Lord George Bentinck's Railway Scheme; he thought the finishing of
the railways would be useful; he was a practical man, and wished to
use the labour of the people on useful and profitable work--The
State of England in 1841-2--The remedy that relieved England ought
to have the same effect in Ireland--Under certain arrangements,
there could have been no Irish Famine--Tons of Blue Books--No new
Acts necessary for Railways--1,500 miles of Railway were
passed--Only 123 miles made--Lord George Bentinck's Speech--Waste of
power-traffic--Great Southern and Western Railway--Principles of the
Railway Bill--Shareholders--What employment would the Railway Bill
give?--Mode of raising the money--£20,000,000 paid to
slave-owners--Why not do the same thing for Ireland?--Foreign
Securities in which English money has been expended--Assurances of
support to Lord George--The Irish Members in a dilemma--The Irish
Party continue to meet--Meeting at the Premier's in Chesham
Place--Smith O'Brien waits on Lord George--The Government stake
their existence on postponing the second reading of Lord Bentinck's
Bill--Why?--No good reason--Desertion of the Irish Members--Sir John
Gray on the question--The Prime Minister's Speech--The Chancellor of
the Exchequer's Speech a mockery--Loans to Ireland (falsely)
asserted not to have been repaid--Mr. Hudson's Speech--The
Chancellor going on no authority--Mr. Hudson's Railway
Statistics--The Chancellor of the Exchequer hard on Irish
Landlords--His way of giving relief--Sir Robert Peel on the Railway
Bill--The Railway Bill a doomed measure--Peel's eulogium on industry
in general, and on Mr. Bianconi in particular--Lord G. Bentinck's
reply--His arguments skipped by his opponents--Appoint a Commission,
like Mr. Pitt in 1793--Money spent on making Railways--The Irish
Vote on the Bill--Names.
No effort of statesmanship to overcome the Famine is remembered with
such gratitude in Ireland as Lord George Bentinck's generous proposal to
spend sixteen millions of money in the construction of railways, for the
employment of its people.
In the autumn of 1846, when the Potato Blight had become an accepted
fact by all except those who had some motive for discrediting it, he
began to think that to finish the railways, already projected in
Ireland, would be the best and promptest way of employing its people
upon reproductive works. He was a great enemy to unprofitable labour. To
the Labour-rate Act, which became law at the close of the session of
1846, Lord George was conscientiously opposed; because, whilst millions
of money were to be spent under it, the labour of the people was to be
thrown away upon profitless or pernicious undertakings. His was an
eminently practical mind, and, being so, he did not rest satisfied with
reflections and speculations upon the plan he had conceived. He took
counsel with men who were the most eminent, both for scientific and
practical knowledge, with regard to the construction of railways. Among
them, of course, was Robert Stephenson. The result of his conference
with those gentlemen was, that two engineers of acknowledged ability
were despatched by him to Ireland, to examine and report upon the whole
question of Irish railways.
Lord George, reflecting upon the perilous state of England in 1841-2,
came to the conclusion that it was the vast employment afforded by
railway enterprize which relieved the pauperism of those years; a
pauperism so great, that it was enough to create alarm, and almost
dismay, in the breasts of English statesmen. There were at that time a
million and a-half of people upon the rates: between eighty and ninety
thousand able-bodied men within the walls of the Workhouses, and four
hundred thousand able-bodied men receiving outdoor relief. It seemed to
him that this pauperism was not only relieved, but was actually changed
into affluence and prosperity by the vast employment which the railway
works, then rapidly springing into existence, afforded. "Suddenly, and
for several years," says Mr. D'Israeli, quoting Lord George, "an
additional sum of thirteen millions of pounds sterling a-year was spent
in the wages of our native industry; two hundred thousand able-bodied
labourers received each upon an average, twenty-two shillings a-week,
stimulating the revenue, both in excise and customs, by their enormous
consumption of malt and spirits, tobacco and tea."[205]
Lord George saw no reason why the same remedy, if applied to Ireland,
should not be attended with the like success. He was sustained, too, by
the reports of Parliamentary Commissioners, as well as by the natural
and common-sense view of the subject. Many years before, in 1836, a
commission had been issued to enquire into the expediency of promoting
the construction of railways in Ireland. The Commissioners, in their
report, recommended that a system of railway communication should be
established there by Government advances. Ten years had passed; but, of
course, nothing was done. Yes, another commission! The noted Devon one
was, I should have said, issued some years after the former by another
Government, which "confirmed all the recommendations of the Railway
Commissioners of '36, and pointed to those new methods of communication,
by the assistance of loans from the Government, as the best means of
providing employment for the people."[206] Had the recommendations of
those Commissioners been carried out, or even begun within a reasonable
time, there could have been no Irish famine in the sense in which we are
now obliged to chronicle it. There must have been extensive employment
at wages that would have afforded great numbers other and better food
than the potato. As it was, all that resulted from those commissions,
and countless others of the like kind, were the ponderous Blue Books,
which contained their reports, and the evidence upon which they were
founded. And, indeed, so many tons of those had been, from time to time,
produced and stowed away in Government vaults and rubbish stores, that,
had they contained some of the nutritive qualities which, go to sustain
human life, they would have been an appreciable contribution towards
feeding the starving Irish people during the Famine.
