Commons Sitting of 8 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time: Murderer's Execution. Read a second time: Steam Vessels (Thames) Bills. Recovery of Tenements; Chapels of Ease (Ireland); Copyright Act Amendment.
Petitions Presented, By Mr. T. ATTWOOD, from Birmingham, for the Removal of Disabilities affecting the Jews, for Ameliorating the Criminal Code, and for an Equalization of the Duty on East and West India Sugars.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various places, the House to adhere to the Provisions of Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, as originally passed by the Commons.—By Mr. E. TENNENT and LORD CASTLEREAGH, from several places in Ireland, to pass the Bill as agreed to by the Lords. —By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. W. WILLIAMS from Attornies and Solicitors of Coventry, for Repeal of Duty on Certificates.—By several MEMBERS, from various places, for an Alteration in the Factories Regulation Act—By SIR C. B. VERE, from Aldborough, for Alteration of Fisheries Bill, and -from Ipswich, that in the proposed Alterations of Paper Duties, a Drawback may be allowed on Stocks in hand.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various places, for Lord's-day Bill.—By Mr. LOCH, from Nairn, for Alteration of Law of Statute Labour (Scotland), and from Ross and Cromarty, for Reduction of Duty on Spirit Licences (Scotland).—By Mr. WOOD-HOUSE, from Western Division of Norfolk, for Poor-laws for Ireland.—By Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, from Rakfigh Laracor Gallow, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

LANDLORDS (IRELAND).
Mr. Emerson Tennenthad to pray the attention of the House to a matter, which, though not immediately connected with the petition he had just presented, was a portion of those attacks which had lately been made upon the private character of the Irish Landlords, and he hoped to be conceded that courtesy which was always extended to a Member on a question of a personal nature. The Gentleman of whom he had to speak, was Mr. M'Neale, of Carling-ford, in the county of Louth, whose character as a landlord one would have supposed was so well known in Ireland as to protect him from such factious assaults. Of this Gentleman, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Sharman Crawford) was pleased to state, a few evenings back, that from political irritation against one of his tenants, who had voted contrary to his wishes, he had with his own hands set fire to and burnt the turf which the poor man had prepared for his winter firing. Now, the facts of the case which had been thus misrepresented were simply these:—Mr. M'Neale had early in the year 1826, and long before the period of the election in question, dismissed from his service, for misconduct, a man called Mills, who was a tenant on his estate, and a labourer in his employment. The turf-bog on Mr. M'Neale's property, it so happened, was the most valuable portion of his lands, letting so high as from 4l. to 7l. an acre, and was specially reserved in all his leases, permission to cut it being required and granted by favour only to his tenants. This favour Mr. M'Neale, on discharging Mills from his service, told him he should no longer enjoy as his tenant, and he at the same time warned him that if he persisted, contrary to his orders, to cut turf, he (Mr. M'Neale) would himself burn it, as he had been in the habit of doing towards all persons who presumed to cut in his turf-bog, without his permission. And to prove that Mills was aware of the withdrawal of his permission, he sent his son in the May following still before the Louth election, to entreat permission, which was again refused, and Mr. M'Neale's determination to burn it himself was repeated, if his father should attempt to proceed contrary to his order. When the election came, in July, Mills actually sent to Mr. M'Neale to request permission to vote along with the rest of the tenants, but Mr. M'Neale sent his bailiffs to tell him, that he would not even permit him to walk into Dundalk in company with them, and that if his single vote

205
would secure the return of both his friends, Mr. Leslie Foster and Mr. Fortescue, he would not accept of it. As to any subsequent conduct of Mr. M'Neale, therefore, being in revenge for Mills' withholding a vote, which he bad already scorned to se-cure, the idea was too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment. Subsequently to the election, however, Mr. M'Neale was informed by his bailiff, that, contrary to his express commands, and notwithstanding Mr. M'Neale's reiterated warnings of the consequence, Mills bad actually entered on the bog, and cut and prepared his turf, upon which Mr. M'Neale, in observance Of his own previous warning, proceeded to the lands and destroyed it. For this he was summoned to the petit sessions on a charge of larceny, when the idle charge was dismissed. The Roman Catholic Association then took up the matter, and Mills was supplied with the means of annoying his landlord by instituting proceedings in the superior Courts. Mr. Holmes and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) were counsel for the plaintiff, who was actually nonsuited on the evidence of his own son. He could make no observations on this case so powerful, as a few sentences from a statement of Mr. M'Neale himself, which he begged the House would permit him to read to them.
