or the stock of human food
which had been supplied.

The chronic poverty and misery of Ireland, as set forth in the Report
which the Poor Law Commissioners published in 1835, seems to have been
the favourite armoury whence Mr. Labouchere loved to draw his logical
weapons, for the defence of the Government on this occasion. In that
Report he finds it stated that "Mayo alone would furnish beggars to all
England."[194] Be it remembered, that the Poor Law Commissioners had
published their Report eleven years before Mr. Labouchere made this
speech, but he does not inform us what measures the British Government
had in the meantime adopted, or if they had adopted any, to raise the
people out of such a state of misery and degradation; but he clearly
thinks he has brought forward a clever argument in his own and his
colleagues' defence, when he states that one of the thirty-two counties
of Ireland, had such abundant and redundant pauperism. Yet this was in
the "sister country"--the sister of that great and wealthy and
enlightened England of which, no doubt, the Irish Secretary felt proud
to be a native.

After offering some defence for the free-trade policy of his chief, and
having indicated the measures the Government had prepared for Ireland,
he resumed his seat, and was followed by Lord George Bentinck.

Lord George had, within a short time, attained to great importance in
the House of Commons. After the protectionist party was deserted
("betrayed" was their own word), by Sir Robert Peel, that large-hearted
and high-minded nobleman was installed in his place, as their leader. On
the present occasion, without being severe or unkind towards the
Government, he pointed out their shortcomings and mistakes with regard
to the Irish crisis. Speaking for himself and the party with whom he
acted, he said: "We shall be prepared to give our calmest and best
attention to any measures her Majesty's ministers may be prepared to
bring forward as remedies for that destitution which unhappily exists.
But, sir, at the same time, we must be expected to deal frankly with the
conduct of ministers, and whilst we are not disposed to say that
ministers acted wrongly in declining to call Parliament together, not
disposed to censure them for having overridden the law, and suspended
the duties of the legislature itself, we are disposed to say, that the
measures to which they have had recourse are not those to which we can
altogether agree. It is impo