No new Acts were necessary to be passed through Parliament, to authorize
the construction of railways in Ireland, in order to justify the
Government in advancing the necessary funds. When Lord George Bentinck
brought his plan before the House of Commons, there were Acts in
existence authorizing the construction of more than 1,500 miles of
railway in this country, some of those Acts having been passed so far
back as eleven years before; yet, at the close of 1846, only 123 miles
had been completed. Here, then, was the field in which Lord George had
made up his mind that the superabounding but wasted labour of the
famishing people should find profitable employment. After taking the
advice of his political friends, and securing their approval and
support, he, on Thursday, the 4th of February, introduced his Bill to
the House of Commons, in, says Mr. D'Israeli, the best speech he ever
made. It was evidently prepared with great care, and was both lucid and
argumentative.
His exordium was solemn and earnest, and he seemed much impressed with
the importance and magnitude of the subject with which he was about to
deal. For the principle of the Bill, and for the faults that principle
might contain, he alone, he said, was responsible; but as to the
details, they had been wrought out by the ablest minds in England;
amongst whom he named Hudson, Stephenson, and Laing. "It is not my
intention," he said, "to make a very long preface, or to enter into any
general discussion as regards the state or condition of Ireland: suffice
it for me, that this great fact stares us in the face, that at this
moment there are 500,000 able-bodied persons in Ireland living upon the
funds of the State. That there are 500,000 able-bodied persons,
commanded by a staff of 11,587 persons, employed upon works which have
been variously described as 'works worse than idleness;' by the
yeomanry of Ulster as 'public follies;' and by the Inspector of the
Government himself, Colonel Douglas, as 'works which will answer no
other purpose than that of obstructing the public conveyances.'" The
calamity was great, but he did not, he said, despond. "We, who at one
period of the war were expending, upon an average, for three years,
£103,000,000 sterling a-year, will not be downhearted at having to
provide for a deficiency and for a disaster that may be estimated at
£10,000,000." He quoted the two Commissions above referred to, and said
that railway Acts had been passed for 1,523 miles of railway, whilst at
the moment he was speaking only 123 miles were completed, 164 miles
being in course of construction. There must, he thought, be some
weakness in Ireland up to this, as 2,600 miles of railway had been
constructed in England and Scotland, and Acts passed for 5,400 miles
more--8,000 miles in all. The denseness of population, said his
lordship, is in favour of Ireland as against England and Scotland. "But,
Sir," he continued, "perhaps you will tell me this may be a very good
argument as far as population is concerned, but what is the use of
population if they have no means of paying for their conveyance by
railways? Sir, my friend, who sits beside me (Mr. Hudson) will tell you
that in all railway speculation population is held to be the first
element of success--property second,"
He then went on to show that the traffic upon the Irish railways already
opened, was greater than upon the English and Scotch lines. This
argument met the assertions of some persons, who said that if money were
advanced to make Irish railways they would never pay; and it would be
asked, if they are paying, why not have them done by private enterprise?
