The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847 Part 19

"Sir," said Lord George, "I have heard it said, at different times, that there is danger of an outbreak in Ireland. We have heard this story a thousand times repeated, and as often refuted, 'that the starving peasantry of Ireland are purchasing arms with which to commence an outbreak in that country.' Sir, I do not believe one word of any such representation. I can only express my great surprise that, with the people starving by thousands--with such accounts as we have read during the last two days, of ten dead bodies out of eleven found lying unburied in one cabin; of seven putrid corpses in another; of dogs and swine quarreling over, and fighting for the dead carca.s.ses of Christians; of the poor consigned coffinless to their graves, and denied the decencies of Christian burial, that the price of the coffin saved might prolong for a few days the sufferings of the dying, I, Sir, for one, _look with amazement at the patience of the Irish people_."

He solemnly promised the House, that if they allowed this Bill to pa.s.s, and that the Irish people could have good food and good clothing, he would answer for their loyalty. "I, the Saxon," concluded the n.o.ble lord, "with my head, will answer for the loyalty and the honour of the Irish people. Yes, Sir, I, the Saxon, will lead them, through their wants fulfilled--their wishes gratified--their warm sympathies and grateful hearts--not to sever but to cement the union with England."

Loud and prolonged cheering greeted this peroration.

When Lord George had concluded his masterly statement, the Prime Minister rose and complimented him on his zealous desire to benefit the people of Ireland, but at the same time declared that the Government did not think employment on the construction of railways the best suited to meet the general distress in that country; he did not deny that there would be a permanent benefit, but with such extreme dest.i.tution existing, he did not think it wise to devote 16,000,000 to the promotion of railways, as such an expenditure would check the outlay that was, at the moment, necessary for the support of the people. He would not oppose the first reading of the bill, but announced his determination to resist its further progress. After an animated discussion, in which Mr. Bernal Osborne, Mr. Roebuck, Alderman Thompson, Mr. Hume, Smith O'Brien, Mr. John O'Connell and Henry Grattan took a part, the bill was read a first time, and the 11th of February fixed for the second reading.

The Government had made up their mind to oppose Lord George Bentinck's bill. But seeing that he had a large following, and that the Irish members, and many independent English members too, would support him, they had recourse to the stale trick of weak governments--the threat of resignation. The affairs of the country were at the moment in a most critical position, and every hour's delay in sending relief to Ireland would add hundreds to the deaths from starvation. The confusion which would be caused by resignation, would inflict serious injury on the country that Lord George Bentinck was so anxious to serve: Lord John knew this well, and, therefore, he knew his threat of resignation had a certain coercive power in it. Moreover, the Tory party was split in two; Lord George was at the head of the Protectionists, who had deserted Peel, or rather, who had been deserted by him; Sir Robert had still many adherents, but a fusion of the two sections of the party was, at the moment, next to impossible, so that there could be no Tory Government framed to succeed Lord John Russell's. What Bernal Osborne prophesied at the time, would in all likelihood have happened, that if the n.o.ble lord went out by one door, he would come in by another. Many thought the risk of breaking up the Government too great, considering the state of Ireland; and many Irish liberal members were but too glad of an excuse to keep it in office. If we a.s.sume that no action of the Irish representatives would affect any votes but the votes of those returned by Irish const.i.tuencies, the division shows that it was beyond their power to secure a majority for the second reading; but it is not unreasonable to suppose that, had the Irish members maintained a united and determined opinion in favour of the bill, English members would see the wisdom and necessity of yielding to them.

Between the 4th and the 11th great activity was shown at both sides.

The friends of Lord George Bentinck, who happened to be absent from London, sent him a.s.surances that nothing would prevent them from being present at the division; whilst the Government and their supporters laid their heads together to devise the best means of defeating the measure.

One thing they deemed essential--the Irish members must be taken in hand, and their hopes and fears so wrought upon as to prevent them from giving a united and determined support to Lord George. On the day fixed for the second reading of the Bill, the Premier called a meeting of his party at his private residence. Nearly two hundred obeyed the summons.

