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.