Lord George confessed that he could not answer this question
satisfactorily, but English capitalists would not come forward, partly,
he thought, through distrust, and partly through ignorance, whilst the
calamity of the Famine had, of course, a great effect in preventing the
small amount of Irish capital which did exist from coming forward. The
prejudice which English capitalists had against investing in Irish
undertakings, is strikingly illustrated by a fact stated by Lord George
in the course of his speech. It was this: the Great Southern and Western
Railway of Ireland was one of the many the completion of which was
arrested by want of funds, yet a portion of it was open for traffic. He
compared it with a well known English railway. The Irish one, he said,
had cost in its construction £15,000 per mile; the English, upwards of
£26,000 per mile; the weekly traffic on the two railways, allowing for
some difference in their extent, was about the same on both, varying in
amount from £1,000 to £1,300 per week; yet the unfinished British
railway was at £40 premium in the market,--the unfinished Irish one at
£2 discount.
1. Lord George's railway bill was simple and comprehensive. In order to
encourage the making of railways in Ireland, he proposed for every £100
properly expended on such railways, £200 should be lent by the
Government, at the very lowest interest at which, on the credit of the
Government, that amount could be raised. He undertook to prove "that the
State shall not lose one single farthing by the proposition." The
current interest was £3 6s. 8d. per cent., but he would assume it to be
3-1/2 per cent., and that the Government was to lend it at that rate,
and take the whole security of the railway for the loan; consequently, a
line paying £7 upon £300 expended would afford ample security for the
£200 lent by the State, at £3 10s. per cent., because, of such £300, one
hundred would be laid out by the company, and £200 by the Government,
who, taking the whole railway for their security, would have a legal
claim upon the produce of the money expended by the shareholders as well
as by themselves. He took the returns of traffic on the very lowest
line--that from Arbroath to Forfar, to show that even at the lowest
traffic yet known on any railway, the Government would be secured
against loss.
2. He next dealt with the position of shareholders under his Bill. He
said they need not be alarmed at Government taking the whole railway as
security, because, as matters stood, the shares of all lines stopped for
want of means were valueless, or all but so, in the market; the effect
of the Government loan would be to bring those dead shares to life
again; for where there was a certainty of any line being finished, there
was a fair prospect of a dividend from that line. The advantage,
therefore, of the loan to shareholders was self-evident. He read a
letter from Mr. Carr, then chairman of the Great Southern and Western
Railway of Ireland, in which the Peel Government were asked, in May,
1846, by that Company, for a loan of £500,000 to go on with their works,
they undertaking to employ 50,000 men over those works, provided their
request was complied with. The money was not given. No one, said Lord
George, can come to any other opinion but that this offer of the Great
Southern and Western Railway ought to have been accepted. If the money
now asked for be lent, he said, there need be no crowding of labourers
on any point, for they can be distributed over the whole country; as,
according to the railway bills passed for Ireland, lines will run
through every county but four. "Now, Sir," he continued, "in introducing
this measure to the House, it has not been my wish to bring forward any
proposition either of hostility or rivalry to the Government of my noble
friend. I have assured the House publicly and privately, I have pledged
my honour to my noble friend the First Minister, that I seek no
advantage from the carrying of this measure, and that it is my anxious
hope that we may come to the consideration of it as if it were a great
private Bill, and we were all selected members of the committee to
inquire into its worth."
3. In view of the amount of the loan sought for, and the mileage of the
railways to be constructed, how many men, said Lord George, can we
employ? Quoting Mr. Stephenson's authority, he answers that on the
London and Birmingham line there were employed one hundred men a mile
for four consecutive years; but Mr. Stephenson's opinion was that the
Irish lines would require no more than sixty men a mile for four
consecutive years. Fifteen hundred miles of railway would thus give
constant employment for four consecutive years to 90,000 men on the
earth works and line alone; but quarrymen, artificers, etc., would give
six men more a mile--9,000 men; making fences for securing fields, etc.,
9,000 more--in all, 108,000; a number representing 550,000 persons.
4. The labourers were specially cared for in the bill. They were to be
paid weekly in cash, and decent, suitable dwellings were to be
constructed for them along each line.