He spoke, on the occasion, against the Irish railway scheme; but his arguments were devoid of force and solidity. He said the money could not be raised, which n.o.body believed. He said it was generally admitted, that only twenty-five per cent. of the money spent in the construction of railways went for labour; an a.s.sertion for which neither he nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave any authority, and which Mr. Hudson triumphantly refuted, in his speech on the Bill next day. But Lord John further said, that he was resolved to meet the second reading with a direct negative, and that he would resign if the Government were out-voted; an announcement which, although it lacked argument, had force and meaning in it.

Several of those present at the meeting expressed their views for and against the Bill. The Irish members, especially the Liberal members, felt they were in a dilemma. They knew Lord George's proposal was popular in Ireland--regarded, in fact, as a great boon. They did not at all desire the resignation of the Government, from which they had received many favours, and expected many more. What was to be done? They hit upon a plan, which they considered would lift them out of their dilemma; they resolved to ask Lord George to postpone the second reading of his Bill, for a time, by which arrangement the Premier would not be bound to carry out his threat of resignation; and Ireland eventually might have the benefit of the railway scheme proposed by the Protectionist leader.

The party which was formed some time before, at the Rotunda meeting, and named the Irish party, as representing Ireland and its interests, without reference to politics or religion, continued to meet from time to time, in rooms they had hired in London. Those who joined it, probably, meant well in the beginning; and many of them, no doubt, meant well all through; but they undertook an impossible task, when they pledged themselves to work for their country, irrespective of their individual views, religious and political. In an hour or two after the meeting of the 11th of February, at Lord John's, had broken up, they a.s.sembled in their rooms. Some of the Irish members who were present at Chesham-place attended, and gave an account of what had transpired there. The situation was grave. Time was pressing. The second reading of Lord George's Bill would be on in a few hours. The meeting, which consisted of thirty-four Irish peers and members of Parliament, agreed to forward a request to Lord George, to postpone the second reading. The request was contained in the following resolution, with which Smith O'Brien was deputed to wait on him: "Resolved--That Lord George Bentinck be requested to postpone, to such a day as he shall appoint, the second reading of the Railway Bill, in order that the discussion on the Bill may not interfere with the progress of measures now before the House, which are of urgent and immediate importance to the famis.h.i.+ng people of Ireland; and also in order that time may be allowed for the expression of public opinion in Ireland upon the merits of the proposal of Lord George Bentinck."

He received Mr. O'Brien in the kindest manner, but frankly told him he could not postpone the second reading of his Bill without consulting his friends. At the same time, he expressed an opinion, that if the Irish members pressed their request, it would be acceded to, provided those who were the cause of the postponement would take the responsibility of it. There was no postponement: the second reading was proceeded with that evening, as originally intended. When it came on, Smith O'Brien, who was probably appointed by the Irish party for the purpose, immediately rose, and appealed to the n.o.ble lord to postpone the second reading, saying (as the resolution had said) that the const.i.tuents of the Irish members had not had time to express their opinions on the Bill--a most delusive plea, as if, forsooth, the Irish people would at such a moment, or at any time, object to the outlay of 16,000,000 on the improvement of their country. Besides, they were known to be favourable to the Bill. Mr. O'Brien gave the true reason, when he asked Lord George to postpone the second reading, because the Government had staked their existence upon it. A change of ministry, he truly said, would throw into confusion legislation, which was of pressing necessity for Ireland. He tendered his support to the n.o.ble lord, but he was anxious to consider the question apart from a change of ministry; and he knew that many members, like himself, wished for a postponement, at least for a few days.

The debate was adjourned to the next day. The proposal of the Irish party to postpone the second reading of Lord George Bentinck's Railway Bill, does not seem to have had much to recommend it. Lord John Russell's Government would have opposed it at any time it might be brought forward, and even with a better show of reason after than before a postponement; inasmuch as the expenditure made in the meantime by the Government, to stay the famine, would be a new argument against such an outlay as Lord George's Bill contemplated. Moreover, the Irish members had no claim upon his Lords.h.i.+p's courtesy When his Bill was ready, he, in a most gracious manner, sent it to them for their opinion, before it was submitted to the House of Commons. After it was some time in their hands, they called a meeting, to hear Lord George explain its provisions, which he did at much length, and with great force and clearness. _He was then given to understand that the proposed Bill met the unanimous approval, and would receive the united support, of the_ IRISH PARTY, _in the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament_.[207] When they submitted to be cowed by Lord John Russell's threat of resignation--when they halted and vacillated, and at length changed, it was too much to expect the n.o.ble lord would derange his plans to accommodate such trimmers.

