their extravagance. It is said-for I cannot vouch for the fact myself that they keep too many horses and dogs. I do not mean to say that an Irish gentleman may not spend his rents as he pleases; but I can say that he cannot both spend his money and have it too. I think if they would cast their pride on one side, and go honestly to work-- if, instead of their young men waiting for a commission,' they were to go into business, they would be far better and more usefully employed, and they would find that the less humiliating condition of the two. Another bane of Ireland is the prevalence of life interests in landed property there. Under such a system the land can neither be improved nor sold. Now what has the noble lord at the head of the Government done towards grappling with all these questions? Nothing-absolutely nothing. I think him very unwise in not propounding to himself the momentous question, 'What shall be done for Ireland?' The right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth has a plan. He entered upon its outline on Friday last. But I doubt whether it has yet taken that distinct form which it must assume in order that the House may take cognisance of it. I admire some of the measures which the right hon. baronet intimates he would carry into effect, but there are other parts of his proposals which are vague and impracticable. I think, it is believed in Ireland that a Commission is to be

appointed to take charge of the distressed unions of the south and west-that the whole thing is to be managed through a new department of the Government, and all without the slightest trouble to the landlords-that there will be more than ever a clinging to this wretched property in bankrupt estates, and more than ever an indispositon to adopt those measures which are still open to them, in the direction in which the right hon. baronet wishes to proceed. The right hon. baronet stated in his first speech on this topic that he did not wish the transfer of property to be by individual barter; and on Friday he stated that he was very much averse to allowing matters to go on in their natural course, for by that means land would be unnaturally cheapened. Well, but upon what conditions would the right hon. baronet buy land in Ireland? Would it be under the same circumstances, and at the same price, that he would buy an estate in Yorkshire or Staffordshire? If any sane man goes to the west or south of Ireland to purchase an estate, he must go on account of the cheapness of the bargain-a cheapness which he hopes will compensate him for all the disadvantages to which he must necessarily be subjected in such a purchase. There can be no redemption for that part of Ireland-if it is to be through the transfer of land— except the land take its natural course, and come so cheap into the market that Englishmen and Scotchmen, and Irishmen too having capital will be willing to purchase it, notwithstanding all its disadvantages. (Colonel Dunne : Hear, hear!") The hon. member for Portarlington cheers that. as if it were an extraordinary statement. If the hon. member prefers purchasing what is dear to what is cheap, he is not a very sensible man to legislate for Ireland. If he thinks that a man will go into Galway and pay as much per acre for an estate as he would in England, he is greatly mistaken; but the fact is, I believe, that not only English and Scotch capital, but that much Irish capital also, would be expended in the purchase of estates in the south and west, if the ends which the right hon. baronet has in view were facilitated by this House. There are vicissitudes in all classes of society, and in all occupations in which we may engage; and when we have, as now in Ireland, a state of things-a grievous calamity not equalled under the sun-it is the duty of this House not to interfere with the ordinary and natural course of remedy, and not to flinch from what is necessary for the safety of the people, by reason of any mistaken sympathy with the owners of cotton mills or with the proprietors of landed estates. Now, I want Parliament to remove every obstacle in the way of the free sale of land. I believe that in this policy lies the only security you have for the restoration of the distressed districts of Ireland. The question of a Parliamentary title is most important; but I understand that the difficulty of this arises from the system of entails beyond persons now living, and because you must go back through a long search of sixty years before you can make it quite clear that the title is absolutely secure. The right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth suggested that the Lord Chancellor should be ousted. I proposed last year that there should be a new court established in Ireland for the adjudication of cases connected with land, and for no other purpose, and that it should thus relieve the present courts from much of the business with which they are now encumbered. But I do not say that even such a court would effect much good, unless it were very much more speedy in its operations than the existing courts. I believe that the present Lord Chancellor is admitted to be as good a Judge as ever sat in the Court of Chancery; but he is rather timid as a minister, and inert as a statesman; and, if I am not mistaken, he was in a great measure responsible for the failure of the bill for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates last session. The Government must have known, as well as I do, that such a measure could not succeed, and that the clause which was introduced-on the third reading, I believe-made it impossible to work it. There is another point with regard to intestate estates. I feel how tenderly one must speak, in this House, upon a question like this. Even the right hon. member for Tamworth, with all his authority, appeared, when touching on this delicate question of the land, as if he were walking upon eggs which he was very much afraid of breaking. I certainly never heard the right hon. gentleman steer through so many sinuosities in a case; and hardly, a