5. As to the manner in which the money was to be raised, Lord George did
not call for a single penny out of the Imperial Exchequer; all he asked
was, that the Government of England would pledge its credit to borrow
for Ireland the required sum, for which Ireland had full and abundant
security to give. The £16,000,000 was not to be raised at once; the loan
was to be spread over four years, at the rate of £1,000,000 a quarter.
The objection was put forward that the raising of this sum would oppress
the money market, but Lord George pointed to the experience they had,
with regard to the loan of the £20,000,000, for the slave-owners, which
proved that such would not be the case. The illustration was a
suggestive one. It said--You have not refused to raise £20,000,000 to
free the coloured slaves in your colonies--can you venture to refuse a
less sum, not merely to promote the prosperity of Ireland, but to save
the Irish nation from dying of starvation? The Irish nation--the sister
kingdom, your fellow-subjects, living at your very threshold--as near to
you as York or Devon? And yet, I ask for them no such free grant as you
gave the slave-owners; I only ask you to lend, for a time, your credit
to your starving Irish brethren.
He then bursts into a passage full of heart and manliness: "Send money,"
he said, "out of the country as you did in 1825--invest £7,000,000 and
upwards, as you did on that occasion, in Peruvian and Mexican silver
mines; sink your capital, as you did then, in Bolanos (silver), in
Bolivar (copper and scrip), in Cata Branca, in Conceicas, in Candonga
(gold), in Cobre (copper), in Colombian, in Copaiba, and in no less than
twenty-three different foreign mining companies, which the speculators
of this country took in hand, because they had no railways to make; and
then when your gold goes, never to come back to you, of course the funds
will go down, and trade and commerce be correspondingly paralysed. Send
£13,000,000 to Portugal, £22,000,000 to Spain, to be sealed up in
Spanish Actives, and Spanish Passives, and Spanish Deferred--and the
funds will fall of course. Send as you did, in 1836, millions to Ohio
for the construction of canals, and millions to Pensylvania, Illinois,
and Virginia for the same purpose, to be invested in bonds of those and
the other States, the borrowers of which sums set out with the
determination to turn public swindlers; and the funds will certainly
fall. Spend £100,000,000 in this manner, and it will lead to commercial
distress, but it will be otherwise when you come to spend your
£100,000,000 on the employment of your own distressed people in
productive labour."
6. Thirty years were to be allowed for the repayment of the loan.
"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 carcasses 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 pass,
and that the Irish people could have good food and good clothing, he
would answer for their loyalty. "I, the Saxon," concluded the noble
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 destitution
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 noble 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 assume that no action of the Irish
representatives would affect any votes but the votes of those returned
by Irish constituencies, 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 assurances 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 nobody 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 assertion 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
assembled 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 famishing 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 noble lord to postpone the second
reading, saying (as the resolution had said) that the constituents 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 noble 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 Lordship'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 noble lord would derange his plans to
accommodate such trimmers.
The following passage 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 passed the
second reading. The question raised at that private conference was, what
was the state of each man's constituency? and it was agreed that,
wherever there was a constituency 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 God 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 noble lord's plan, as they could not do so consistently
with their views of public duty. He also asserted that loans to Ireland,
as a rule, had not been repaid, and he instanced the loans for the
making of canals 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 noble 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 assertions: "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 noble 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 noble 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 noble 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 noble 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 noble 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 assistance 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
document with greater pleasure and satisfaction, for it gives strong
hopes of what may be done if all classes 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 hitherto 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 noble 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 asserting 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 noble 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 illustrate 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 assisting
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
passing of Lord George's Bill would imperil them. Addressing himself to
that argument, his lordship said, Sir Robert Peel had totally passed 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 shilling 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 shilling. 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 assembly."
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 noble 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 circumstances,
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 assertion, 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 assumed there would. After
several members had condemned the proposal in strong terms, that noble
lord rose, and assured 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 noble-hearted Englishman, Lord George Bentinck, did
not live long enough to see how enduring the gratitude 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 passed away since then; yet that gratitude 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."--_Illustrated 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.