The following pa.s.sage of a speech, delivered at a public meeting some years afterwards, lets in the light upon the motives which actuated many of the Irish members in their conduct with regard to this famous measure: "I went into a certain room in London," said the speaker, "where some thirty Irish members sat in conclave, after the intimation from Lord John Russell that he would resign if the Bill pa.s.sed the second reading. The question raised at that private conference was, what was the state of each man's const.i.tuency? and it was agreed that, wherever there was a const.i.tuency that would not brook a sale, its representative must vote against the Government; but wherever there was an inactive clergy, and local leaders who sought places, and instructed their representatives in making a traffic of the votes of the people, for the purpose of getting cousins, nephews, and other connections appointed to places of emolument and gain, in these cases the representatives were required to vote against the people, and to sacrifice them; because there was a consciousness, on their part, that there were none amongst those they ought to fear, who would call them to account, before G.o.d and man, for their treachery and baseness (tremendous cheers). We are dealing here to-night, not so much with theories as facts; and I, therefore, tell you of those things which I have seen, my statements in reference to which I can vouch."[208]

The positions taken up by the proposer of the Bill were not seriously damaged during the discussions which followed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the chief speaker on the Government side against the second reading; but his arguments were characterized by an honorable member as "a mockery." The only effective objection he made to the Bill he put in the foreground, when, he repeated what the Premier had said more than once before, namely, that the Government would not undertake to carry out the n.o.ble lord's plan, as they could not do so consistently with their views of public duty. He also a.s.serted that loans to Ireland, as a rule, had not been repaid, and he instanced the loans for the making of ca.n.a.ls in that country: a loan given to the Dublin and Kingstown railway had, he admitted, been repaid, which confession elicited cheers from Lord George Bentinck and his friends. The charge made against Ireland of not paying back what she had borrowed was met by Mr. Bernal Osborne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he did not wish to see the State become a great money lender; in reply to which Mr. Osborne expressed the opinion, that it would be much better for the State to become a great money lender than to continue a profligate spendthrift--dissipating the funds of the country on the highways of Ireland. "Had not," he asked, "the policy of the State always been to become a great money lender? Since the Union 18,000,000 of money had been lent to England and Scotland, of which 6,000,000 had been repaid, whilst 9,002,000 had been lent to Ireland, of which 7,000,000 had been repaid." The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said in his speech, that he had been informed by a person of great experience on the subject, that only 25 per cent. of the money would go for labour; and that from twenty to thirty men per mile were all that could be employed; taking the highest figure, the n.o.ble lord's scheme, he said, would only afford employment to 45,000 workmen. Mr. Hudson, the "railway king," then the great authority on such matters, thus replied to the Chancellor's a.s.sertions: "As far as he (Mr. Hudson) could ascertain, there were but two points on which the right hon. gentleman had doubted the statements of the n.o.ble member for Lynn--namely, the number of men that would be employed on the lines, and the amount of money that would be expended on labour. As far as he could remember, those two were the only points questioned by the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and since then, they had been taunted by the right hon. member for Portsmouth, for not having replied to the objections made in those respects to the plan of the n.o.ble member for Lynn. He did not know on what authority the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement as to the amount of money that would be expended in labour; but he wondered it had not occurred to the right hon. member for Portsmouth, that even upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing, the right hon. gentleman must have made a gross mistake. The right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten that, under the Bill of the n.o.ble lord, the member for Lynn, for every 4,000,000 which the Government would have to provide, the railway companies would provide 2,000,000 more. Now, the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Baring, allowed 25 per cent. for earthworks; but he only allowed that 25 per cent. on the 4,000,000, which would make 1,000,000 to be devoted to earthworks; whereas he ought to have allowed it on the 6,000,000, which would have made the amount 1,500,000. So that, by his own showing, the right hon.