Mr. Huttrose to order. He would appeal to the hon. Member, whether he would take up the time of the House with such statements.
Mr. Emerson Tennentwould appeal to the hon. Member, whether, if his character were assailed in such a public assembly as the House of Commons, he would not be anxious to remove the slanders heaped upon it? The hon. Member then proceeded to read the following statements of Mr. M'Neale:—"Mr. Sheil made a long speech in court against me, but in the evening sent his friend (Mr. Peter Colman) to me to assure me, that he meant nothing personal in his speech, and that he hoped, if he had made use of any expressions to hurt my feelings, I would forgive it, as his speech was a political one, and meant for the people of England in favour of emancipation. Since I came of age, thirty-three years ago, I have only had occasion to turn three tenants from my property—Mills being one, and two Thompsons both Protestants, but of bad character. I defy Sharman Crawford to prove one act of oppression against me, towards
206
any of my tenants. I have lived all my life on or near my property, and spent my income amongst my tenants. At the election for Louth, in 1826, neither the threats and curses of the priests, nor the mob could seduce any of my Catholic voters from me, except in one solitary instance of a man who took a large bribe, as he afterwards acknowleged to me. When the late Mr. Richardson was returned for the county of Armagh, I polled for him thirty-seven Catholic tenants out of forty—two were ill, and one in England, although they were cursed and threatened by priests in my presence, who also offered them large bribes. During the election for Louth in 1826, whilst attending one of my Roman Catholic freeholders to the hustings, we were surrounded by a number of priests near the court-house, many of whom asked my tenant, if he was going to desert his creed and his Saviour, and to send his soul to hell. I could wish Mr. Sheil were asked in his place in the House of Commons, if my statement with respect to Mills is not correct. False and unfounded as this attack of Mr. Crawford is, it is not without a malignant object. It is meant to injure me with the Government, whose servant I am, as I still hold a commission in the revenue, and at present my memorial is before the Treasury, praying for a retired allowance on the abolition of my situation at Carlingford." The hon. Member for Tipperary could, he had little doubt, respond satisfactorily to this appeal of Mr. M'Neale, and do justice to the reputation of an injured gentleman. Such were the simple facts of a case which had been unwarrantably misrepresented, for the purpose of injuring the character of Mr. M'Neale as a landlord; and singularly enough, and as if to prove the groundlessness of the charge brought by the hon. Member for Dundalk, that Mr. M'Neale could be actuated by such motives, Mills was at present a freeholder in Dundalk, and voted for the hon. Member, but became a bankrupt after being nonsuited; Mr. M'Neale was appointed his assignee; he still owed him 60 l., and, were he so disposed, Mr. M'Neale could at this moment sell the very freehold out of which he voted for the hon. Member, and deprive him of his franchise.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that he would very briefly state his recollection of an occurrence that had taken place now more than ten Years ago. He remembered very well

207
that Harry Mills—that was the man's name—made a complaint to the association that he had been turned out of his holding, in consequence of his having voted for Mr. Alexander Dawson. Mills was a tenant of Mr. M'Neale. There had been a quarrel between them previous to the general election in 1826. The matter was brought to trial, and there certainly was a verdict for Mr. M'Neale, but the verdict was returned on a point of law, as it was held that Mills had no property in the turf. It was undoubtedly considered a very extraordinary proceeding on the part of Mr. Wolf M'Neale, that he should assemble a number of persons, and go, in the broad open day, and with his own hands set fire to this man's turf. That was all that he knew of the case.
Mr. Pottersaid, that it would appear, from the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, that Irish landlords consider themselves entitled to the votes of their tenants.
Subject dropped.

HERRING FISHERY.
Mr. Lochhad two petitions to present of rather an important nature. One was from the merchants and fish-curers of Wick, in the county of Caithness, and the other from similar parties in the town of Cromarty. The petitioners complained of the loss of the market which they formerly had for their fish in the West-India Islands, and of the impossibility which they found of opening new markets on the Continent. They complained especially that the markets of Russia and Belgium were shut against them. Seeing his hon. Friend, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, in his place, and knowing that his hon. Friend was aware of the distress of the petitioners, he need not urge their case on his attention. It was most unjust, now that Belgium was separated from Holland, that the Dutch should retain the monopoly of that market.