last, dared he come to the question, because he was talking about land-this sacred land! I believe land to have nothing peculiar in its nature which does not belong to other property; and everything that we have done with the view of treating land differently from other property has been a blunder-a false course which we must retrace-an error which lies at the foundation of very much of the pauperism and want of employment which so generally prevail. Now, with regard to intestate estates. I am told that the House of Lords will never repeal the law of primogeniture; but I do not want them to repeal the law of primogeniture in the sense entertained by some people. I do not want them to enact the system of France, by which a division of property is compelled. I think that to force the division of property by law is just as contrary to sound principles and natural rights as to prevent its division, as is done by our law. If a man choose to act the unnatural and absurd part of leaving the whole of his property to one child, I should not, certainly, look with respect upon his memory; but I would not interfere to prevent the free exercise of his will. I think, however, if a man die by chance without a will, that it is the duty of the Government to set a high moral example, and to divide the property equally among the children of the former owner, or among those who may be said to be his heirs-among those, in fact, who would fairly participate in his personal estate. If that system of leaving all to the eldest were followed out in the case of personalty it would lead to immediate confusion, and, by destroying the whole social system, to a perfect anarchy of property. Why, then, should that course be followed with regard to land? The repeal of the law would not of necessity destroy the custom; but this House would no longer give its sanction to a practice which is bad; and I believe that gradually there would be a more just appreciation of their duties in this respect by the great body of testators. Then, with regard to life interests: I would make an alteration there. I think that life-owners should be allowed to grant leases-of course, only on such terms as should ensure the successor from fraud-and that estates should be permitted to be charged with the sums which were expended in their improvement. Next, with regard to the registry of land. In many European countries this is done; and high legal authorities affirm that it would not be difficult to accomplish it in this country. You have your Ordnance Survey. To make the survey necessary for a perfect registry of deeds throughout the kingdom would not cost more than 9d. an acre; and if you had your plans engraved, it would be no great addition to the expense. There can be no reason why the landowners should not have that advantage conferred upon them, because, in addition to the public benefit, it would increase the value of their lands by several years' purchase. Mr. Senior has stated that if there were the same ready means for the transfer of land as at present exist for the transfer of personalty, the value of land would be increased, if I mistake not, by nine years' purchase. This is a subject which I would recommend to the hon. member for Buckinghamshire, now distinguished as the advocate of the landed interest. . Hon. gentlemen turn with triumph to neighbouring countries, and speak in glowing terms of our glorious constitution. It is true that abroad thrones and dynasties have been overturned, whilst in England peace has reigned undisturbed. But take all the lives that have been lost in the last twelve months in Europe amidst the convulsions that have occurred-take all the cessation of trade, the destruction of industry, all the crushing of hopes and hearts, and they will not compare for an instant with the agonies which have been endured by the population of Ireland under your glorious constitution. And there are those who now say that this is the ordering of Providence. I met an Irish gentleman the other night, and, speaking upon the subject, he said that he saw no remedy, but that it seemed as if the present state of things was the mode by which Providence intended to solve the question of Irish difficulties. But let us not lay these calamities at the door of Providence; it were sinful in us, of all men, to do so. God has blessed Ireland-and does still bless her-in position, in soil, in climate; He has not withdrawn His promises, nor are they unfulfilled; there is still the sunshine and the shower, still the seedtime and the harvest; and the

affluent bosom of the earth yet offers sustenance for man. But man must do his part-we must do our part-we must retrace our steps-we must shun the blunders and, I would even say, the crimes of our past legislation. We must free the land; and then we shall discover, and not till then, that industry, hopeful and remunerated-industry, free and inviolate, is the only sure foundation on which can be reared the enduring edifice of union and of peace."