gentleman was at least wrong in regard to that point. He (Mr. Hudson) would give figures which would clearly show, that the n.o.ble lord's calculation was below the average amount in regard to labour, and that instead of 1,500,000, it would be nearly 4,000,000 that would be expended under that head, under his plan. Take, for instance, the expenses in constructing the North Midland Railway. That line cost, on the average, 40,000 per mile. The land cost 5,500 per mile; the permanent way cost between 5,000 and 6,000 per mile, and the parliamentary expenses about 2,000. There was an expenditure of, say, 13,000 per mile; and to what did the right hon. gentleman suppose the remaining 27,000 were devoted? That was a line of great expense and large works; but there was the York and North Midland, a line of comparatively small expense and small works, and that line cost an average of 23,000 per mile; the land having cost not more than 1,800 per mile, and the permanent way 5,500. Now, he wanted to know in what the remainder was spent? Why, undoubtedly, in labour. In the Leeds and Bradford, again--a more recently constructed line--of which the expenses had been 33,000 per mile, there had been 17,000 per mile to be calculated on the side of labour. The permanent way included sleepers and other things connected with the works. They might, perhaps, say there was a great consumption of bricks; but they could not make bricks without the employment of much labour--and with such facts as these before them, how was it possible they could doubt the accuracy of the statements of the n.o.ble lord who had brought forward this measure, and that the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was grossly mistaken. The right hon. gentleman, too, had said, that the number of men per mile was about twenty-five or thirty; but on the Orleans line there were as many as 130 per mile. He really thought the right hon. gentleman ought to be better informed before he came down to the House and impugned the statements of other gentlemen."[209]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, made a statement which reflected severely on the landlords in some parts of Ireland, but which was no argument whatever against the Bill before the House. He said: A few days since, we received a report of the proceedings of a Relief Committee of a barony in the Queen's County; the subscriptions were raised by persons themselves but little removed from poverty, and with little or no a.s.sistance from the resident proprietor.

The most beneficial results were produced; the whole sum raised was 176; of this 136 were subscribed by the farmers, the policemen, and the priest, and only 40 were contributed by the proprietors of the soil. I have never, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perused a doc.u.ment with greater pleasure and satisfaction, for it gives strong hopes of what may be done if all cla.s.ses unite their efforts, giving money if they have it, and their personal exertions if they have no money, on behalf of their distressed countrymen. By this means alone can relief be extended to the starving population. And I confess it was with pain I can scarcely describe, that I received, by the same post that brought me the above report, an account of very different proceedings in the county of Mayo. There I find, so far from subscriptions having been entered into to maintain their people, that the landlords, or their agents, are pursuing a system of ejectment, under processes for rent, to an extent beyond what had ever been known in the country. The number of processes entered at the quarter sessions exceed, very considerably, anything they have been before. At the quarter sessions of the barony of Ballina, 6,400 processes have been entered, of which 4,000 are at the suit of the landlords for rent. The same letter further states, that--"these proceedings have almost depopulated the country, the people having fled with all they possessed to prevent their property being seized, or themselves thrown into prison, under decrees. There are districts in this barony where the townlands. .h.i.therto occupied by 400 or 500 persons are now uninhabited." This, he said, may account, perhaps, for some of the thousands landed on the quays of Liverpool from the Irish steamers; and if the same course were to be generally pursued, I should despair of the country ever being relieved.

Towards the close of the debate, Sir Robert Peel spoke against the Bill, and made one of those weak, hollow, plausible speeches for which he was justly famous. His two chief objections against it were--(1), that they had not the money to spend which Lord George Bentinck asked for, and (2) if they had, he doubted if they could not find a way of spending it more profitably for Ireland. He doubted:--yes, his habit was to kill every measure he did not approve of by doubts and fears. When Lord John Russell, at the beginning of the Session, proclaimed the determination of his Government to take in hand the reclamation of the waste lands of Ireland, and said he would begin by allocating for that purpose the, not extravagant, sum of 1,000,000, Sir Robert, in his blandest accents, expressed a hope that the n.o.ble lord would _pause_ before spending so much money on such an object. Now, it is railways, Lord George Bentinck asks the Government to lend, not the public money, but the national credit, to raise a loan for extending railway accommodation, and save the lives of the people; but Sir Robert tells him England has not the money for such a purpose, and if she had, his idea was that some other way of spending it could be devised, which would be more beneficial to Ireland; but he did not favour the House with what, according to his views, that better way was.