Mr. Laboucherecould assure his hon. Friend that the attention of the department with which he was connected had been, and still was, directed to the subject to which the present petitions referred. The Board of Trade was fully impressed with the importance, in a national point of view, of giving every encouragement and protection that it possibly could to the fisheries of the country. He had been assured that it was impossible, by any alteration or pew regulation, to remedy the
208
evil of which the petitioners complained, with regard to the West Indies. They still possessed a monopoly in the West-Indian islands for the exportation of their herrings, and if the market for them had diminished there, it would be impossible by a legislative measure to re-establish it. With regard to the foreign monopoly of which the petitioners complained, he was not without hopes that something might be done to improve the condition of the trade in that respect. He had had interviews with deputations connected with this branch of the national industry, and it appeared to him, from representations then made to him, that the regulations that existed in Russia with respect to this trade were exceedingly unfavourable, and extremely unfair, as regarded the British fisheries. There were three descriptions of herrings imported into Russia—the Dutch, the English, and the Norwegian, and the difference in the duties levied on them was remarkable. The value of the Dutch herrings was nearly three times greater than that of the English, while the difference in value between the English and Norwegian varied from 5 to 10 per cent. Now, the duty levied on the Dutch and English herrings was the same, and amounted almost to a prohibitory one. They were classed together, and 9s. per barrel was levied on them, while the Norwegian paid only 2s. 3d. per barrel. He begged to assure his hon. Friend that no time should be lost, should these statements prove to be correct, in making such representations to Russia on the subject as he hoped would be attended with a beneficial result. He believed that at present the herrings of this country were so well cured, that they only required to be put on a fair footing to force their way against any other herrings there. The Belgian market was of considerable importance to the English fisheries, and the Government should lose no opportunity for promoting the interests of this branch of our national industry in that quarter.
Captain Pechellsaid, that if the tithe were taken off the Norfolk herrings, they would beat the Dutch in the market.
Mr. Lochsaid, he was sure the statement of his hon. Friend would give the greatest satisfaction to the petitioners.
Petitions laid on the table.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The House

209
went into Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill.
On that part of Clause 3 which subjects a person guilty of bribing another to a penalty of 500 l. for each offence,
Mr. Humesaid, that if it were desired that the penalty should be enforced and recovered, it should be a moderate one; but if the penalty was a heavy one, it would not be enforced.
Sir C. Burrellwas understood to say, that there was scarcely any instance in which (he penalty of 500 l. in such cases was recovered.
Mr. Prymeconcurred in thinking that a severe penalty would defeat its object. He would move, as an amendment, that the sum of 50 l. instead of 500 l. be substituted.
Mr. Hardysaid, that if the penalty were reduced to so small a sum, it would give a great opening to bribery, for such a penalty if inflicted on a person administering the bribe, would be at once paid by the candidate
Mr. Prymesaid, that his object was to make the Bill more effective, by having a fine that would be imposed. Did the hon. and learned Member know the facts connected with the 500 l. penalty? They were told, he believed, by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomery. When the Bill was first proposed the penalty was a moderate one, but an hon. Member, who was opposed to the whole Bill, moved that the penalty be 500 l., in the hope that if so high a penalty was attached to the offence, the Bill would be abandoned by its promoters, but rather than lose the Bill they adopted the amendment, and it passed. Would a penalty of 100 l. suit the views of the hon. and learned Member?
Mr. Hardy:—If the penalty be small, parties would not sue for it, for in that case they would get little more than would cover their own costs.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
On the 4th Clause, enacting "That if any person shall, at any time after the passing of this Act, directly or indirectly give, offer, or allow, or in any way promise to or for the use or advantage of any voter, any gift, reward, or compensation of any kind, as a consideration in whole, or in part, for any loss of time in travelling to or from, or in attending at any such election for the purpose of voting, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of 50 l."
Lord Stanleyobjected to this clause, as it would prevent the payment of bond fide election expenses; and it was well known that many voters would not go to the poll unless the expenses of their conveyance was paid. There might be a maximum fixed for such expenses to prevent corrupt practices, but they ought not to prevent the payment of what were purely lawful expenses.
Mr. Roebuckdiffered from the view taken by the noble Lord. The election was the business not of the candidates, but of the electors, and the candidate ought not to be asked to pay anything. The chief object of this Bill ought to be to prevent such payment.