The Irish residents of Manchester and Salford, in January, 1850, were so pleased with Mr. Bright's advocacy of the claims of Ireland that they presented him with an address in the Corn Exchange, Manchester, in testimony of their high appreciation. Mr. Bright, in a speech which lasted an hour and a-half, said :

"I hope that Lord John Russell may rise to the great work that is before him. He has an opportunity of doing more for this country than almost any other Minister in our time. He might, I believe, add the industry and affections of millions to the wealth and strength of this great empire. But if he should fail-if he should prove himself to be the agent of a timid and selfish oligarchy, rather than the Prime Minister of the Crown and of the people-if he shall not dare to do these things which in my conscience I believe he knows to be necessary—even then we will not despair; for, as I said, there is growing up in England and I hope in Ireland-a party so strong and numerous that by-and-by it will leave out only the pauperism at one end of the scale, and, it may be, the titled and the privileged at the other it will include almost the whole people; it will urge upon Government-united as we shall be with the people of Ireland— these great questions which I have discussed to-night. If the aristocracy of the United Kingdom has heaped evils unnumbered upon Ireland, why, I ask, should not the intelligent and virtuous people of the United Kingdom make them restitution? (cheers) and when I speak of that great and growing party throughout this country, I would say that in all their struggleswhatever they may yet undertake, whatever they may accomplish-they cannot do a nobler or better thing than to consecrate the cause of their advancing liberties by glorious and fruitful labours for the regeneration of Ireland." (Cheers.)

Dr. Bowring introduced a bill into the House of Commons in 1846 in favour of the abolition of flogging in the army, and Mr. Bright spoke and voted in favour of the measure, and he stated that in the manufacturing districts when a man had been through every kind of vice he became a soldier. There was a commercial spirit, he said, in England, and that the people found the means of a more profitable and honourable existence in the walks of trade and commerce than in the gaudy trappings offered them in the service of the State. The motion was lost by a majority of fifty-three.

CHAPTER XXX.

QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

The Supply of Cotton-The Protectionists-Addressing the Manchester Chamber of Commerce -Inquiry into the Cotton Resources of India-Capital Punishment-Financial and Parliamentary Reform-Death of Sir Robert Peel-The Peace Society-A Challenge sent to Mr. Cobden-A Pamphlet by Mr. Cobden.

T an early period of his public career Mr. Bright interested himself in the supply of cotton to the manufacturing districts. In 1847 cotton was very scarce, and hundreds of mills were working short time, or closed; and Mr. Bright succeeded in getting a committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the whole question, and it reported that in all the districts of Madras and Bombay where cotton was cultivated, and generally over those agricultural regions, the people were in a condition of the most abject and degraded pauperism.

The Protectionists, in the session of 1849, contended that the agricultural classes were entitled to compensation and relief under the loss of the repealed protective duties. Mr. Disraeli brought before the House a resolution in favour of alleviating the difficulties of the landowners by throwing a portion of the rates then assessed upon their property into the general taxation of the country. Sir Charles Wood, in arguing against the resolution, pointed out that in many European countries a far greater proportion of taxation was borne by the land than in England.

"It appears to me," said Mr. Bright, in opposing the motion, "that it is a proposition intended to withdraw burdens to the amount of some £6,000,000 per annum from certain shoulders on which they are now saddled, and to impose them upon others-to relieve, in short, those who now carry them, by transferring them to those who hitherto have not borne them. The hon. gentleman's scheme of redistribution would probably reimpose £3,000,000 on those from whom he would take the present aggregate of £6,000,000, and apportion the other £3,000,000 to other classes of the community. Well; but the £3,000,000 that he would so with