Some weeks later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Bill, empowering the Government to lend the paltry sum of 620,000 to Irish railways, which Sir Robert also opposed, saying that "the measure of Lord George Bentinck was free from some of the objections which forcibly applied to the present measure." He offered no objection to the giving of money to Ireland, as a pauper, but he would give none for her permanent improvement. Like certain philanthropists, who deliver homilies on alms-giving but spare their pockets, he was most liberal of his advice. He counselled us to have self-reliance, to depend upon ourselves, and not be looking to Dublin Castle or to England; whilst, on the other hand, the First Minister defended his Government against the charge of allowing the people to die of starvation, by a.s.serting that the Irish Famine was a visitation with which no human power could cope.

Before the second reading of his Bill came on, Lord George Bentinck knew it was a doomed measure. The meeting at Lord John Russell's, the threat of resignation, the treachery of many Irish members, the opposition of Sir Robert Peel and his followers, left no doubt that the majority against the second reading would be a large one. Lord George rose after Sir Robert Peel had spoken. His feelings must have been those of a man who had made a great and n.o.ble effort for a good and holy purpose, but had failed, mainly for want of support from those who had solemnly promised it, and whose interest and duty impelled them to stand firmly by that promise. He did not spare his opponents in his reply. A good part of Sir Robert Peel's speech consisted of a eulogium upon industry, perseverance, and individual exertion; and to ill.u.s.trate those valuable qualities he adduced the example of Mr. Bianconi,--a foreigner, an Italian, from Milan, Sir Robert said, who had commenced in the South of Ireland, some years before, with one stage-car: his cars now travel three thousand miles a-day: he received no Government aid. "Let me entreat you," urged the amiable ex-Premier, "to imitate that example."

"Mr. Bianconi and his cars," began Lord George, "appear to be the standing stock-in-trade of the right hon. gentleman. I am sure, that it must be in the recollection of every man who was in the House in 1839, when the Government of Lord Melbourne proposed its scheme for a.s.sisting railways in Ireland, that, word for word, what we have heard for the last half hour in the right honourable gentleman's speech, was uttered by him on that occasion. Leave private enterprise, said the right honourable gentleman, to take its own course in Ireland, and you will have railways constructed the same as you have got Mr. Bianconi's cars.

But, Sir, seven years have elapsed, and what has been the result? Why, Sir, this: in England you have 2,300 miles of railroad; in Belgium there are 375 miles completed; in Austria and Germany 3,000 miles; in the United States of America, 3,300; whilst Ireland, where private enterprise is left unaided by Government, has only 123 miles of railroad. Would the House listen to this effete policy of the right honourable gentleman, or would they agree with him (Lord George Bentinck) in the opinion, that, as Government aid had succeeded in Belgium, in Austria, in Germany, in the United States of America, the aid of the Government of this country ought to be afforded to Ireland--not to supersede private enterprise, for that he had never proposed to do, but to stimulate private enterprise." Sir Robert Peel had also gone into the state of the finances of the country, to show the pa.s.sing of Lord George's Bill would imperil them. Addressing himself to that argument, his lords.h.i.+p said, Sir Robert Peel had totally pa.s.sed by, as all the three Chancellors of the Exchequer who preceded him did, the financial statement which he (Lord George Bentinck) had made a fortnight before to the House, and to which he challenged denial, that the effect of giving to Ireland 4,000,000 a-year for railways would be not only to improve her condition, but to increase the consumption of exciseable articles in Ireland; not to take away from the general taxes of the country, but to add, from the proceeds of Irish taxes, between 600,000 and 700,000 a-year to British revenue. That exposition, he said, had now run the gauntlet of three Chancellors of the Exchequer and a Prime Minister, and he thought they might take it for granted that no man in the House could gainsay it. Turning to the threat of resignation made by the Russell Cabinet, Lord George said, it was only consistent with the independence of that House and the country, that when the Government rejected a measure which the proposer of it believed to be for the good of the country, the author of such a measure ought not to shrink from any responsibility implied by the nature of his proposition; and when those who held the reins of government declared that, in the event of such a measure being carried, they must retire from responsible office, then he did not hesitate to say, that he should be wanting in spirit and independence, if he did not come forward and address the House in the language which they had already heard from him, but nothing that fell from him was conceived in a spirit of hostility to the minister of the crown. He told the Government that if they did not like to carry out the measure, they ought to do what Mr. Pitt did in 1793, appoint a commission--an unpaid commission--to carry it out. "Let them put me,"