Mr. Hardysaid, that his chief object in the clause was to prevent any money passing from the candidate to the electors, or that any pecuniary transactions should take place between them.
Mr. Roebuckmoved as an amendment, that the words "as a consideration in whole or in part for any loss of time in travelling to or from, or in attending at, any such election for the purpose of voting," be omitted. The hon. Gentleman said, that he did not wish by this alteration to prohibit candidates from bringing the voters up to the poll, but to prevent them from giving any distinct sum of money to any voter.
Mr. Grattanprotested against the extension of this amendment to Ireland. The object of it would be to prevent the travelling expenses of the voters from being paid, and it would then be impossible to have an election.
Mr. Heathcoteshould give his most decided opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member for Bath, as it would bear very hard on the poorer class of voters, who were not able to pay their own expenses.
Mr. Aglionbydefended the amendment, which he thought would prove very beneficial. Its object was not to prevent voters being conveyed to the poll at the expense of the candidates, because, in the present state of the election law, it would be quite impossible to prevent it.
Mr. John Youngwas quite satisfied, that if this amendment were adopted, the practical result would be that a very considerable portion of the county constituency, more especially in Ireland, would be disfranchised, as the poorer classes could not afford to pay for travelling to the poll,
Mr. Hardywould move a proviso, "that nothing herein contained should prevent candidates or other persons connected with them from providing conveyances for voters to and from the poll at their election," This be hoped would meet the object proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Roebuckmust press his own amendment.—
The Committee divided on the original question;—Ayes 65; Noes 58; Majority 7.—Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 was then proposed, enacting "That if any person shall at any time after the passing of the act, by himself, or by or with any person, or by any ways, means, or devices, or any colour, excuse, or pretence whatsoever, directly or indirectly give, present, allow, provide, or procure, or promise, engage, or agree to give, present, allow, provide, or procure any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, with the intent or for the purpose of thereby corruptly influencing such or any other person to give or to refuse, or forbear to give, his vote in any such election, or for the purpose of corruptly recompensing such or any other person for having given or refused, or forborne to give his vote in any such election, every person so offending in any respect shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of 50 l."
The Committee divided: Ayes 33; Noes 40—Majority 7.
Clause struck out of the Bill.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Pay for the Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill being read,
Sir Richard Musgravesaid, that, as he understood it to be the general feeling of the House, that this subject should be brought forward by his Majesty's Government, and as he believed it to be the intention of the Government to bring for-ward a measure on the subject, he would withdraw his Bill if the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Ireland would declare in his place that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, and that it was their intention, either in this Session or early in the next, to introduce an efficient poor law for Ireland.
Lord Morpethsaid, he quite approved of the course taken by his hon. Friend,
212
the Member for the county of Waterford with respect to this Bill, and he had no difficulty in assuring him that the subject was under the immediate consideration of the Government, and that he was not without hope of their being enabled to introduce some preparatory steps in the present Session; but, at all events, they would take the first opportunity in the next Session of introducing what he hoped would be a complete and satisfactory measure.
Mr. W, S. O'Briensaid, that in consideration of the pledge given on the part of his Majesty's Government, he, would follow the example of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Waterford, and withdraw his Bill relative to the poor of Ireland, when the proper time came.
Mr. P. Scropewould also follow the same example.
The three bills for relieving the poor of Ireland were put off for six months.

FISHERIES.
On the Motion of Captain Pechell, the Fisheries' Bill was recommitted.
On the Question, that the 3rd Clause stand part of the Bill,
Captain F. Berkeleysaid, on the ground that this clause would go, by the restriction which it enforced as to the size of the nets to be used, to inflict serious injury on the poorer classes of fishermen of this country, he felt bound to oppose it.
Lord George Lennoxsaid a few words in opposition to, and Mr. Elphinstone in favour of the clause.
Captain Pechelldefended the clause as being absolutely necessary for the protection of the fisheries, while at the same time power was given to the Magistrates of Quarter Sessions, if they should think fit to do so, to take off the restriction with respect to the use of seine nets.
Captain F. Berkeleystill considered that the effect of the clause could only be to deprive the poorer class of fishermen of their bread, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon it.
The Committee then divided on the Clause: Ayes 51; Noes 13—Majority 38. Clause agreed to,
The House resumed. The Report to be received.