said Lord George, "at the head of that commission, and I will be responsible for carrying out the plan, without the loss of a s.h.i.+lling to the country; if I fail, I am willing to accept the risk of impeachment.

I offer no quarter; it is most just that I should receive no quarter. I offer myself to carry out the measure at the risk of impeachment, without its costing the country a single s.h.i.+lling. I am quite willing to be answerable for its success. It is a measure offered on no old party grounds; it is a measure that rests on no religious prejudices; it confiscates no property; it introduces no agrarian law; it will feed the hungry and clothe the naked, by borrowing from the superfluities of the rich. It is my honest and earnest prayer that it may be successful; and, should it fail, I care not if it be the last time I address this or any other mortal a.s.sembly."

Although the more usual course would have been for the House to divide after Lord George's address, during which the call for a division was heard more than once, the Prime Minister, as a mark of respect to the House, he said, rose and made a speech, thus giving the Government the last word. He did not intend to reply to the proposer of the Bill, but he wished to give his view of the existing state of things. He did so.

It was charged with gloomy apprehensions. He agreed with Sir Robert Peel, that the finances would not bear the strain a loan of 16,000,000 would put upon them.[210] Six hundred thousand persons were receiving wages on the public works in Ireland, representing, he would say, 3,000,000 of the population. There were 100,000 in the Workhouses; and, taking with these the thousands subsisting by private charity, there were, he considered, three and a-half millions of the Irish people living by alms. He repeated, once again (on the authority of some important but nameless person, whom Lord George Bentinck called "the great Unknown"), that only one-fourth of the money expended in making railways went for unskilled labour. It was well into the small hours of the morning before the division bell rung, after a three nights' debate.

In a house of 450, the Bill was supported by only 118 votes. A majority of 214 for the Government left them secure in their places.[211]

Of the one hundred and five members returned from Ireland, sixty-six voted--thirty-nine with Lord George Bentinck, and twenty-seven against him. There were Liberals and Tories at both sides. The n.o.ble proposer of the Irish Railway Scheme proclaimed--and, no doubt, intended--that it should not be regarded as a party question. After his very effective speech on introducing it, the common opinion was that it would be carried. It was popular in the House and out of it. Everybody in England and in Ireland was sick of spending money on unprofitable work. Lord John Russell saw but one way of defeating the measure, and that was to make it a party question; and so he made it one. We find some of the most decided Irish Tories voting for the Bill, whilst many Whigs and professing patriots voted against it.[212] For some days before the division it was known the Bill would be defeated, but few, if any, thought the majority against it would have been so large. After his seven or eight months of hard work, in preparing and maturing his Railway Scheme, its rejection touched Lord George keenly; but his lofty spirit would not stoop to manifest his feelings.

He had, however, the gratification to see himself vindicated, not to say avenged, a few weeks afterwards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great opponent and decrier of Lord George's Bill, actually brought in a Railway Bill himself of a similar character. Politicians, in their statements, are ever watchful to leave themselves loopholes for retreat. The Prime Minister, in the discussion on Lord George's Bill, "would not say that money should not be given, under any circ.u.mstances, to make railways in Ireland, but," in his opinion, "it should be in a different state of the country." What difference there was between the state of Ireland on the 16th of February, 1847, when the Government opposed and defeated an Irish Railway Bill, and on the 26th of April, of the same year, when the Government brought in a Railway Bill of their own, no one but the Government could see. It is not even a fair statement of the case to name the 26th of April, the day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the Government Bill, because that Bill must have been some time in preparation--probably in preparation when they were opposing the generous and manly scheme of Lord George Bentinck. Yet, with his little proposal for a loan of 620,000 to Irish railways, he had the face to go down and tell the House that, "in the present state of Ireland, it was impossible to deny that, by this course, a great impetus must be given to employment, where the advances could be safely made." He even contradicted his own a.s.sertion, made with such confidence on the information of "the great Unknown," that only 25 per cent. would go for labour, and admitted, that more would be expended upon it than Lord George Bentinck ever a.s.sumed there would. After several members had condemned the proposal in strong terms, that n.o.ble lord rose, and a.s.sured the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not object to the vote going forward. "There was," he said, "more joy over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety-nine just persons." He greatly rejoiced to find that ministers had at length discovered that it was cheaper for England to lend her money (receiving interest for it) upon reproductive works, than upon those useless relief works, which were to return no interest and produce no fruits. He greatly rejoiced, also, to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, in the course of the last two months, he had become better instructed upon the subject of the number of men to whom the construction of railways would give employment. He (Lord George Bentinck) had proposed to employ one hundred and ten thousand men with 6,000,000, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer then told the House that 6,000,000 laid out in railways would only furnish employment for forty-five thousand labourers. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that 600,000 would employ fifteen thousand labourers; so that, upon his calculations, 6,000,000 would afford employment not merely for one hundred and ten thousand, as he (Lord George Bentinck) had formerly stated, but for one hundred and fifty thousand able-bodied labourers. It must, said Lord George, be a great disappointment to the people of Ireland, to find upon what false grounds they were deprived of their darling measure for the construction of railways. He was glad the right hon. gentleman had at last come to his senses, and proposed to grant a portion, at least, of the 16,000,000. He (Lord George) now found, that his calculation, that 16,000,000 would give employment to one hundred and ten thousand men in Ireland, for a certain number of years, was understated. When it suited the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a million of money would give employment to half as many more able-bodied labourers, as it could when it suited his purpose to resist a motion proposed by his opponents.

"Let it be remembered, the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues in favour of this measure, that the money he asks for will certainly be paid back, while only one-half, he tells you, of the money advanced or relief works is sought to be reclaimed. Why, Sir, that was just my argument three months ago."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill was carried by a large majority.

It is a pity that n.o.ble-hearted Englishman, Lord George Bentinck, did not live long enough to see how enduring the grat.i.tude of the Irish people has been for the friendly and bounteous hand he endeavoured to stretch out to them, in their hour of sorest need. Seven-and-twenty years have pa.s.sed away since then; yet that grat.i.tude still survives, nor is it likely soon to die out amongst a people noted for warm hearts and long memories.

FOOTNOTES:

[205] Lord George Bentinck, a political Biography, 5th edit., p. 339.

[206] _Ib._ p. 340.

[207] Special London Correspondent of _Freeman's Journal_.

[208] Speech of Dr. (now Sir John) Gray, at the Tuam Banquet, 24th January, 1854.

[209] "The speech of the night was that of King Hudson. In a most masterly manner he swept away the rubbish, of the Whig Chancellor."--_Special Correspondent of Dublin Freeman_.

[210] "How is it that a war expenditure never alarms our practical public, while half the amount employed among ourselves produces something like a panic? We spent millions on the Affghanistan war, and had a whole army destroyed, with no one result whatever; there was scarcely a remark made about it, and the generals who commanded the expedition that led to defeat and disgrace got peerages and pensions....

We will put it to any one whether, if Lord George Bentinck had, as a general (and had he continued in the army he might have been one), caused the positive loss for ever of sixteen millions to this country, in a campaign at the other end of the world, he would have been visited with such a torrent of ridicule as that poured upon him on account of his plan for laying out that sum at home, with an absolute certainty of its return? No; his destruction of that amount of capital would have been rewarded with a peerage and a pension for three lives."--_Ill.u.s.trated London News, May 8th, 1847._

[211] The majority was at first announced to be 204, but it was afterwards found to be 214.

[212] The following were the votes of the Irish members on the occasion:

FOR THE BILL.

Colonel Acton, Sir H.W. Barron, T. Bateson, Viscount Bernard, M.J.

Blake, Sir A.B. Brooke, Colonel Bruen, W.M. Bunbury, P.J. Butler, Lord J.L. Chichester, Hon. H.A. Cole, Colonel Conolly, E.A. Fitzgerald, H.

Grattan, W.H. Gregory, E. Grogan, J.H. Hamilton, G.A. Hamilton, Lord E.

Hill, J. Kelly, D.S. Kerr, P. Kirk, Hon. C. Lawless, A. Lefroy, C.P.

Leslie, Major M'Namara, A. M'Carthy, T.B. Martin, Viscount Newry, Sir D.

Norreys, Viscount Northland, C. O'Brien, W.S. O'Brien, D. O'Connell, jun. John O'Connell, E. Smithwick, E. Taylor, H.M. Tuite, Sir W. Verner.

AGAINST THE BILL.

Viscount Acheson, R.M. Bellow, R.D. Browne, Hon. R.S. Carew, Viscount Castlereagh, Hon. C.C. Cavendish, B. Chapman, M.E. Corbally, Hon. H.T.

Corry, Hon. T. Dawson, Sir T. Esmonde. F. French, Sir B. Howard, J.

O'Brien, M.J. O'Connell, O'Connor Don, J. Power, Colonel Rawdon, D.R.

Ross, Right Hon. F. Shaw, Right Hon. E.L. Sheil, J.P. Somers, Sir W.M.

Somerville, W.V. Stuart, W.H. Watson, H. White, T. Wyse.

CHAPTER XII.

State of the Country during the Winter of 1847--State of Clare--Capt. Wynne's Letter--Patience of the suffering people--Ennis without food. The North--Belfast: great distress in it--Letter to the _Northern Whig_. Cork: rush of country people to it--Soup--Society of Friends--The sliding coffin--Deaths in the streets--One hundred bodies buried together!--More than one death every hour in the Workhouse. Limerick: Experience of a Priest of St.

John's. Dublin: Dysentery more fatal than cholera--Meetings--"General Central Relief Committee for all Ireland"--Committee of the Society of Friends--The British a.s.sociation for the Relief of Extreme Distress in Ireland and Scotland. The Government--Famine not a money question--so the Government pretended--Activity of other countries in procuring food--Attack on Divine Providence--Wm. Bennett's opinion. Money wages not to be had from farmers. Was it a money or food question?--The navigation laws--Freights doubled--The Prime Minister's exposition--Free Trade in theory--protection in practice--The Treasury says it cannot find meal. President Folk's message to Congress--America burthened with surplus corn--could supply the world--Was it a money question or a food question? Living on field roots--Churchyards enlarged--Three coffins on a donkey cart. Roscommon--no coffins--600 people in typhus fever in one Workhouse!--Heroic virtue--The Rosary. Sligo--Forty bodies waiting for inquests!--Owen Mulrooney--eating a.s.ses' flesh. Mayo--Meeting of the County--Mr. Garvey's statement. Mr. Tuke's experiences--Inquests given up--W.G.'s letters on Mayo--Effect of Famine on the relations of landlord and tenant--Extermination of the smaller tenantry--Evictions--Opinion of an eyewitness--A mother takes leave of her children--a.s.s and horse flesh--something more dreadful!

(_Note_). The weather--its effects. Count Strezelecki. Mr. Egan's account of Westport--Anointing the people in the streets! The Society of Friends--Accounts given by their agents. Patience of the people--Newspaper accounts not exaggerated.

Donegal--Dunfanaghy--Glenties--Resident proprietors good and charitable. Skull--From Cape Clear to Skull--The Capers--Graveyard of Skull--Ballydehob--The hinged coffin--Famine hardens the heart.

Rev. Traill Hall--Captain Caffin's narrative--Soup-kitchens--Officials concealing the state of the people--Provision for burying the dead--The boat's crew at a funeral. State of Dingle. Father Mathew's evidence.